Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 21, 2021 | 讬状讝 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讘

This month's shiurim are dedicated by Jordana and Kalman Schoor on behalf of their daughter Daria who is learning Masechet Megilla for her bat mitzvah.聽

This month's shiurim are dedicated by the Hadran Women of Minneapolis in memory of the father of their organizer Shira Krebs, Jerry Katz, Gershon Pinya ben Yitzchak Lev haCohen z鈥漧 who will be greatly missed.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Megillah 9

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Suri Stern in loving memory of her father Ruby Davis, Harav Reuvain ben Harav Chaim. 鈥淗e was the first gabbai in the White Shul in Far Rockaway and completed Shas many times over and transmitted his ahvavat habriyot to his family.鈥澛

Can holy books be written in any language? According to the Mishna they can be, however tefillin and mezuzot can only be written in Ashurit script. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that holy books can only be written in Greek. The Gemara infers that all these things make one鈥檚 hands impure (according to a rabbinic decree) and all are sewn with animal sinews. A contradiction to our Mishna is brought from a braita that states that holy books must be written in Ashurit script as well. Five answers are brought to resolve the contradiction. Questions are raised against each of the answers. Rabbi Yehuda explains Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel鈥檚 opinion about Greek to be relating only to the Torah and because of the story of Ptolemy who took 72 elders and told them to translate the Torah into Greek. According to the story, each one of them was placed in a separate room and yet each of them translated in the exact same way. Regarding some verses, they each deliberately distorted certain passages in order to protect the integrity of the Jewish faith. From where can one derive from the Torah that it can be translated into Greek? A Kohen Gadol who is anointed with the special oil is different from one who was not anointed but became a Kohen Gadol by wearing the Kohen Gadol鈥檚 eight garments in that only he can bring a communal sin offering. A Kohen Gadol who is no longer a Kohen Gadol differs from a regular Kohen Gadol only in that he doesn鈥檛 perform the Yom Kippur service and doesn鈥檛 bring the daily mincha offering that the Kohen Gadol brings. Some disagree and say that even one who becomes a Kohen Gadol from wearing the garments can bring a communal sin offering. Rabbi Yosi disagrees with the end of the Mishna and holds that one who is no longer a Kohen Gadol can no longer work in The temple. What offerings could be brought on a small individual bama, a place meant for bringing sacrifices) and which ones could be brought on a large bama? Which were not able to be brought on a bama at all. What are the differences between the Tabernacle in Shilo and the Temple in Jerusalem?

讻讗谉 讘讙讜驻谉 砖诇谞讜 讻讗谉 讘讙讜驻谉 砖诇讛谉

Here, the mishna is referring to Torah scrolls written in another language in our script, i.e., in Hebrew letters. There, the baraita is referring to Torah scrolls written in another language in their script, in the letters of another alphabet.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 诇讛讛讬讗 讘讙讜驻谉 砖诇讛谉 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪拽专讗 砖讻转讘讜 转专讙讜诐 讜转专讙讜诐 砖讻转讘讜 诪拽专讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽专讗 砖讻转讘讜 诪拽专讗 讜转专讙讜诐 砖讻转讘讜 转专讙讜诐 谞诪讬 讚讛讗 拽转谞讬 注讚 砖讬讻转讘谞讜 讗砖讜专讬转 注诇 讛住驻专 讘讚讬讜

Abaye said to Rava: How did you establish that baraita, i.e., that it is referring to Torah scrolls written in another language in their script? If it is so, why did the baraita specifically teach that the legal status of a Hebrew verse in the Bible that one wrote in Aramaic translation, or a verse written in Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible, is not that of sacred writings? The legal status of even a Hebrew verse in the Bible that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible and a verse written in Aramaic translation that one wrote in Aramaic translation are also not that of sacred writings, as it is taught at the end of the baraita: A Torah scroll renders the hands impure only if one writes it in Ashurit script, on a parchment scroll, and in ink.

讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讛讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

Rather, the matter must be explained differently. This is not difficult. This ruling in the mishna is according to the Rabbis, who permit writing Torah scrolls in any language, and that ruling in the baraita is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讗讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讬讜谞讬转 讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘住驻专讬诐 讻讗谉 讘转驻诇讬谉 讜诪讝讜讝讜转

The Gemara asks: If the baraita is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, in addition to Ashurit, isn鈥檛 there Greek in which the Torah may also be written? Rather, say this is not difficult. Here, the mishna is referring to Torah scrolls, which may be written in any language; there, the baraita is referring to phylacteries and mezuzot, which may be written only in Hebrew, using Hebrew script.

转驻诇讬谉 讜诪讝讜讝讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讜讛讬讜 讘讛讜讬讬转谉 讬讛讜 诪讗讬 转专讙讜诐 砖讻转讘讜 诪拽专讗 讗讬讻讗 讘砖诇诪讗 转讜专讛 讗讬讻讗 讬讙专 砖讛讚讜转讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 转专讙讜诐 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: With regard to phylacteries and mezuzot, what is the reason that they must be written in Hebrew? The Gemara explains: It is because it is written with regard to them: 鈥淎nd these words shall be鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:6), indicating that as they are so shall they be, without change. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If the baraita is referring to phylacteries and mezuzot, what Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible is there? Granted, in the Torah there is a verse written in Aramaic translation: Yegar sahaduta (Genesis 31:47); however, here, in phylacteries and mezuzot, what verses in Aramaic translation are there that could be written in Hebrew?

讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪讙讬诇讛 讻讗谉 讘住驻专讬诐 诪讙讬诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 讻讻转讘诐 讜讻诇砖讜谞诐 诪讗讬 转专讙讜诐 砖讻转讘讜 诪拽专讗 讗讬讻讗

Rather, say this is not difficult. Here, the baraita is referring to the Megilla, the Scroll of Esther, which must be written in Hebrew; there, the mishna is referring to Torah scrolls, which may be written in any language. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Megilla must be written in Hebrew? It is due to the fact that it is written with regard to the Megilla: 鈥淎ccording to their writing, and according to their language鈥 (Esther 8:9), without change. The Gemara asks: But if the baraita is referring to the Megilla, what Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible is there? The entire Megilla is written in Hebrew.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜谞砖诪注 驻转讙诐 讛诪诇讱 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讜讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讬转谞讜 讬拽专 诇讘注诇讬讛谉

Rav Pappa said that it is written: 鈥淎nd when the king鈥檚 decree [pitgam] shall be publicized鈥 (Esther 1:20), and that pitgam is essentially an Aramaic word. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that it is written: 鈥淎nd all the wives will give honor [yekar] to their husbands鈥 (Esther 1:20), and yekar is Aramaic for honor.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘砖讗专 住驻专讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 转驻诇讬谉 讜诪讝讜讝讜转 讗讬谉 谞讻转讘讬谉 讗诇讗 讗砖讜专讬转 讜专讘讜转讬谞讜 讛转讬专讜 讬讜谞讬转

Rav Ashi suggested a different explanation and said: When that baraita is taught it is taught with regard to the rest of the books of the Bible, other than the Torah. And it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Phylacteries and mezuzot are written only in Ashurit; and our Rabbis permitted writing them in Greek as well.

讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讜 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 住驻专讬诐 谞讻转讘讬诐 讘讻诇 诇砖讜谉 讜专讘讜转讬谞讜 讛转讬专讜 讬讜谞讬转 讛转讬专讜 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗住专

The Gemara asks: How did our Rabbis permit this? Isn鈥檛 it written with regard to phylacteries and mezuzot: 鈥淎nd these words shall be鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:6), indicating that their language may not be changed. Rather, say that this is what the baraita is saying: Torah scrolls are written in any language; and our Rabbis permitted writing them in Greek as well. Once again the Gemara asks: Our Rabbis permitted? By inference, apparently the first tanna prohibits writing a Torah scroll in Greek. However, he explicitly permits writing a Torah scroll in any language.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 专讘讜转讬谞讜 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 砖讬讻转讘讜 讗诇讗 讬讜谞讬转 讜转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 讻砖讛转讬专讜 专讘讜转讬谞讜 讬讜谞讬转 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 讗诇讗 讘住驻专 转讜专讛

Rather, say in explanation of the baraita: And our Rabbis permitted them to be written only in Greek. And it is taught in another baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: Even when our Rabbis permitted Greek, they permitted it only in a Torah scroll, and not for other books of the Bible, which must be written only in Hebrew.

讜诪砖讜诐 诪注砖讛 讚转诇诪讬 讛诪诇讱 讚转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘转诇诪讬 讛诪诇讱 砖讻讬谞住 砖讘注讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 讝拽谞讬诐 讜讛讻谞讬住谉 讘砖讘注讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 讘转讬诐 讜诇讗 讙讬诇讛 诇讛诐 注诇 诪讛 讻讬谞住谉 讜谞讻谞住 讗爪诇 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻转讘讜 诇讬 转讜专转 诪砖讛 专讘讻诐 谞转谉 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘诇讘 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 注爪讛 讜讛住讻讬诪讜 讻讜诇谉 诇讚注转 讗讞转

The Gemara continues: And this was due to the incident of King Ptolemy, as it is taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving King Ptolemy of Egypt, who assembled seventy-two Elders from the Sages of Israel, and put them into seventy-two separate rooms, and did not reveal to them for what purpose he assembled them, so that they would not coordinate their responses. He entered and approached each and every one, and said to each of them: Write for me a translation of the Torah of Moses your teacher. The Holy One, Blessed be He, placed wisdom in the heart of each and every one, and they all agreed to one common understanding. Not only did they all translate the text correctly, they all introduced the same changes into the translated text.

讜讻转讘讜 诇讜 讗诇讛讬诐 讘专讗 讘专讗砖讬转 讗注砖讛 讗讚诐 讘爪诇诐 讜讘讚诪讜转

And they wrote for him: God created in the beginning [bereshit], reversing the order of the words in the first phrase in the Torah that could be misinterpreted as: 鈥Bereshit created God鈥 (Genesis 1:1). They did so to negate those who believe in the preexistence of the world and those who maintain that there are two powers in the world: One is Bereshit, who created the second, God. And they wrote: I shall make man in image and in likeness, rather than: 鈥淟et us make man in our image and in our likeness鈥 (Genesis 1:26), as from there too one could mistakenly conclude that there are multiple powers and that God has human form.

讜讬讻诇 讘讬讜诐 讛砖砖讬 讜讬砖讘讜转 讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讘专讗讜 讜诇讗 讻转讘讜 讘专讗诐

Instead of: 鈥淎nd on the seventh day God concluded His work鈥 (Genesis 2:2), which could have been understood as though some of His work was completed on Shabbat itself, they wrote: And on the sixth day He concluded His work, and He rested on the seventh day. They also wrote: Male and female He created him, and they did not write as it is written in the Torah: 鈥淢ale and female He created them鈥 (Genesis 5:2), to avoid the impression that there is a contradiction between this verse and the verse: 鈥淎nd God created man鈥 (Genesis 1:27), which indicates that God created one person.

讛讘讛 讗专讚讛 讜讗讘诇讛 砖诐 砖驻转诐 讜转爪讞拽 砖专讛 讘拽专讜讘讬讛

Instead of: 鈥淐ome, let us go down, and there confound their language鈥 (Genesis 11:7), which indicates multiple authorities, they wrote in the singular: Come, let me go down, and there confound their language. In addition, they replaced the verse: 鈥淎nd Sarah laughed within herself [bekirba]鈥 (Genesis 18:12), with: And Sarah laughed among her relatives [bikroveha]. They made this change to distinguish between Sarah鈥檚 laughter, which God criticized, and Abraham鈥檚 laughter, to which no reaction is recorded. Based on the change, Sarah鈥檚 laughter was offensive because she voiced it to others.

