Devarim: So That Nothing Is Lost in Translation

Tractate Sofrim 1:7.

Devarim 1:3-5.

Rashi on the above verse. See Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Devarim, sec. 2.

Devarim 1:5 .

Rashi on the above verse. Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Devarim, sec. 2, states, “[Moshe] began explaining the Torah in 70 languages.” See Agadas Bereishis, sec. 16; Berei­shis Rabbah 49:2. Wording similar to that used by Rashi is found in the Pesikta Zutresa here.

Devarim 27:4, 8.

See Rashi on that verse, based on the Mishnah, Sotah 32a. See the supercommentaries on Rashi on Devarim 1:5.

The exact date of the Torah’s translation into Greek is a matter of question.

Sofrim 1:7.

Similar statements are found in Tractate Sefer Torah 1:8. However, in that source, the statements are mentioned in connection with the translation of the Torah by the 70 Sages for King Ptolemy. Additionally, the wording in Tractate Sofrim 1:8, “A second incident occurred; King Ptolemy brought together 72* Sages…,” appears to imply that the incident mentioned in the main text with the five Sages was a separate, earlier incident. See also Megilah 9a, and other sources. See footnote 77 below.**

The phrase “perfect and flawless” is used here as a translation for the Hebrew phrase כל צרכה, which literally means “to the full extent necessary.”

* Megilah, loc. cit., also speaks of 72 Sages. See the notes of Rashash, Sanhedrin 16b, s.v. echad. The Talmud Yerushalmi (Megilah 1:9) also mentions the Sages’ translation of the Torah for King Ptolemy but does not mention the number of Sages. It refers to the Sages as chachamim, “wise men,” rather than zekenim, “elders,” the term used in Tractate Sofrim and in Talmud Bavli, Megilah, loc. cit. Shmos Rabbah also uses the term “wise men” when referring to the Sages who compiled the translation. Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Shmos, sec. 22, uses the term “our Rabbis.” This is not the place for further discussion of the matter.

** To clarify: Tractate Sofrim 1:7-8, speaks of two translations of the Torah into Greek, one made by five Sages and one made by 70 Sages. The latter is known as the Septuagint. Other Rabbinic sources also speak of that translation and mention it as having been composed by 72 Sages.

See also Shabbos 88b; Shmos Rabbah, the end of ch. 28.

The straightforward meaning of the wording of Rashi in our Torah reading and the comments of Midrash Tanchuma cited above implies that Moshe explained the entire Torah in 70 languages.

At the end of his commentary on Devarim 27:1, Ibn Ezra writes, “The Gaon* states that written on [these stones] were the sum of the mitzvos in a manner resembling the way they are written in Halachos Gedolos, which is comparable to the Azharos.”** See Abarbanel on that source. However, Ramban (Devarim 27:3) states, “It is found in Sefer Tagi that the entire Torah, from Bereishis until [the concluding words,] ‘before the eyes of all Israel,’ was written on these [stones].” This is also the straightforward implication of the wording in the Mishnah (Sotah, loc. cit.), “They wrote on it all the words of the Torah in 70 languages.”

Note Or HaTorah (Bereishis, Vol. 5, p. 861b) that the implication of the wording in Sotah 35b, which quotes Devarim 1:5, “Moshe began explaining…,” and states that since the word, baer, meaning “explain,” is also used in Devarim 27:8, “You shall write all the words of this Torah on the stones as they are thoroughly explained (baer),” an equivalence is established between the two verses, implying that the verse at the beginning of Devarim refers to Moshe’s inscribing the Torah on the stones in 70 languages.

* The title “the Gaon” used by Ibn Ezra refers to Rav Saadia Gaon. See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 21, p. 153 in the marginal note.

