Torah can only be translated into Greek – Transcript

Shiur on Chanukah: The Greek Language and the Universal Nature of Torah

Chapter 1: Introduction – The Minhag to Discuss Greek on Chanukah

Instructor:

This is the shiur on Chanukah where we talk about the Yevanim [Greeks], and some people have a minhag—not me, but some people have a minhag—to talk about the Greek language. Because Rav Gamliel [Rabban Gamliel], who was a great Tanna [early rabbinic sage from the Mishnaic period], said that the only language in which you could say the Torah is in Greek.

Remember? That’s what he said? They said there is a pasuk [biblical verse] about this, yeah. Who said it? Right? That’s the shiur of Tameh [unclear reference]. And that’s the famous story of the Talmai Melech [King Ptolemy], who was supposedly the one who ordered the Torah to be written into Greek, known as the Targum Hashivim [Septuagint – the Greek translation of the Torah].

Chapter 2: The Mishnah in Megillah – Torah in Every Language

Instructor:

What is the Targum Hashivim? How is it related to the question of the languages? The Tanna Kamma [first anonymous opinion in the Mishnah] said that all Torahs are written in the Talmud—or at least that’s how the Gemara [Talmud] formalizes it. Right, that you could write the Torah in every language.

Why? Remember why? How could you write the Torah in every language? There’s something very important here. I have to talk about this. I didn’t mean to talk about this Mishnah, but you should know the Mishnah.

Student:

The Mishnah is a language that we all know, right? What is the Mishnah in? The Mishnah that I’m quoting now. Where is it? What is it? Is it a very different language? From the Mishnah? Hello.

Instructor:

It’s the Mishnah in Megillah [tractate of the Talmud dealing with the reading of the Megillah/Book of Esther]. Okay, the Mishnah in Megillah. The first part of that… There’s a more insight about it. But the Mishnah is the Mishnah in Megillah.

It says, it says—and there’s something called Tefillin [phylacteries] and there’s something called Mezuzah [parchment scroll affixed to doorposts], which are specific parts of the Torah that we write on our hands and our doors. The Mishnah says they’re both the same thing, they both have the same condition, the halachot [Jewish laws] are the same. But there’s one difference—there’s the Tanna Kamma says it there—there’s one difference: for them [Tefillin and Mezuzah] we have to write in Lashon HaKodesh [the Holy Language/Hebrew]. We could write [Sefer Torah] in any language.

In other words, when you go to shul [synagogue], I take up the Sefer Torah [Torah scroll], and they make a whole community entire ritual, and they take out the whole Sefer Torah from the Aron HaKodesh [Holy Ark], and they kiss it. This Torah, you could write in English or in French, or in Spanish, or in Chinese. It doesn’t matter. It’s the same kodesh [holiness].

And then you say, “Vayehi binsoa ha’aron” [biblical verse recited when the Torah is taken out], and “Bereishit bara Elokim” [In the beginning God created], “Vayered Mitzrayim Yaakov” [And Jacob went down to Egypt], “Vanochem Anochi” [And I will comfort]. Or you say it in Greek, which I don’t know how to say even. And the Torah, when you write it in Greek, you also have to write it with the halachot. You have to write it on a klaf [parchment] with all the hilchot Sefer Torah [laws of writing a Torah scroll], and you read it, and you say a bracha [blessing], and so on. Right?

But Tefillin and Mezuzah, you can’t, because Tefillin and Mezuzah is like a kemiya [amulet], basically, for a man to wear. I don’t know why. I’m just making it up.

So it has to be written in Lashon HaKodesh, in the Jewish language, in Lashon HaKodesh, really. And he said, no, not every language you could write it, only Greek.

Chapter 3: The Gemara’s Discussion and Rabbi Yochanan’s Ruling

Instructor:

There’s a dispute. I’m not going to go into who is that, who holds like that. I’m just telling you what the Gemara says on this. You could look in there and the Gemara will say, see what the Talmud Bavli [Babylonian Talmud] says about this, and so on.