讻讬 讘讗驻诐 讛专讙讜 砖讜专 讜讘专爪讜谞诐 注拽专讜 讗讘讜住 讜讬拽讞 诪砖讛 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讬讜 讜讬专讻讬讘诐 注诇 谞讜砖讗 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

They also altered the verse: 鈥淔or in their anger they slew a man and in their self-will they slaughtered an ox鈥 (Genesis 49:6), to read: For in their anger they slew an ox and in their self-will they uprooted a trough, to avoid the charge that Jacob鈥檚 sons were murderers. Instead of: 鈥淎nd Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon a donkey鈥 (Exodus 4:20), they wrote: And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon a carrier of people, which could be understood as referring to a horse or a camel rather than the lowly donkey.

讜诪讜砖讘 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗砖专 讬砖讘讜 讘诪爪专讬诐 讜讘砖讗专 讗专爪讜转 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 砖谞讛 讜讬砖诇讞 讗转 讝讗讟讜讟讬 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗诇 讝讗讟讜讟讬 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 砖诇讞 讬讚讜

Instead of: 鈥淎nd the residence of the children of Israel, who resided in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years鈥 (Exodus 12:40), which when read literally is imprecise, for they did not dwell in Egypt that long, they wrote: And the residence of the children of Israel, who resided in Egypt and in other lands, was four hundred years. Instead of: 鈥淎nd he sent the youth of the children of Israel, who brought burnt-offerings鈥 (Exodus 24:5), which evokes the question of why young men were sent to perform that service, they wrote: And he sent the elect [za鈥檃tutei] of the children of Israel. The same term was substituted again several verses later, rendering the verse: 鈥淎nd upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand鈥 (Exodus 24:11), as: And upon the elect of the children of Israel He laid not His hand.

诇讗 讞诪讚 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 谞砖讗转讬 讗砖专 讞诇拽 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讗转诐 诇讛讗讬专 诇讻诇 讛注诪讬诐

Instead of Moses鈥 assertion: 鈥淚 have not taken one donkey [岣mor] from them鈥 (Numbers 16:15), they wrote in more general terms: 鈥淚 have not taken one item of value [岣med] from them,鈥 to prevent the impression that Moses took other items. To the verse that discusses the worship of the sun and the moon, about which it is written: 鈥淲hich the Lord your God has allotted to all the nations鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:19), they added a word to make it read: 鈥淲hich the Lord your God has allotted to give light to all the nations,鈥 to prevent the potential misinterpretation that the heavenly bodies were given to the gentiles so that they may worship them.

讜讬诇讱 讜讬注讘讜讚 讗诇讛讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 讗砖专 诇讗 爪讜讬转讬 诇注讜讘讚诐

The verse: 鈥淎nd has gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or the moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:3), could be understood as indicating that God did not command their existence, i.e., these entities created themselves. Therefore, when these Elders translated the verse they added a word to the end of the verse to make it read: Which I have not commanded to serve them.

讜讻转讘讜 诇讜 讗转 爪注讬专转 讛专讙诇讬诐 讜诇讗 讻转讘讜 诇讜 讗转 讛讗专谞讘转 诪驻谞讬 砖讗砖转讜 砖诇 转诇诪讬 讗专谞讘转 砖诪讛 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 砖讞拽讜 讘讬 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐 讜讛讟讬诇讜 砖诐 讗砖转讬 讘转讜专讛

And in the list of unclean animals they wrote for him: The short-legged beast [tze鈥檌rat haraglayim]. And they did not write for him: 鈥淎nd the hare [arnevet]鈥 (Leviticus 11:6), since the name of Ptolemy鈥檚 wife was Arnevet, so that he would not say: The Jews have mocked me and inserted my wife鈥檚 name in the Torah. Therefore, they did not refer to the hare by name, but by one of its characteristic features.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘住驻专讬诐 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 砖讬讻转讘讜 讗诇讗 讬讜谞讬转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 拽专讗 讬驻转 讗诇讛讬诐 诇讬驻转 讜讬砖讻谉 讘讗讛诇讬 砖诐 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讬驻转 讬讛讬讜 讘讗讛诇讬 砖诐

The mishna cites that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even with regard to Torah scrolls, the Sages permitted them to be written only in Greek. Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? He based his opinion on an allusion in the Torah, as the verse states: 鈥淕od shall enlarge Japheth, and He shall dwell in the tents of Shem鈥 (Genesis 9:27), indicating that the words of Japheth shall be in the tents of Shem. The language of Javan, who is the forbear of the Greek nation and one of the descendants of Japheth, will also serve as a sacred language in the tents of Shem, where Torah is studied.

讜讗讬诪讗 讙讜诪专 讜诪讙讜讙 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讬驻转 讗诇讛讬诐 诇讬驻转 讬驻讬讜转讜 砖诇 讬驻转 讬讛讗 讘讗讛诇讬 砖诐

The Gemara asks: And say that it is the languages of Gomer and Magog that serve as sacred languages, as they too were descendants of Japheth (see Genesis 10:2). The Gemara answers that Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said: This is the reason, as it is written: 鈥淕od shall enlarge [yaft] Japheth [Yefet].鈥 Yaft is etymologically similar to the Hebrew term for beauty [yofi]. The verse teaches that the beauty of Japheth shall be in the tents of Shem, and Greek is the most beautiful of the languages of the descendants of Japheth.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讻讛谉 诪砖讜讞 讘砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 诇诪专讜讘讛 讘讙讚讬诐 讗诇讗 驻专 讛讘讗 注诇 讻诇 讛诪爪讜转

MISHNA: The difference between a High Priest anointed with the oil of anointing, which was the method through which High Priests were consecrated until the oil was sequestered toward the end of the First Temple period, and one consecrated by donning multiple garments unique to the High Priest, which was the practice during the Second Temple period, is only that the latter does not bring the bull that comes for transgression of any of the mitzvot. An anointed High Priest who unwittingly issued an erroneous halakhic ruling and acted upon that ruling, and transgressed a mitzva whose unwitting violation renders one liable to bring a sin-offering, is obligated to bring a sin-offering unique to one in his position.

讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讻讛谉 诪砖诪砖 诇讻讛谉 砖注讘专 讗诇讗 驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛

The difference between a High Priest currently serving in that capacity and a former High Priest, who temporarily filled that position when the High Priest was unfit for service, is only with regard to the bull brought by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, and the tenth of an ephah meal-offering brought daily by the High Priest. Each of these offerings is brought only by the current High Priest, and not by a former High Priest.