** The term Azharos refers to a liturgical hymn that reckons all 613 mitzvos.

With regard to writing the Torah on the stones “in 70 languages,” it could be said that the intent of the phrase “in 70 languages” is that the Torah was merely transliterated in the script of these nations (see Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Sotah 7:4), but that the wording was not changed. By contrast, Tractate Sofrim speaks of actually translating the Torah into Greek, not only writing it with the letters of the Greek alphabet. See Megilah 9a and footnote 82 below.*

However, this interpretation is not relevant regarding Moshe’s relating the Torah in 70 languages, for seemingly the simple meaning is that he translated the Torah into all of the 70 languages. Moreover, even regarding writing the Torah on the stones, since the intent was that the nations also know the meaning of the Torah (see Sotah 35b; Tosafos, s.v. keitzad, loc. cit., Panim Yafos, Devarim, loc. cit.; see also footnote 9, above), we are forced to say that the Torah was written in each of those languages and not merely transliterated using the letters of their alphabet. This is explicitly stated by Tosfos Yom Tov (Sotah 7:5), “[Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura] wrote ‘in the letters of the 70 nations. ‘His intent is ‘in the letters and the languages of the 70 nations.’”

* Tractate Sefer Torah, loc. cit., states that the elders “wrote [the Torah] for King Ptolemy in Greek letters.” This is also the interpretation of the gloss Maon Arayos and other commentaries regarding the second incident involving the 72 Sages which is discussed in Tractate Sofrim 1:8. However, from the wording used in the conclusion of Tractate Sefer Torah, loc. cit., “for it was impossible to translate the Torah in a perfect and flawless manner,” it is understood that it was also translated into Greek and not just transliterated with the Greek alphabet. This is also evident from the straightforward interpretation of the passages from Megilah and Sofrim cited (see the sources cited in the body of this footnote). Note the text Sheva Masechtos Katanos (Higger ed., 5690), which cites a version of Tractate Sefer Torah, which, rather than stating “in Greek letters,” states “in the Greek language,” and another version that states, “the Torah in Greek.”

Similarly, Tractate Sefer Torah, loc. cit., states, “It was impossible to translate the Torah in a perfect and flawless manner.”

It could, however, be said that Tractate Sofrim implies that the Torah could not be translated into Greek because that was the matter under discussion. Therefore, when saying that a perfect translation was impossible, it was not necessary to repeat the mention of Greek.

Megilah 8b, 9b; Rambam, Hilchos Tefilin 1:19. See footnote 78 for further explanation.

Note Bava Kama 83a, which praises Greek over other languages.

Megilah 1:9 .

See also the end of Megillas Taanis where it is stated, “On the eighth of Teves, the Torah was translated into Greek in the days of King Ptolemy and darkness [descended] upon the world for three days.” This teaching is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, sec. 580.

Shabbos 17 a. See Tosefta, Shabbos 1:8; Talmud Yerushalmi, Shabbos 1:4.

The statement in the Talmud Bavli follows the discussion regarding safeguards for ritual impurity when harvesting grapes to be taken to the winepress. The Talmud concludes there that Shammai said, “If you provoke me, I will decree impurity against the gathering of olives as well.” The dispute was so intense that, “They implanted a sword in the study hall, and they said, ‘One who seeks to enter the study hall, let him enter, and one who seeks to leave may not leave.’ That day….”

The Tosefta, loc. cit., states, “That day was as distressful for the Jewish people…,” and continues explaining that they instituted the eighteen decrees because on that day, the disciples of the School of Shammai outnumbered the disciples of the School of Hillel. This understanding is also apparent from the treatment of the subject in the Talmud Yerushalmi. See Tosafos, Shabbos 14b, s.v. ve’eilu, Tosafos HaRosh, Maharsha, Maharam, and Maharsha’s Mahadura Basra, et al., to that source. This is not the place for further discussion of the matter.

The words “that day” are taken from the Tosefta, loc. cit., which states, “That day was as distressful for the Jewish people….” (See also the Talmud Yerushalmi, loc. cit.) However, it does not state the phrase, “Hillel was submissive and sitting before Shammai like one of the students.” See also sources cited in the previous note.

See S’fas Emes, Shabbos, loc. cit.

This follows the wording of Rashi’s commentary as it is printed on Ein Yaakov, Shabbos, loc. cit. In the continuation of that entry, Rashi quotes the continuation of the Gemara’s wording, “Shammai and Hillel instituted this decree, but it was not accepted; [later,] their students came and instituted the [same] decree and it was accepted.” Accordingly, perhaps it could be said that the reason that day was distressful for the Jewish people was that the decree was not accepted. See Rabbeinu Nissim’s Chiddushim on Shabbos, loc. cit. Further analysis is still necessary.

Minchas Bikkurim on the Tosefta, loc. cit.

