18a: Nations and languages

An objection was raised: If one read the Megilla in Coptic, in Old Hebrew, Elamic, Median, or Greek, one has not fulfilled his duty? What is said above, that Greek is lawful, is like another Boraitha which says that if one has read in Coptic to Coptic, Hebrew to Hebrews, Elamic to Elamite, or Greek to Greek Israelites, they have done their duty. If so, why do Rabh and Samuel say the Mishna means only Greek: let them say it means all foreign languages may be read to those who understand them? Rabh and Samuel mean that even to those who do not comprehend it, it may be read in Greek. But in the Boraitha it is said, that only if Greek is read to Greek Israelites it is lawful? Rabh and Samuel are in accordance with Rabban Simeon Gamaliel, who says that even the Pentateuch was allowed to be written only in Greek, not in another tongue. If so, let them say, more briefly, the Halakha prevails according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel? If they said so, we would think it bears reference only to other books; but as of the Megilla it is written, "according to its writing," we would think only in Assyrian characters it is allowed, and not Greek, therefore they come to teach us that even here Greek is proper.

"One who has it read to him from Assyrian characters." But he does not comprehend it? What is the use? It is like the case of women and common people, who do not understand
p. 50
it either, yet they are fulfilling their duty. Rabbina opposed: Why do you compare him to women and common people, and we ourselves, do we understand what is meant by ‏האחשתרנים בני הרמכים‎: [viii. 10]? But as it does not matter, provided we understand the proclamation of the miracle, so it also matters not in their case.

מיתיבי קראה גיפטית עברית עילמית מדית יוונית לא יצא הא לא דמיא אלא להא גיפטית לגיפטים עברית לעברים עילמית לעילמים יוונית ליוונים יצא אי הכי רב ושמואל אמאי מוקמי לה למתני' בלעז יוונית לוקמה בכל לעז [אלא מתניתין כברייתא] וכי איתמר דרב ושמואל בעלמא איתמר רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו לעז יווני לכל כשר והא קתני יוונית ליוונים אין לכולי עלמא לא אינהו דאמור כרשב"ג דתנן רשב"ג אומר אף ספרים לא התירו שיכתבו אלא יוונית ולימרו הלכה כרשב"ג אי אמרי הלכה כרשב"ג הוה אמינא הני מילי שאר ספרים אבל מגילה דכתיב בה ככתבם אימא לא קמ"ל:  והלועז ששמע אשורית יצא וכו':  והא לא ידע מאי קאמרי מידי דהוה אנשים ועמי הארץ מתקיף לה רבינא אטו אנן האחשתרנים בני הרמכים מי ידעינן אלא מצות קריאה ופרסומי ניסא הכא נמי מצות קריאה ופרסומי ניסא:  קראה סירוגין יצא וכו':  לא הוו ידעי רבנן מאי סירוגין שמעוה לאמתא דבי רבי דקאמרה להו לרבנן דהוי עיילי פסקי פסקי לבי רבי עד מתי אתם נכנסין סירוגין סירוגין לא הוו ידעי רבנן מאי חלוגלוגות שמעוה לאמתא דבי רבי דאמרה ליה לההוא גברא דהוה קא מבדר פרפחיני עד מתי אתה מפזר חלוגלוגך לא הוו ידעי רבנן מאי (משלי ד) סלסלה ותרוממך שמעוה לאמתא דבי רבי דהוות אמרה לההוא גברא דהוה מהפך במזייה אמרה ליה עד מתי אתה מסלסל בשערך לא הוו ידעי רבנן מאי (תהילים נה) השלך על ה' יהבך אמר רבה בר בר חנה זימנא חדא הוה אזילנא בהדי ההוא טייעא וקא דרינא טונא ואמר לי שקול יהביך ושדי אגמלאי לא הוו ידעי רבנן מאי (ישעיהו יד) וטאטאתיה במטאטא השמד שמעוה לאמתא דבי רבי דהוות אמרה לחברתה שקולי טאטיתא וטאטי ביתא  

גיפטית עברית עילמית מדית יוונית לא יצא; If one read the Megilla in Coptic, in Old Hebrew, Elamic, Median, or Greek, one has not fulfilled his duty?