讙诪壮 讛讗 诇注谞讬谉 驻专 讬讜诐 讻驻讜专讬诐 讜注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of the bull brought by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, and with regard to the tenth of an ephah meal-offering, both this, the anointed High Priest, and that, the High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments, are equal.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 [讛讗 转谞讬讗] 诪专讜讘讛 讘讙讚讬诐 诪讘讬讗 驻专 讛讘讗 注诇 讻诇 讛诪爪讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗

The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it would be difficult. Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: A High Priest consecrated by donning the multiple garments unique to the High Priest brings the bull brought for the unwitting violation of any of the mitzvot; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He does not bring that offering.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 诪砖讬讞 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诪砖讜讞 讘砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 诪专讜讘讛 讘讙讚讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛诪砖讬讞

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? It is as it is taught in a baraita that it is written: 鈥淚f the anointed priest shall sin鈥 (Leviticus 4:3). From the word anointed, I have derived only that this halakha applies to a High Priest who was actually anointed with the oil of anointing. From where do I derive that even a High Priest consecrated by donning the multiple garments is also included in this halakha? The verse states: 鈥淭he anointed,鈥 with the definite article, indicating that the halakha applies to every High Priest.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讻讛谉 诪砖诪砖 诇讻讛谉 砖注讘专 讗诇讗 驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 讛讗 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛谉 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬专注 讘讜 驻住讜诇 讜诪讬谞讜 讻讛谉 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 专讗砖讜谉 讞讜讝专 诇注讘讜讚转讜 砖谞讬 讻诇 诪爪讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 注诇讬讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 专讗砖讜谉 讞讜讝专 诇注讘讜讚转讜 砖谞讬 讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讗 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜诇讗 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟

The Gemara asks: How did we establish the mishna? We established that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Say the latter clause of the mishna: The difference between a High Priest currently serving in that capacity and a former High Priest is only with regard to the bull brought on Yom Kippur, and the tenth of an ephah meal-offering. The Gemara infers that with regard to all other matters, both this, a High Priest currently serving, and that, a former High Priest, are equal. If so we have arrived at the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: If temporary disqualification befell the High Priest, and they appointed another priest in his stead, then after the cause of disqualification of the first priest passes, he returns to his service as High Priest. With regard to the second priest, all of the mitzvot of the High Priest are incumbent upon him; this is聽the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The first returns to his service; the second is fit to serve neither as a High Priest nor as a common priest.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讘谉 讗诇诐 诪爪讬驻讜专讬 砖讗讬专注 讘讜 驻住讜诇 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜诪讬谞讜讛讜 转讞转讬讜 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 专讗砖讜谉 讞讜讝专 诇注讘讜讚转讜 砖谞讬 讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讗 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜诇讗 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟

And Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving the priest Rabbi Yosef ben Elem of Tzippori, who, when disqualification befell a High Priest, the priests appointed him in his stead. And after the cause of the disqualification was resolved, the incident came before the Sages for a ruling with regard to the status of Rabbi Yosef ben Elem. And the Sages said: The original High Priest returns to his service, while the second is fit to serve neither as High Priest nor as a common priest.

讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪砖讜诐 讗讬讘讛 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪砖讜诐 诪注诇讬谉 讘拽讜讚砖 讜诇讗 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara explains: Neither as a High Priest, due to hatred, jealousy, and bitterness that would arise if there were two High Priests with equal standing in the Temple; nor as a common priest, because the principle is: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Once he has served as a High Priest he cannot be restored to the position of a common priest. Is that to say that the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Meir, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬谉 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜谞住讬讘 诇讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚转谞讗讬

Rav 岣sda said: Indeed, the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rav Yosef said: The entire mishna is according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he formulates it according to the opinions of different tanna鈥檌m, that is to say, resulting in a third opinion, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to a High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments, and the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to a former High Priest.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诇讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 讗诇讗 驻住讞讬诐 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 谞讬讚专 讜谞讬讚讘 拽专讘 讘讘诪讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诇讗 谞讬讚专 讜诇讗 谞讬讚讘 讗讬谞讜 拽专讘 讘讘诪讛

MISHNA: The difference between a great, public altar, such as the altars established at Nob and Gibeon, which served as religious centers following the destruction of the Tabernacle in Shiloh, and a small, personal altar on which individuals would sacrifice their offerings, is only with regard to Paschal lambs, which may not be sacrificed on a small altar. This is the principle: Any offering that is vowed or contributed voluntarily is sacrificed on a small altar, and any offering that is neither vowed nor contributed voluntarily, but rather is compulsory, e.g., a sin-offering, is not sacrificed on a small altar.

讙诪壮 驻住讞讬诐 讜转讜 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻注讬谉 驻住讞讬诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Is the difference only Paschal lambs and nothing more? The continuation of the mishna indicates that there are additional differences. The Gemara answers: Say that the difference between them is only with regard to offerings that are similar to Paschal lambs.

诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 爪讘讜专 诇讗 讛拽专讬讘讜 讗诇讗 驻住讞讬诐 讜讞讜讘讜转 砖拽讘讜注 诇讛诐 讝诪谉 讗讘诇 讞讜讘讜转 砖讗讬谉 拽讘讜注 诇讛诐 讝诪谉 讛讻讗 讜讛讻讗 诇讗 拽专讘

The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion is the mishna taught? The Gemara answers: It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Even the public sacrificed only Paschal lambs and compulsory offerings for which there is a set time, like fixed communal offerings. However, compulsory offerings for which there is not a set time, e.g., sin-offerings brought for an unwitting transgression committed by the community, are sacrificed neither here on a small altar nor here on a great altar; they are sacrificed only in the Temple.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 砖讬诇讛 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗诇讗 砖讘砖讬诇讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讻诇 讛专讜讗讛 讜讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛讞讜诪讛

MISHNA: The difference between the Tabernacle in Shilo and the Temple in Jerusalem is only that in Shiloh one eats offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g., individual peace-offerings, thanks-offerings, and the Paschal lamb, and also the second tithe, in any place that overlooks Shiloh, as Shiloh was not a walled city and any place within its Shabbat boundary was regarded as part of the city. And in Jerusalem one eats those consecrated items only within the walls.