Minchas Bikkurim, loc. cit., does not offer this explicitly as an interpretation of Rashi’s words. Instead, it explains that the day was distressful for the Jewish people “because they spurned Hillel,” and then continues, using Rashi’s wording, “who was the nasi and humble.”

In his Chiddushim, Shabbos, loc. cit., Chasam Sofer cites Rashi’s wording and proceeds to state, “It was comparable to the day the [Golden] Calf was made because Aharon was a leader among the Jewish people and he was not able to muster* the strength [to resist them, but instead,] listened to them because of his humility and their stiffed-neckedness.”

* The Rebbe suggests that there is a printing error in the text of Chiddushei Chasam Sofer, loc. cit.

Shmos 32:23 .

The wording in the main text is from Minchas Bikkurim, loc. cit. Korban HaEidah, Talmud Yerushalmi, loc. cit., makes similar statements regarding the comparison of that day to the day on which the Golden Calf was made. With regard to Hillel, that text quotes only Rashi’s wording, i.e., the phrase used by Minchas Bikkurim, “they spurned Hillel.”

Similarly, further analysis is necessary regarding the other resolutions suggested by Minchas Bikkurim, loc. cit. (and similarly, by Korban HaEidah and P’nei Moshe):

a) That many students were killed that day as the Talmud Yerushalmi, loc. cit., states.

b) That because of the disagreements of that day, the Torah became as if it were two Torahs and strife increased among the Jewish people.

See the commentary of Maharsha cited in footnote 18.

See also, Rashi, Devarim 10:7, where he states that, “Moshe considered the Jews’ statement, ‘Let us appoint a head,’ [in Bamidbar 14:4 as] separating [themselves] from him, like the day they made the [Golden] Calf.” However, this does not represent a contradiction of the statements in the main text because it is possible to say that Moshe found their statement so severe because the words, “Let us appoint a head,” implied the worship of false deities (Rashi, Bamidbar 14:4) as stated in Gur Aryeh, Devarim 10:7. See footnote 39 below.

Shmos 32:5.

See Rashi on the above verse, s.v. vayiven.

Rashi on the above verse, s.v. chag la’Hashem.

The main text uses the word “primary” because making the Golden Calf was also forbidden, as Seforno* comments on Shmos 20:4, “Do not make an idol,” that making it even when one does not intend to worship it is forbidden.

Indeed, we find that in addition to the commandment not to make an idol cited above, there is a separate verse (Shmos 20:5) that mentions the commandment prohibiting worshiping a false deity.

* The fact that it is Sforno (whose commentary focuses on the Torah’s straightforward meaning) who offers this interpretation indicates that this is also the simple meaning of the verse. Indeed, to Rashi, this point is so straightforward that he does not have to explain it. Moreover, it is possible to say that this point can be understood from Rashi’s previous commentary (Shmos 20:3), s.v. lo yihiyeh lecha.

Shmos 32:6. See Rashi’s commentary and the comments of our Sages on that verse. See also Ramban, Shmos 32:5, who states that G‑d’s command to Moshe, “Go, descend because your nation has become debased,” was not stated on the day that Aharon made the Golden Calf, but when the people sacrificed and prostrated themselves before it.

This is not the case regarding the manner in which the translations are described in the Talmud Yerushalmi. See footnote 79 below.

See the sources cited in footnote 6 above. See Kisei Rachamim on Tractate Sofrim, loc. cit. Tractate Sefer Torah 1:8mentions only the translation of the Torah by the 70 elders and comments, “That day was as distressful for the Jewish people…,” as stated in the footnote there. See footnotes 76 and 77.

Tractate Sofrim, loc. cit. A similar statement is found in the Talmud Yerushalmi, Megilah, loc. cit., and Tractate Sefer Torah 1:8.

The Talmud Bavli, Megilah, loc. cit., enumerates fifteen changes, while Shmos Rabbah 5:5 states, “This is one of the eighteen instances where the Sages made changes for King Ptolemy.” (This version is also quoted by Sifsei Kohen al HaTorah, Devarim 31:28). Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Shmos, sec. 22, speaks of ten alterations. See Yafei Toar on Shmos Rabbah loc. cit. This is not the place for further discussion of the matter.