The Megillat Esther [Book of Esther], it seems like—some people say you could write the Megillah in Yevanit [Greek]. Some people say no. And that’s where we get the story of Talmai Melech in Masechet Megillah [tractate Megillah]. Okay?

But what’s the important thing? What’s the important thing? And of course, Rabbi Yochanan said that there’s a… Ah, Rabbi Yochanan said the halacha is like the Tanna Kamma. That’s where we get our halacha. And Rabbi Yochanan also brought a proof for the Tanna Kamma from a pasuk: “Yaft Elokim l’Yefet v’yishkon b’ahalei Shem” [May God enlarge Yefet, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem – Genesis 9:27].

And the drash [homiletical interpretation]: “Yafyuto shel Yefet” [the beauty of Yefet] means the most beautiful part of Yefet, right? In other words, I don’t know what anyone will tell you. Say, the Tanna Kamma says, in conclusion, that the Torah doesn’t have a language.

Chapter 4: The Fundamental Principle – Torah Was Given in All Languages

Instructor:

You could write the Torah in any language and it’s kosher. Why? This is how the Gemara—I mean, the Gemara, I like this phrasing, although the Gemara in the end says that we can’t have a ra’ayah [proof] from animals like this—but the Gemara in Masechet Megillah, in a different place, in Masechet Berachot, in a different place, regarding Tefillah [prayer], it’s a machlokes [dispute] whether you could say it in any language. And it says the lashon [language/formulation]: “L’man savar Rabbi, or savar Rabbanan, she’kol haTorah kulah b’chol lashon ne’emrah” [According to the opinion of Rabbi/the Rabbis, that the entire Torah was given in all languages]. Right?

When the Ribbono Shel Olam [Master of the Universe/God] gave the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu [Moses our teacher], He didn’t give it in one language. If someone tells us that Lashon HaKodesh is holy because Hashem [God] gave the Torah to Moshe Rabbeinu in Lashon HaKodesh—who says this? The heilige Ramban [the holy Ramban/Nachmanides]? This is not true, according to this Gemara and according to this Mishnah.

Hashem gave the Torah in all the languages. Why do we have only the Hebrew one? Because we speak Hebrew, so that’s the one we kept. But if you’d be a guy that speaks Greek, you would have the Greek Torah. And if you’d be speaking Aramaic, you’d have the Aramaic Torah. And if you’d be speaking Spanish, you’d have the Spanish Torah. Or Latin, you’d have the Latin Torah, and so on. Like in those, right? It’s maskana [conclusion].

If you’re not asking me, tell me. I need you to tell me. I don’t know which Rav says this. A lot of Torahs fall away from this. So that’s the broadest shiur.

Chapter 5: What “Torah” Really Means

Instructor:

The broadest shiur is that the Torah—in other words, when we say “Torah,” we don’t mean the words. The words in this language, in these letters. Because we could say the same words in a different language. We mean the meaning. And if you could write the meaning in any language, it’s kosher.

And of course there’s a whole longer list in the Mishnah of which sayings, which ritual sayings can be said in any language. Many of them could be, according to the Tanna Kamma, and so on. Which means that you could say Shema [the central prayer declaring God’s unity] in every language and you could say Tefillah in every language and so on.

Some things you can’t, and go figure out why which is which. I don’t have a clear theory, but that’s the story, right?

Chapter 6: The Problem of Translation Accuracy

Instructor:

What do we learn from this? That the Torah is, according to the Tanna Kamma, in every language. What’s with the problem of accuracy of translation? Very old, famous problem. What about that problem? What about the problem of translation? What about that problem? What does it mean “the Torah b’chol lashon” [Torah in every language]?

If I take a Torah and I write the English version—I have on my shelf two or three or five, I don’t know how many English versions of the Torah, each one with a different translation—so which one is the halachically correct one? Basic question.