Coptic: the word is: גיפטית  Gyptus, clearly Egyptian. possibly a reference to the Alexandrian community

Old Hebrew: there is no "old" . It means Hebrew.  Possibly this is a reference to the words in the Megillah that are not Hebrew ( perhaps they are Assyrian?). Possibly this is a vernacularof their time that is analogous to Israeli Hebrew of our time,    

Elamic: Elam is the ancient name of Persia, more specifically Shushia ( Shushan), the locale of the Megillah

 Median: Media is mentioned as the co-nation, with Persia, of the Megillah. (Porath and Modai)

Greek: the mark of an educated person. The victors over Persia

Most of these languages have some authenticity relative to the Megillah,  Thus, it is reasonable to think that an edition of the Megillah in these languages would be valid, even if one did not understand (every word).

However Greek wins out.  Would that be English today? Would that have been Latin in Medieval Europe?

Then we have words in the Megillah that are unintelligible, forgotten.  Studebaker camels? Hinnys?

And the Rabbis don't even understand words in the Mishna -  Serugin.  They derive the meaning form common parlance, the conversation of a maid.

18a: Greek Literature

18a

Greek literature

"To those who know no Hebrew," etc. But it is just stated that by hearing it read in a foreign language one has not fulfilled his duty. Rabbi and Samuel both said: By this Greek is meant. How is the case? If it was written in Assyrian (characters), and one read it in Greek, then he reads it by heart? Said R. A'ba in the name of R. Elazar: That means, when it is written in Greek, and he reads it in Greek.
The same authority says again: How is it known that God called Jacob "El" (one of the names of God)? Because it is written [Gen. xxx. 20]: "And called it El, the God of Israel," which he interprets, "who called him El, the God of Israel." For if the altar was meant, the verse would say, "and Jacob called it." An objection was raised: If one read the Megilla in Coptic, in Old Hebrew, Elamic, Median, or Greek, one has not fulfilled his duty? What is said above, that Greek is lawful, is like another Boraitha which says that if one has read in Coptic to Coptic, Hebrew to Hebrews, Elamic to Elamite, or Greek to Greek Israelites, they have done their duty. If so, why do Rabh and Samuel say the Mishna means only Greek: let them say it means all foreign languages may be read to those who understand them? Rabh and Samuel mean that even to those who do not comprehend it, it may be read in Greek. But in the Boraitha it is said, that only if Greek is read to Greek Israelites it is lawful? Rabh and Samuel are in accordance with Rabban Simeon Gamaliel, who says that even the Pentateuch was allowed to be written only in Greek, not in another tongue.

אבל קורין אותה ללועזות בלעז וכו':  והא אמרת קראה בכל לשון לא יצא רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו בלעז יווני היכי דמי אילימא דכתיבה אשורית וקרי לה יוונית היינו על פה א"ר אחא א"ר אלעזר שכתובה בלעז יוונית וא"ר אחא א"ר אלעזר מנין שקראו הקב"ה ליעקב אל שנאמר (בראשית לג) ויקרא לו אל אלהי ישראל דאי סלקא דעתך למזבח קרא ליה יעקב אל ויקרא לו יעקב מיבעי ליה אלא ויקרא לו ליעקב אל ומי קראו אל אלהי ישראל מיתיבי קראה גיפטית עברית עילמית מדית יוונית לא יצא הא לא דמיא אלא להא גיפטית לגיפטים עברית לעברים עילמית לעילמים יוונית ליוונים יצא אי הכי רב ושמואל אמאי מוקמי לה למתני' בלעז יוונית לוקמה בכל לעז [אלא מתניתין כברייתא] וכי איתמר דרב ושמואל בעלמא איתמר רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו לעז יווני לכל כשר 

 What does it mean?
What  is the significance of Greek in this ancient world?
What does it mean that  Gd called Jacob E?

This ( like most) translations implies that the 2 statements of R. A'ba in the name of R. Elazar  are related merely by the fact that they are from the same author.  That is reasonable.
But, perhaps they are contextually related ( as well) .
What does it mean that  Gd called Jacob E?  t first I thought that perhaps el is a Greek word. That does not seem to be the case.
The twisting of the  grammatical construction really leads to the fact that Gd does, after all,  call Jacob E when he is renamed Yisroel.
What is Greek about that?  It is the concept of the demigod, the superhuman hero: Atlas, Achilles, etc.
The Torah adopts that concept in the name Yisroel, containing that  E.
Greek, the definer of the academic,  is validated, not just as a language, but as a conceptual framework

32a: siyum

the end
the gemarrah ends by stating that the pilgrimage festivals: Pesach, Shevuoth and Succoth each have time set aside for their study. The precending gemarrah had discussed what the Torah and Prophets readings are for these holidays.