By contrast, the Talmud Yerushalmi, loc. cit., states, “The Torah can only be translated in a perfect and flawless manner in Greek,” i.e., the implication is that the Torah can indeed be translated into Greek in a perfect and flawless manner. We are forced to say that the meaning of “in a perfect and flawless manner” in that source is not as it is being used in the main text, but rather in a more straightforward way, that only in Greek is it possible to reach a correct and precise translation of the Torah. See also footnote 79, below.

That the intent was not the day on which the Jewish people served the Golden Calf but the day preceding it, the day on which the Golden Calf was made, is also evidenced from the fact that our Sages did not say “the day on which the Tablets of the Ten Commandments were shattered,” as Rashi does in his commentary on Devarim 10:7.

The distinction between the day the Golden Calf was made and the day the Tablets were shattered is evident from the differences in the wording Rashi uses. He compares the death of Aharon to the shattering of the Tablets and the Jews’ desire to appoint a leader to the act of fashioning the Golden Calf.

On the surface, it would appear more appropriate to have compared the translation of the Torah into Greek and compelling the halachah to follow Shammai’s approach to the shattering of the Tablets, for these matters involve a degradation and an alteration within the realm of Torah. Nevertheless, our Sages made a comparison to the making of the Golden Calf because, as explained in the main text, the focus is on the potential of adversity to arise.

On this basis, we can appreciate the precision of the wording in Tractate Sofrim (and, similarly, in Shabbos, loc. cit., and the Tosefta, loc. cit.),* “as the day on which the [Golden] Calf was made.”** The use of the passive voice puts the emphasis on the result, not the act of the sin. Note the contrast to Rashi’s wording in his commentary on Devarim, loc. cit., “the day on which they made the [Golden] Calf.”

* This is the wording of the Talmud (Shabbos, loc. cit.), its citation in Ein Yaakov, and the standard text of the Tosefta. However, the Tzuckermandel edition of the Tosefta as well as Tractate Sefer Torah use the wording, “the day on which they made the [Golden] Calf.”

** Note the wording of the verse, Shmos 32:24, Rashi’s commentary on that verse, Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Ki Sissa, sec. 19, and the end of Rashi’s commentary on Shmos 32:4, s.v. eigel maseicha, which imply that the Golden Calf emerged on its own accord, as it were.

A similar explanation can be given regarding the wording in Tractate Sefer Torah, loc. cit., “That day was as difficult for the Jewish people….” In that source, “that day” refers to the day when they began to translate the Torah, before they actually completed the translation with the thirteen alterations that were made, as Tractate Sefer Torah proceeds to mention.

In other words, it could be said that, ultimately, because of the miracle that transpired regarding the changes that were made, the translation of the Torah into Greek did not lead to undesirable consequences. However, the day on which the translation was begun – when it was not known that such a miracle would transpire – was “distressful for the Jewish people…,” because of the problems that could have arisen.

Shabbos 15a.

Rashi, Shabbos, loc. cit., s.v. haw shasik. See Tosafos, Shabbos 14b, s.v. ve’eilu.

A similar explanation can be given according to the Tosefta and the Talmud Yerushalmi, loc. cit., which state that the day to which these texts refer was the day when eighteen degrees were instituted (see the sources in footnote 18) because “a vote was taken and [the disciples of] the School of Shammai outnumbered [the disciples of] the School of Hillel.” (Shabbos 13b; Tosefta, loc. cit. See Rambam’s commentary on the Mishnah, Shabbos, loc. cit., where he states, “There was no one in that generation fit to issue halachic rulings who was not present.” See Chasam Sofer, Chiddushim, Shabbos, loc. cit.). Thus, according to the general principles through which halachah is derived, in those instances, the halachah should follow the School of Shammai.

Berachos 36 b. See the sources cited there.

See Chagigah 16b, regarding whether the nasi or the head of the Rabbinic Court is the arbiter of halachah. See, however, Otzar HaGeonim, Shabbos, 17a.

Eruvin 13b.

Regarding the concepts that follow, see Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 11, p. 143ff. See also the wording of the Midrashim and commentaries on the Torah, some of which are cited in the Miluim to Torah Sheleimah, Vol. 21, sections 13-14.

Shmos 32:1. See the extensive commentary of Ramban on that source.

This is the wording used by Rambam in his Sefer HaMitzvos, positive commandment 1.* See also the wording of Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 25. Note the sources cited in the previous footnote.