讜讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛拽诇注讬诐 拽讚讜砖转 砖讬诇讛

And here, in Shiloh, and there, in Jerusalem, offerings of the most sacred order are eaten only within the hangings. The Tabernacle courtyard in Shiloh was surrounded by hangings and the Temple courtyard in Jerusalem was surrounded by a wall. There is another difference: With regard to the sanctity of Shiloh,

This month's shiurim are dedicated聽by Jordana and Kalman Schoor on behalf of their daughter Daria who is learning Masechet Megilla for her bat mitzvah. Mazal tov Daria!

This month's shiurim are dedicated by the Hadran Women of Minneapolis in memory of the father of their organizer Shira Krebs, Jerry Katz, Gershon Pinya ben Yitzchak Lev haCohen z鈥漧 who will be greatly missed.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Gefet in english with rabbanit yael shimoni

Can We Bring Korbanot Today? Gefet 19

https://youtu.be/Lt30I3qCu4Y 讘"讛 Can We Bring Korbanot Today? In the first perek of mishnayot of Masechet Megillah appears a series of...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Megillah: 2-9 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

The holiday of Purim is celebrated on the 14th of Adar. Walled cities from the time of Joshua celebrate it...
tel arad temple

A Place for Us

The Gemara is often focused on glorifying the Temple in Jerusalem and making it central to Jewish life even after...

Megillah 9

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Megillah 9

讻讗谉 讘讙讜驻谉 砖诇谞讜 讻讗谉 讘讙讜驻谉 砖诇讛谉

Here, the mishna is referring to Torah scrolls written in another language in our script, i.e., in Hebrew letters. There, the baraita is referring to Torah scrolls written in another language in their script, in the letters of another alphabet.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 诇讛讛讬讗 讘讙讜驻谉 砖诇讛谉 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪拽专讗 砖讻转讘讜 转专讙讜诐 讜转专讙讜诐 砖讻转讘讜 诪拽专讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽专讗 砖讻转讘讜 诪拽专讗 讜转专讙讜诐 砖讻转讘讜 转专讙讜诐 谞诪讬 讚讛讗 拽转谞讬 注讚 砖讬讻转讘谞讜 讗砖讜专讬转 注诇 讛住驻专 讘讚讬讜

Abaye said to Rava: How did you establish that baraita, i.e., that it is referring to Torah scrolls written in another language in their script? If it is so, why did the baraita specifically teach that the legal status of a Hebrew verse in the Bible that one wrote in Aramaic translation, or a verse written in Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible, is not that of sacred writings? The legal status of even a Hebrew verse in the Bible that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible and a verse written in Aramaic translation that one wrote in Aramaic translation are also not that of sacred writings, as it is taught at the end of the baraita: A Torah scroll renders the hands impure only if one writes it in Ashurit script, on a parchment scroll, and in ink.

讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讛讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

Rather, the matter must be explained differently. This is not difficult. This ruling in the mishna is according to the Rabbis, who permit writing Torah scrolls in any language, and that ruling in the baraita is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讗讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讬讜谞讬转 讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘住驻专讬诐 讻讗谉 讘转驻诇讬谉 讜诪讝讜讝讜转

The Gemara asks: If the baraita is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, in addition to Ashurit, isn鈥檛 there Greek in which the Torah may also be written? Rather, say this is not difficult. Here, the mishna is referring to Torah scrolls, which may be written in any language; there, the baraita is referring to phylacteries and mezuzot, which may be written only in Hebrew, using Hebrew script.

转驻诇讬谉 讜诪讝讜讝讜转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讜讛讬讜 讘讛讜讬讬转谉 讬讛讜 诪讗讬 转专讙讜诐 砖讻转讘讜 诪拽专讗 讗讬讻讗 讘砖诇诪讗 转讜专讛 讗讬讻讗 讬讙专 砖讛讚讜转讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 转专讙讜诐 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: With regard to phylacteries and mezuzot, what is the reason that they must be written in Hebrew? The Gemara explains: It is because it is written with regard to them: 鈥淎nd these words shall be鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:6), indicating that as they are so shall they be, without change. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If the baraita is referring to phylacteries and mezuzot, what Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible is there? Granted, in the Torah there is a verse written in Aramaic translation: Yegar sahaduta (Genesis 31:47); however, here, in phylacteries and mezuzot, what verses in Aramaic translation are there that could be written in Hebrew?

讗诇讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘诪讙讬诇讛 讻讗谉 讘住驻专讬诐 诪讙讬诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 讻讻转讘诐 讜讻诇砖讜谞诐 诪讗讬 转专讙讜诐 砖讻转讘讜 诪拽专讗 讗讬讻讗

Rather, say this is not difficult. Here, the baraita is referring to the Megilla, the Scroll of Esther, which must be written in Hebrew; there, the mishna is referring to Torah scrolls, which may be written in any language. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Megilla must be written in Hebrew? It is due to the fact that it is written with regard to the Megilla: 鈥淎ccording to their writing, and according to their language鈥 (Esther 8:9), without change. The Gemara asks: But if the baraita is referring to the Megilla, what Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible is there? The entire Megilla is written in Hebrew.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜谞砖诪注 驻转讙诐 讛诪诇讱 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讜讻诇 讛谞砖讬诐 讬转谞讜 讬拽专 诇讘注诇讬讛谉

Rav Pappa said that it is written: 鈥淎nd when the king鈥檚 decree [pitgam] shall be publicized鈥 (Esther 1:20), and that pitgam is essentially an Aramaic word. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that it is written: 鈥淎nd all the wives will give honor [yekar] to their husbands鈥 (Esther 1:20), and yekar is Aramaic for honor.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘砖讗专 住驻专讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 转驻诇讬谉 讜诪讝讜讝讜转 讗讬谉 谞讻转讘讬谉 讗诇讗 讗砖讜专讬转 讜专讘讜转讬谞讜 讛转讬专讜 讬讜谞讬转

Rav Ashi suggested a different explanation and said: When that baraita is taught it is taught with regard to the rest of the books of the Bible, other than the Torah. And it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Phylacteries and mezuzot are written only in Ashurit; and our Rabbis permitted writing them in Greek as well.

讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讜 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 住驻专讬诐 谞讻转讘讬诐 讘讻诇 诇砖讜谉 讜专讘讜转讬谞讜 讛转讬专讜 讬讜谞讬转 讛转讬专讜 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗住专

The Gemara asks: How did our Rabbis permit this? Isn鈥檛 it written with regard to phylacteries and mezuzot: 鈥淎nd these words shall be鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:6), indicating that their language may not be changed. Rather, say that this is what the baraita is saying: Torah scrolls are written in any language; and our Rabbis permitted writing them in Greek as well. Once again the Gemara asks: Our Rabbis permitted? By inference, apparently the first tanna prohibits writing a Torah scroll in Greek. However, he explicitly permits writing a Torah scroll in any language.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 专讘讜转讬谞讜 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 砖讬讻转讘讜 讗诇讗 讬讜谞讬转 讜转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 讻砖讛转讬专讜 专讘讜转讬谞讜 讬讜谞讬转 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 讗诇讗 讘住驻专 转讜专讛

Rather, say in explanation of the baraita: And our Rabbis permitted them to be written only in Greek. And it is taught in another baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: Even when our Rabbis permitted Greek, they permitted it only in a Torah scroll, and not for other books of the Bible, which must be written only in Hebrew.

讜诪砖讜诐 诪注砖讛 讚转诇诪讬 讛诪诇讱 讚转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘转诇诪讬 讛诪诇讱 砖讻讬谞住 砖讘注讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 讝拽谞讬诐 讜讛讻谞讬住谉 讘砖讘注讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 讘转讬诐 讜诇讗 讙讬诇讛 诇讛诐 注诇 诪讛 讻讬谞住谉 讜谞讻谞住 讗爪诇 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻转讘讜 诇讬 转讜专转 诪砖讛 专讘讻诐 谞转谉 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘诇讘 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 注爪讛 讜讛住讻讬诪讜 讻讜诇谉 诇讚注转 讗讞转

The Gemara continues: And this was due to the incident of King Ptolemy, as it is taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving King Ptolemy of Egypt, who assembled seventy-two Elders from the Sages of Israel, and put them into seventy-two separate rooms, and did not reveal to them for what purpose he assembled them, so that they would not coordinate their responses. He entered and approached each and every one, and said to each of them: Write for me a translation of the Torah of Moses your teacher. The Holy One, Blessed be He, placed wisdom in the heart of each and every one, and they all agreed to one common understanding. Not only did they all translate the text correctly, they all introduced the same changes into the translated text.

讜讻转讘讜 诇讜 讗诇讛讬诐 讘专讗 讘专讗砖讬转 讗注砖讛 讗讚诐 讘爪诇诐 讜讘讚诪讜转

And they wrote for him: God created in the beginning [bereshit], reversing the order of the words in the first phrase in the Torah that could be misinterpreted as: 鈥Bereshit created God鈥 (Genesis 1:1). They did so to negate those who believe in the preexistence of the world and those who maintain that there are two powers in the world: One is Bereshit, who created the second, God. And they wrote: I shall make man in image and in likeness, rather than: 鈥淟et us make man in our image and in our likeness鈥 (Genesis 1:26), as from there too one could mistakenly conclude that there are multiple powers and that God has human form.

讜讬讻诇 讘讬讜诐 讛砖砖讬 讜讬砖讘讜转 讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘讬注讬 讝讻专 讜谞拽讘讛 讘专讗讜 讜诇讗 讻转讘讜 讘专讗诐

Instead of: 鈥淎nd on the seventh day God concluded His work鈥 (Genesis 2:2), which could have been understood as though some of His work was completed on Shabbat itself, they wrote: And on the sixth day He concluded His work, and He rested on the seventh day. They also wrote: Male and female He created him, and they did not write as it is written in the Torah: 鈥淢ale and female He created them鈥 (Genesis 5:2), to avoid the impression that there is a contradiction between this verse and the verse: 鈥淎nd God created man鈥 (Genesis 1:27), which indicates that God created one person.

讛讘讛 讗专讚讛 讜讗讘诇讛 砖诐 砖驻转诐 讜转爪讞拽 砖专讛 讘拽专讜讘讬讛

Instead of: 鈥淐ome, let us go down, and there confound their language鈥 (Genesis 11:7), which indicates multiple authorities, they wrote in the singular: Come, let me go down, and there confound their language. In addition, they replaced the verse: 鈥淎nd Sarah laughed within herself [bekirba]鈥 (Genesis 18:12), with: And Sarah laughed among her relatives [bikroveha]. They made this change to distinguish between Sarah鈥檚 laughter, which God criticized, and Abraham鈥檚 laughter, to which no reaction is recorded. Based on the change, Sarah鈥檚 laughter was offensive because she voiced it to others.

讻讬 讘讗驻诐 讛专讙讜 砖讜专 讜讘专爪讜谞诐 注拽专讜 讗讘讜住 讜讬拽讞 诪砖讛 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讬讜 讜讬专讻讬讘诐 注诇 谞讜砖讗 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

They also altered the verse: 鈥淔or in their anger they slew a man and in their self-will they slaughtered an ox鈥 (Genesis 49:6), to read: For in their anger they slew an ox and in their self-will they uprooted a trough, to avoid the charge that Jacob鈥檚 sons were murderers. Instead of: 鈥淎nd Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon a donkey鈥 (Exodus 4:20), they wrote: And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon a carrier of people, which could be understood as referring to a horse or a camel rather than the lowly donkey.