The beginning of Megillah deals with the variability of the date for purim and the variation between walled cities , towns and villages.
There is a contrast between Purim, the new holiday, no Mosaic tradition and the ancient, fixed, pilgrimage festivals.

On the preceding daf the gemarrah had discussed the torah and prophet readings and the changes brought on by having the the 2 days of exile.

Purim is the antithesis of pilgrimage. The date of the holiday depends upon where on lives and there is no encouragement to come to a single place ( contrast with the Prasha [Re'eh] which emphasizes the centrality of the [to be established] place where Gd will rest Gd's name.

14B

The prophecy of Abigail

The Talmud has identified her as one of the eight prophetesses. Some of these prophetesses are identified as such in the text ( Miriam, Deborah, Hulda) but not Abigail. However, some of the phrases she uses become eternal ( bayith Neeman, צרורה בצרור החיים ).

The gemarrah identifies her prophecy as indirectly dealing with the incident if Baathsheva.

However, the text itself identifies her prediction of the death of Naval ( her husband). The Talmud indirectly recognizes this in her cautious words with David, leaving the door open to their future relationship, but the Gemarrah attributes these words to the devious behavior of women in general (איתתא בהדי שותא פילכא איכא דאמרי שפיל ואזיל בר אווזא ועינוהי מיטייפי ).

14B Purim, the Holocaust and Zionism

14B

The Zionism of Mordechai, Ezra and Nechemia is more similar to that of Herzl and BenGurion than one might expect. The gemarrah talks about rescue from destruction as a strong force in the repentance of the Jewish people. That repentance may have been Zionism.

When the people see that their destruction is a political possibility, there is a strong motivation to organize their own state. Thus, the (potential ) holocaust of Purim was the motivation for the Zionism that formed the second Commonwealth.

Megilla folio 9b:
The Mishna deals with the differences ( or lack thereof) between the anointed high priest and the (unanointed) high priest who holds office by virtue of the vestments (the invested high priest?).

This leads to the question of the significance of anointing. The anointing oil, made by Moshe could not be reproduced under penalty of death. This was the oil that Aaron, Saul and David were anointed with. This is the oil that represents the prophetic tradition. Moshe, Joshua, the Elders, prophets. Failure to anoint the high priest means that the tradition has been broken. It means the second temple. It means the difference between then and now.

The fundamental question, and the relevance of this material to Megilla and Purim is the question of authenticity. If the high priest is not anointed is he authentic? How does he differ from the authentic high priest. Similarly, if a miracle occurred without the overt intervention of the Almighty, is that an authentic miracle. How does iPurim differ from the miracles of the earlier prophets?

In the subsequent gemarra, the issue of the mishna's authorship is raised. Is the author R. Meir, for whom a statement supporting the first clause is known, or is it the Rabbis, whose authorship is inferred from the last clause? The resolution of this question returns to the question of authority. Acceding to R. Hisda, there is a dual authorship to the mishna. According to R. Joseph, Rebi (the redactor of the Mishna) chose the opinions.

The idea that Rebi chose the opinion challenges the authority of the Mishna. It makes the mishna more of a work of an individual rabbi. A man who could have flaws. The alternative explanation of R. Hisda allows for either the evolutionary selection of the dominant, and hence incorporated, opinion or the persistence of the correct opinion from a previous age and the dissent form that opinion a degeneration.

Ultimately, there is no choice to be made on the basis of authenticity. The second temple priest, who could not be anointed because there was no anointing oil, was the only high priest that the people and the temple had. The decision to have such a defective high priest had been made. The question was: how will his deficiency be recognized? The answer is clearly minimally, if at all.


The Mishna that we have is the only mishna available. The question of its origin and divine authenticity is liberating. It allows for its evolutionary and human origin but it does not remove its authority from those who invest the mishna with authority. Nor does it add to its credibility for those who relegate it to the geniza of flawed, human documents.