* More specifically, this is the wording in the standard translation of Sefer HaMitzvos. However, note the translations of Rav Chayim Heller and Rav Yosef Kapach, which use the wording “to know.” See the footnote in Kuntreis Toras HaChassidus, ch. 13, and the treatment of the subject in other sources.

This is the wording used by Rambam in his reckoning of the mitzvos at the beginning of the Mishneh Torah. Rambam also uses this term when describing the mitzvah to know G‑d at the beginning of Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah. See the elaborate explanation in Derech Mitzvosecha, mitzvas haamanas Elokus, ch. 2; Kuntreis Toras HaChassidus, ch. 13, et al.

The main text is borrowing the wording of Tanya, ch. 5, which describes the oneness with G‑d established through Torah study, “a wondrous unity to which no parallel whatsoever is found.”

Devarim 33:1; Tehillim 90:1. The implication of the verse is that Moshe was able to fuse his humanity together with G‑dliness.

To explain their intent in a different way: See Kuzari, discourse 1, ch. 97, which states that when it appeared that Moshe was delayed in descending from the mountain, “the people began looking for an entity that they could serve which was perceptible.” See the lengthy explanation in that source and the commentaries to it. See also the commentaries of Ibn Ezra, Abarbanel, and Tiferes Yonason to Shmos 32:1. Perhaps it is possible to reconcile the interpretation of Ramban with that of the above commentaries based on the explanation in the main text. This is not the place for further discussion of the matter.

In this context, note the explanations of the superiority of the Beis HaMikdash which was built from stone over the Sanctuary built from boards of cedar wood in Torah Or and Toras Chayim, the beginning of Parshas Vayigash, et al. As explained in those sources, the further G‑dliness is drawn down into physical existence, the higher is the source of the revelation.

Shmos 25:8 .

See Ramban’s commentary at the beginning of Parshas Terumah.

Shmos 25:22.

See the commentaries mentioned in footnote 53.

Midrash Tanchuma, Parshas Ki Sissa, sec. 21; Shmos Rabbah 3:20, 42:5, 43:8, 43:8, cited by Ramban in his commentary, loc. cit.

Shmos 19:20.

Ibid. 32:6, and Rashi on that verse.

Devarim 4:35.

T he maamar entitled Oteh Or, 5700, ch. 4, et al. See also the end of the maamar entitled Panim BaPanim, 5659.

Those sources (see also Sefer HaSichos – Toras Shalom, p. 158, et al.) discuss at length the term used by the Rebbe in the main text – memutza hamechaber, which literally means “an intermediary who connects.”

That term is contrasted with a term used in the following footnote, a memutza hamafsik, “an intermediary that interrupts.” The purpose of any intermediary is to establish a relationship between two entities that would otherwise be unable to relate to each other. However, the nature of the relationship the intermediary establishes is dependent on its own qualities. If it sees itself as an entity unto itself, it will be a memutza hamafsik, “an intermediary that interrupts,” meaning that while it will be connecting the two entities, it will not be erasing the fundamental difference between them.

To illustrate by an example: In the era of the Talmud, the Sages would teach via a meturgamon, a translator or spokesman. He would convey the Sages’ teachings to listeners who would otherwise not be able to grasp them because of their depth. However, the listeners could relate to the words of the translator. Since he was close to the Sages’ level and understood their words but, simultaneously, he was not entirely above the listeners’ plane, he could successfully convey the Sages’ words to them. However, when the listeners would hear the meturgamon, they would not relate to the Sage directly. Thus, there remained three separate entities – the Sage, the meturgamon, and the listeners.

By contrast, the identity of a memutza hamechaber is not felt at all. Consequently, when he connects two entities, the listeners feel joined directly to the source whose insights the intermediary is conveying. The intermediary is merely establishing the linkage. As a result, there is no interruption between the source and the ultimate recipient.

Moshe fulfilled such a role in bonding the Jews with G‑d. He conveyed G‑d’s word to them, but with absolutely no consciousness of self. Accordingly, he was able to bring the Jews to the awareness that “there is nothing other than Him.” Their identities also became subsumed within the awareness of G‑d. See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 19, p. 11ff.