讜诪讜砖讘 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗砖专 讬砖讘讜 讘诪爪专讬诐 讜讘砖讗专 讗专爪讜转 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 砖谞讛 讜讬砖诇讞 讗转 讝讗讟讜讟讬 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗诇 讝讗讟讜讟讬 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 砖诇讞 讬讚讜

Instead of: 鈥淎nd the residence of the children of Israel, who resided in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years鈥 (Exodus 12:40), which when read literally is imprecise, for they did not dwell in Egypt that long, they wrote: And the residence of the children of Israel, who resided in Egypt and in other lands, was four hundred years. Instead of: 鈥淎nd he sent the youth of the children of Israel, who brought burnt-offerings鈥 (Exodus 24:5), which evokes the question of why young men were sent to perform that service, they wrote: And he sent the elect [za鈥檃tutei] of the children of Israel. The same term was substituted again several verses later, rendering the verse: 鈥淎nd upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand鈥 (Exodus 24:11), as: And upon the elect of the children of Israel He laid not His hand.

诇讗 讞诪讚 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 谞砖讗转讬 讗砖专 讞诇拽 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讗转诐 诇讛讗讬专 诇讻诇 讛注诪讬诐

Instead of Moses鈥 assertion: 鈥淚 have not taken one donkey [岣mor] from them鈥 (Numbers 16:15), they wrote in more general terms: 鈥淚 have not taken one item of value [岣med] from them,鈥 to prevent the impression that Moses took other items. To the verse that discusses the worship of the sun and the moon, about which it is written: 鈥淲hich the Lord your God has allotted to all the nations鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:19), they added a word to make it read: 鈥淲hich the Lord your God has allotted to give light to all the nations,鈥 to prevent the potential misinterpretation that the heavenly bodies were given to the gentiles so that they may worship them.

讜讬诇讱 讜讬注讘讜讚 讗诇讛讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 讗砖专 诇讗 爪讜讬转讬 诇注讜讘讚诐

The verse: 鈥淎nd has gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or the moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded鈥 (Deuteronomy 17:3), could be understood as indicating that God did not command their existence, i.e., these entities created themselves. Therefore, when these Elders translated the verse they added a word to the end of the verse to make it read: Which I have not commanded to serve them.

讜讻转讘讜 诇讜 讗转 爪注讬专转 讛专讙诇讬诐 讜诇讗 讻转讘讜 诇讜 讗转 讛讗专谞讘转 诪驻谞讬 砖讗砖转讜 砖诇 转诇诪讬 讗专谞讘转 砖诪讛 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 砖讞拽讜 讘讬 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐 讜讛讟讬诇讜 砖诐 讗砖转讬 讘转讜专讛

And in the list of unclean animals they wrote for him: The short-legged beast [tze鈥檌rat haraglayim]. And they did not write for him: 鈥淎nd the hare [arnevet]鈥 (Leviticus 11:6), since the name of Ptolemy鈥檚 wife was Arnevet, so that he would not say: The Jews have mocked me and inserted my wife鈥檚 name in the Torah. Therefore, they did not refer to the hare by name, but by one of its characteristic features.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘住驻专讬诐 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 砖讬讻转讘讜 讗诇讗 讬讜谞讬转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 拽专讗 讬驻转 讗诇讛讬诐 诇讬驻转 讜讬砖讻谉 讘讗讛诇讬 砖诐 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讬驻转 讬讛讬讜 讘讗讛诇讬 砖诐

The mishna cites that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even with regard to Torah scrolls, the Sages permitted them to be written only in Greek. Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? He based his opinion on an allusion in the Torah, as the verse states: 鈥淕od shall enlarge Japheth, and He shall dwell in the tents of Shem鈥 (Genesis 9:27), indicating that the words of Japheth shall be in the tents of Shem. The language of Javan, who is the forbear of the Greek nation and one of the descendants of Japheth, will also serve as a sacred language in the tents of Shem, where Torah is studied.

讜讗讬诪讗 讙讜诪专 讜诪讙讜讙 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讬驻转 讗诇讛讬诐 诇讬驻转 讬驻讬讜转讜 砖诇 讬驻转 讬讛讗 讘讗讛诇讬 砖诐

The Gemara asks: And say that it is the languages of Gomer and Magog that serve as sacred languages, as they too were descendants of Japheth (see Genesis 10:2). The Gemara answers that Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said: This is the reason, as it is written: 鈥淕od shall enlarge [yaft] Japheth [Yefet].鈥 Yaft is etymologically similar to the Hebrew term for beauty [yofi]. The verse teaches that the beauty of Japheth shall be in the tents of Shem, and Greek is the most beautiful of the languages of the descendants of Japheth.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讻讛谉 诪砖讜讞 讘砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 诇诪专讜讘讛 讘讙讚讬诐 讗诇讗 驻专 讛讘讗 注诇 讻诇 讛诪爪讜转

MISHNA: The difference between a High Priest anointed with the oil of anointing, which was the method through which High Priests were consecrated until the oil was sequestered toward the end of the First Temple period, and one consecrated by donning multiple garments unique to the High Priest, which was the practice during the Second Temple period, is only that the latter does not bring the bull that comes for transgression of any of the mitzvot. An anointed High Priest who unwittingly issued an erroneous halakhic ruling and acted upon that ruling, and transgressed a mitzva whose unwitting violation renders one liable to bring a sin-offering, is obligated to bring a sin-offering unique to one in his position.

讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讻讛谉 诪砖诪砖 诇讻讛谉 砖注讘专 讗诇讗 驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛

The difference between a High Priest currently serving in that capacity and a former High Priest, who temporarily filled that position when the High Priest was unfit for service, is only with regard to the bull brought by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, and the tenth of an ephah meal-offering brought daily by the High Priest. Each of these offerings is brought only by the current High Priest, and not by a former High Priest.