That separate entity serves as a memutza hamafsik, “an intermediary that interrupts.” Even though it does establish a connection to the higher entity – as the main text emphasizes, the Jews desired that the Golden Calf serve as an intermediary between them and G‑d – unity is not established between the two. See the series of maamarim entitled BeShaah Shehikdimu, 5672, Vol. 1, sec. 219; the maamar entitled Oteh Or, loc. cit. , ch. 3. See also the maamar entitled Panim BaPanim, loc. cit.

The Hebrew word for commandment, tzivui, emphasizes the concept of oneness, because its root letters are the same as of the word tzavta, meaning “connection.” As explained in the main text, the fact that the intermediary is established by G‑d’s command is fundamental to the question of whether it functions as a memutza hamechaber or a memutza hamafsik.

Note the concepts of maavir and hislabshus discussed in Tanya, Kuntreis Acharon, the sec. entitled Lehavin Mashekasuv BiPri Etz Chayim (Tanya, p. 158a); Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar, p. 89b ff.; Or HaTorah, Vayikra, Vol. 2, p. 462ff., t he maamar entitled Yayin VeSheichar.

To explain the difference between these terms: hislabshus means “enclothement.” As that term implies, the light and the k’li, the conduit through which the light shines, share an internalized connection, just as a person’s clothes are tailored to fit his body. For example, when a teacher conveys a concept to a student, he adapts it to fit the student’s capacities. In the process, the form of the concept undergoes alteration; there is a difference between the way the teacher conceives of it himself and the manner in which he communicates it to the student. This reflects the function of a memutza hamafsik.

Maavir comes from the root ovair which means “pass through.” The influence merely passes through an intermediary; it is not adapted, nor does it undergo any change to fit the qualities of the intermediary. Thus, it does not undergo a fundamental descent in the process of being transmitted to the lower level. To cite an example: By commiting an intellectual concept to writing, the writer has made it accessible, but it has not undergone a fundamental change and it remains the identical intellectual concept. This reflects the function of a memutza hamechaber.

The term “chariot” is used because, just as a chariot and the animals pulling it are given over entirely to the will of the driver, so too, the Divine chariot and the angels drawing it are motivated by G‑d’s will alone.

The interpretation in the main text comes in addition to the simple explanation, that our Sages’ intent in saying that Moshe “interpreted” the Torah to the Jews “in 70 languages” was not that he translated it to them literally. Moshe “interpreted” and explained the Torah. Indeed, the Torah refers to his translation with the term baer, “explain.” He taught the Torah in a manner appropriate for those who spoke the 70 languages. (In contrast, Ptolemy commanded the 72 elders to produce a literal translation. Concerning such a translation, our Sages said, “It is impossible to translate the Torah in a perfect and flawless manner.”)

This is Rashi’s explanation of why the 72 elders made this change in their translation for Ptolemy, Megilah 9a. See Tosafos, Megilah, loc. cit., s.v. Elokim, and Maharsha’s Chiddushei Agados to that passage, et al.

See the interpretations of the changes the elders made as discussed in detail in the Talmud (Megilah, loc. cit.), Rashi’s commentary there, and Tractate Sofrim, loc. cit.

See Zohar, Vol. III, p. 245a (in the Raya Mehemna); Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 13; Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar, p. 54a ff.; Shir HaShirim, p. 48b ff., et al.

Bereishis Rabbah 8:5, cited in Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim, loc. cit.

For this reason, “[G‑d] saw that the world could not endure [with only the attribute of judgment.] He [therefore] gave primacy to the attribute of mercy and combined it with the attribute of judgment” (Rashi, Bereishis 1:1, at the end).

In a personal sense, judgment and might are often identified together because it takes self-control (an expression of the attribute of might) to refrain from acting impulsively and exercise judgment. Similarly, in judgment, self-control is necessary to avoid being overly generous and forgiving and, instead, deliver a verdict according to the standards of judgment. In many depictions of the Sefiros, the attributes of judgment and might are seen as the counterpart of the attribute of kindness.

See also Chasdei David on the Tosefta, loc. cit.

This interpretation can also be given to the passage from Tractate Sefer Torah, loc. cit. After the thirteen instances where the elders made changes, the translation of the Torah into Greek was considered a positive matter. See footnote 40, above.

See Kisei Rachamim (HaShaleim) on Tractate Sofrim, loc. cit., which states that it is possible that the five elders did not succeed in translating the Torah properly, and they themselves told Ptolemy that they were unable to do so. As a result, he was motivated to collect the 72 elders. However, in his gloss on Tractate Sofrim, loc. cit., Yaavetz writes that the Ptolemy who gathered the 72 elders was not the same as the Ptolemy who ordered the translation by the five elders. (Ptolemy was the name of many of the rulers of Egypt from the Ptolemaic Hellenistic dynasty.)

On the surface, Yaavetz contradicts his own statements in his gloss to Tractate Megilah, loc. cit., that the Ptolemy who gathered the 72 elders was not Ptolemy Philadelphus. There are those (Meor Einayim, Imrei Binah, ch. 8) who say that the translation by the 72 elders preceded the translation by the five elders. This is not the place for further discussion of the matter.

From a straightforward reading of the Gemara (Megilah 9a), it appears that only Rabbi Yehudah permitted writing a Torah scroll in Greek because of the incident involving King Ptolemy. However, concerning Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the Gemara relates (Megilah 9b) that Rabbi Yochanan said, “What is the rationale of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? It is written (Bereishis 9:27), ‘May G‑d expand Yefes and may He dwell in the tents of Shem’…,”* implying that he derives the license to compose a Torah scroll in Greek from that verse without any connection to the incident involving Ptolemy. See, however, Rashi’s commentary (Megilah 9a), s.v. Rabboseinu, interpreting the license granted by the Sages to write scrolls in Greek, where he states that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s view was not a minority opinion, but that of the Rabbis at large.

See Turei Even, Megilah, loc. cit., s.v. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, which debates the motivating principle for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s view. According to the second answer there, the reason Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permitted writing Torah scrolls in Greek was also because of the incident involving King Ptolemy. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s opinion, the Sages permitted writing all the books of the Tanach in Greek for this reason. Consult that source. See Sefas Emes, Megilah, loc. cit., et al.

* Yefes was the ancestor of the Greeks. The conclusion of the verse implies that there is a possibility of coupling the positive virtues of Yefes (Greece) and Shem (the progenitor of the Jews).

It could be said that this is the meaning of the passage in the Talmud Yerushalmi mentioned in sec. 1 above, “They searched and discovered that the Torah could only be translated in a perfect and flawless manner in Greek.” This statement was made after the translation by the elders for Ptolemy because their translation nullified the possibility of an inaccurate understanding of the verses. (See footnote 36, above.)

Note the commentary of Sifsei Kohen on the Torah on the verse (Devarim 31:28), “Gather unto me all the elders of the congregation.” Sifsei Kohen states that “Moshe gathered the elders and transmitted [the changes to be made when translating the Torah] to them [verbally]. This is what is meant by the phrase ‘These words’ [– the eighteen* words from the Torah that were changed.] These words were transmitted from Moshe, elder to elder, until the time of Ptolemy when they were [openly] said.”

* This is the wording in Sifsei Kohen’s commentary on the Torah. See footnote 36 above.

See the particular details of the passage in Megilah, loc. cit., and the commentaries on that source.

Tractate Sofrim 1:6 states, “[Torah scrolls] may not be written… in Greek.” However, the commentaries on that source (Kisei Rachamim, Nachalas Yaakov, et al.), have explained that the rationale for this ruling is that in the era when Tractate Sofrim was composed, the Greek script that the Sages originally referred to had already been forgotten and was not extant, as Rambam writes in Hilchos Tefillin 1:19, “Greek script is already no longer extant….” Therefore, at present, [tefillin, mezuzos, and Torah scrolls] are not written… in Greek.”

Meiri, Megilah, loc. cit., interprets the Mishnah as saying that the other books of the Tanach were permitted to be written in Greek letters, provided one does not change the language. (Meiri’s intent is that one may transliterate the books of the Tanach into Greek, but not translate them.) However, in his commentary to that source, Ritva explicitly states that both, “The Greek script and language are permitted [because of the incident concerning King Ptolemy], for [the elders] wrote [the Torah] using his script and language.” This is also the implication from the statements of Rashi, Rambam (in his commentary on the Mishnah), and others on the passage from Megilah, loc. cit., et al.

Note the interpretation found in Otzar HaGeonim, Shabbos, loc. cit., “Hillel had to humble himself and submit himself so that his words would [be heard] and Shammai could not refrain from answering… and it appeared that [Shammai’s words] were nullified.” Consult that source. According to that interpretation, Hillel’s approach had an effect even regarding this difference of opinion.