讙诪壮 讛讗 诇注谞讬谉 驻专 讬讜诐 讻驻讜专讬诐 讜注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of the bull brought by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, and with regard to the tenth of an ephah meal-offering, both this, the anointed High Priest, and that, the High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments, are equal.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 [讛讗 转谞讬讗] 诪专讜讘讛 讘讙讚讬诐 诪讘讬讗 驻专 讛讘讗 注诇 讻诇 讛诪爪讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗

The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it would be difficult. Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: A High Priest consecrated by donning the multiple garments unique to the High Priest brings the bull brought for the unwitting violation of any of the mitzvot; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He does not bring that offering.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 诪砖讬讞 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诪砖讜讞 讘砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 诪专讜讘讛 讘讙讚讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛诪砖讬讞

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? It is as it is taught in a baraita that it is written: 鈥淚f the anointed priest shall sin鈥 (Leviticus 4:3). From the word anointed, I have derived only that this halakha applies to a High Priest who was actually anointed with the oil of anointing. From where do I derive that even a High Priest consecrated by donning the multiple garments is also included in this halakha? The verse states: 鈥淭he anointed,鈥 with the definite article, indicating that the halakha applies to every High Priest.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讻讛谉 诪砖诪砖 诇讻讛谉 砖注讘专 讗诇讗 驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 讛讗 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛谉 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬专注 讘讜 驻住讜诇 讜诪讬谞讜 讻讛谉 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 专讗砖讜谉 讞讜讝专 诇注讘讜讚转讜 砖谞讬 讻诇 诪爪讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 注诇讬讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 专讗砖讜谉 讞讜讝专 诇注讘讜讚转讜 砖谞讬 讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讗 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜诇讗 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟

The Gemara asks: How did we establish the mishna? We established that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Say the latter clause of the mishna: The difference between a High Priest currently serving in that capacity and a former High Priest is only with regard to the bull brought on Yom Kippur, and the tenth of an ephah meal-offering. The Gemara infers that with regard to all other matters, both this, a High Priest currently serving, and that, a former High Priest, are equal. If so we have arrived at the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: If temporary disqualification befell the High Priest, and they appointed another priest in his stead, then after the cause of disqualification of the first priest passes, he returns to his service as High Priest. With regard to the second priest, all of the mitzvot of the High Priest are incumbent upon him; this is聽the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The first returns to his service; the second is fit to serve neither as a High Priest nor as a common priest.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪注砖讛 讘专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讘谉 讗诇诐 诪爪讬驻讜专讬 砖讗讬专注 讘讜 驻住讜诇 讘讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜诪讬谞讜讛讜 转讞转讬讜 讜讘讗 诪注砖讛 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讗诪专讜 专讗砖讜谉 讞讜讝专 诇注讘讜讚转讜 砖谞讬 讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讗 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜诇讗 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟

And Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving the priest Rabbi Yosef ben Elem of Tzippori, who, when disqualification befell a High Priest, the priests appointed him in his stead. And after the cause of the disqualification was resolved, the incident came before the Sages for a ruling with regard to the status of Rabbi Yosef ben Elem. And the Sages said: The original High Priest returns to his service, while the second is fit to serve neither as High Priest nor as a common priest.

讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪砖讜诐 讗讬讘讛 讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪砖讜诐 诪注诇讬谉 讘拽讜讚砖 讜诇讗 诪讜专讬讚讬谉 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara explains: Neither as a High Priest, due to hatred, jealousy, and bitterness that would arise if there were two High Priests with equal standing in the Temple; nor as a common priest, because the principle is: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Once he has served as a High Priest he cannot be restored to the position of a common priest. Is that to say that the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Meir, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir?

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬谉 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜谞住讬讘 诇讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚转谞讗讬

Rav 岣sda said: Indeed, the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rav Yosef said: The entire mishna is according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he formulates it according to the opinions of different tanna鈥檌m, that is to say, resulting in a third opinion, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to a High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments, and the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to a former High Priest.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诇讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 讗诇讗 驻住讞讬诐 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 谞讬讚专 讜谞讬讚讘 拽专讘 讘讘诪讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诇讗 谞讬讚专 讜诇讗 谞讬讚讘 讗讬谞讜 拽专讘 讘讘诪讛

MISHNA: The difference between a great, public altar, such as the altars established at Nob and Gibeon, which served as religious centers following the destruction of the Tabernacle in Shiloh, and a small, personal altar on which individuals would sacrifice their offerings, is only with regard to Paschal lambs, which may not be sacrificed on a small altar. This is the principle: Any offering that is vowed or contributed voluntarily is sacrificed on a small altar, and any offering that is neither vowed nor contributed voluntarily, but rather is compulsory, e.g., a sin-offering, is not sacrificed on a small altar.

讙诪壮 驻住讞讬诐 讜转讜 诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讻注讬谉 驻住讞讬诐

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Is the difference only Paschal lambs and nothing more? The continuation of the mishna indicates that there are additional differences. The Gemara answers: Say that the difference between them is only with regard to offerings that are similar to Paschal lambs.

诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 爪讘讜专 诇讗 讛拽专讬讘讜 讗诇讗 驻住讞讬诐 讜讞讜讘讜转 砖拽讘讜注 诇讛诐 讝诪谉 讗讘诇 讞讜讘讜转 砖讗讬谉 拽讘讜注 诇讛诐 讝诪谉 讛讻讗 讜讛讻讗 诇讗 拽专讘

The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion is the mishna taught? The Gemara answers: It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Even the public sacrificed only Paschal lambs and compulsory offerings for which there is a set time, like fixed communal offerings. However, compulsory offerings for which there is not a set time, e.g., sin-offerings brought for an unwitting transgression committed by the community, are sacrificed neither here on a small altar nor here on a great altar; they are sacrificed only in the Temple.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 砖讬诇讛 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗诇讗 砖讘砖讬诇讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讘讻诇 讛专讜讗讛 讜讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛讞讜诪讛

MISHNA: The difference between the Tabernacle in Shilo and the Temple in Jerusalem is only that in Shiloh one eats offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g., individual peace-offerings, thanks-offerings, and the Paschal lamb, and also the second tithe, in any place that overlooks Shiloh, as Shiloh was not a walled city and any place within its Shabbat boundary was regarded as part of the city. And in Jerusalem one eats those consecrated items only within the walls.

讜讻讗谉 讜讻讗谉 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛拽诇注讬诐 拽讚讜砖转 砖讬诇讛

And here, in Shiloh, and there, in Jerusalem, offerings of the most sacred order are eaten only within the hangings. The Tabernacle courtyard in Shiloh was surrounded by hangings and the Temple courtyard in Jerusalem was surrounded by a wall. There is another difference: With regard to the sanctity of Shiloh,

Scroll To Top