Note that in the Ultimate Future, the halachah will follow the School of Shammai. See Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar, loc. cit., and the sources mentioned there. Perhaps this also relates to the concept explained above. Consult the above source in Likkutei Torah.

Ediyos 4:5 , et al. Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 13, states that the lenient rulings of the School of Shammai resulted from the fact that the emotive attributes all include each other (i.e., there is a sub-attribute of chesed shebegevurah, kindness within gevurah). Perhaps it could be said that this is also connected to the above concept. Further analysis is necessary.

Sefer HaLikutim and Likkutei Torah from the AriZal, Nachal Kedumim in the name of Ramaz, on Shmos, ch. 32:5.

Sefer HaLikutim, loc. cit., states, “The [Golden] Calf was made on the Seventeenth of Tammuz and, on that date, the Tablets were broken.” Similar statements are found in Nachal Kedumim, loc. cit. Perhaps the intent is that the sin of the Golden Calf took place on the Seventeenth of Tammuz. Alternatively, it could be said that there was a printing error, and that text should read, “Was made on the sixteenth of Tammuz,” as does the AriZal’s Likkutei Torah. However, it is somewhat difficult to say so because Sefer HaLikutim continues that G‑d will “transform it in the future,” unlike Likkutei Torah, which states “transform them.”

See the elaborate explanations in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 16, p. 413ff., regarding the power of teshuvah to transform the sparks of G‑dliness enclothed in evil and, more particularly, that the teshuvah for the sin of the Golden Calf brought about an increase in the awareness of the unity of G‑d, surpassing even that achieved at the Giving of the Torah.

See the sichah of Parshas Yisro, 5741, published in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 21, p. 446ff., which emphasizes the connection between Yiddish and pnimiyus haTorah.

See Torah Or, pp. 77d, 78c; Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 3, p. 862ff.

See Likkutei Sichos, loc. cit., and p. 875 in that source.

See the renowned letter of the Baal Shem Tov (printed at the end of Ben Poras Yosef, at the beginning of Kesser Shem Tov, and other sources).

Tzephania 3:9 , quoted by Rambam, Hilchos Melachim 11:4.

Zechariah 8:19; Tosefta, the conclusion of Tractate Taanis; Rambam, the conclusion of Hilchos Taanios.

Zechariah, loc. cit.,states that the fast days “shall be for the house of Yehudah days of gladness and happiness.” The term “transformed” used in the main text is taken from the prophecy of Yirmeyahu 31:12, “I will transform their mourning into gladness.” See Yalkut Shimoni on Yirmeyahu, sec. 259. “A lion ascended… and destroyed Ariel [the Beis HaMikdash]… so that a lion, the Holy One, blessed be He, will come… and rebuild Ariel….” Then, “I will transform their mourning into gladness.”See the Reshimos of the Tzemach Tzedek on Eichah, Or HaTorah, Nach, Vol. 2, p. 1045; Or HaTorah, Bamidbar, Vol. 4, p, 1384ff.

The Selichos recited on the Seventeenth of Tammuz include the request to “transform” that day “for us to gladness and rejoicing.” See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 15, p. 413ff.

Based on the concept that all the days of the week are blessed from the preceding Shabbos (Zohar, Vol. II, p. 63b), every year, Tishah BeAv is blessed on Shabbos Parshas Devarim.

Bein hameitzarim means “between the straits.” It refers to the 21 days between – and including – the Seventeenth of Tammuz and Tishah BeAv.

Pesikta Rabesi, the end of piska al naharos Bavel, states, “Joy will come only on Tishah BeAv.” See Likkutei Sichos, loc. cit., and Vol. 18, p. 312ff.

Rosh Chodesh Shvat is the anniversary of the day when Moshe “began explaining this Torah,” communicating it in 70 languages, as Devarim 1:3 states, “In the eleventh month, on the first of the month.” Rosh Chodesh is “the head of the month,” encompassing all the days of the month, including the tenth of the month, the yahrzeit of the extension of Moshe in our generation, my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe. Among his achievements was the translation of even the inner, mystical dimension of the Torah into many languages, as noted at the end of the sichah that follows. See also Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 3, p. 863.