Student:

Yeah, but the original one has that same problem also, if you don’t know what it means.

Instructor:

No, I’m not… Meaning, if your translation is messed up, then your original is also messed up. But at least we have the…

Student:

Translation is another layer.

Instructor:

So, wait. I like what you’re saying. So, there’s a basic problem. What does it mean, “Torah b’chol lashon”? Okay, but who says this is the Torah? Maybe this is your shot [attempt] of the Torah, your translation of the Torah, which is not going to be perfect. It’s not possible to translate 100% accurately. Impossible, as it says in Masechet Megillah. We’ll see if you want, if we’ll get to that.

And therefore there’s a problem here, right? How could we translate? How could you say that the Torah—maybe it’s not the Torah?

Student:

So I said, as I am different—for those of you who don’t know what it means also, you don’t—maybe you don’t have the Torah.

Instructor:

What would be the answer to that question? Of course, maybe I don’t know what it means, but the actual letters that Moshe Rabbeinu wrote, or whatever, makes the Torah kosher, are there. So at least let’s not call this—you don’t have to—this is actually how the halacha works.

This thing I’m making, the chiddush [novel insight], that I’m making in the halacha, all right? How do you want to see the difference? I believe in this little—even below you—to back all the big water everyone is, you know, it’s a wish not courage them again, all right?

Even if you don’t understand—if we would have, if my theory that I just gave you, if I’ve called it “kol haTorah kulah b’chol lashon,” is that literally—this is of course not history, but if theoretically, if my theory, my story would be true literally, and you would literally have 70 versions of the Torah, or as many languages that there are, and you would literally have that one, then you wouldn’t have this problem, of course.

But since we don’t have it, and therefore it’s written in one language, and just to be clear, when the Mishnah says “b’chol lashon” [in every language], it doesn’t mean that—right, I mean, some guy went and wrote a version of the Torah in Targum, in English, in Aramaic, right? Like the kosher Targum [proper Aramaic translation].

The Gemara says it’s kosher. The Gemara says this example of kosher Targum, right? I write the Torah in Aramaic. We have that Torah. We have it. It’s more or less an accurate translation, but of course there’s many parts that are not, or that are debatable, right? And of course many people listened to the Torah in that translation for many years that didn’t understand a word of the Hebrew.

But in any case, you could say there were only a few when they were—but they did read the Hebrew also, there we go to—then they understood. But if we say—and what’s my problem? I’m saying that if you don’t understand the text, and some would say, at least there’s a Torah—you don’t understand it, at least you have it. When it’s in English, it’s a mockery of that. You should understand, because otherwise you don’t have the Torah. If it’s—even if you don’t understand it, you still have it.

Chapter 7: The Unresolved Tension – Possession vs. Understanding

Student:

It was—I have—do I have it? It’s written there.

Instructor:

No, the question means—I feel like we’re talking about two things.

Student:

I wrote it anyway, like I wrote it, like it’s like I put on Tefillin, right? And you’re—it’s like—nothing to do with meaning, it’s just I wrote it and it’s kosher. It’s like I made a mitzvah. It doesn’t have to have a meaning, it’s just a mitzvah, like a mitzvah ma’aseh [action-based commandment].

Instructor:

No, I swear I’m not going to do that.

Chapter 8: The Problem of Understanding in Different Languages

The Septuagint Precedent and the Question of Fulfillment

Instructor: And of course many people listened to the Torah in that translation for many years, but didn’t understand the word of the Hebrew. But in any case, you could say they were only yotzei [fulfilled their obligation] when they—but they did read the Hebrew also, they were yotzei then, and then just understood.

But if we say, what’s my problem? I’m saying that if you don’t understand the text, and some would say, at least Lashon HaKodesh [the Holy Language, Hebrew], you don’t have to understand it, at least you have it. When it’s in English, it’s a ma’akif [required] that you should understand, because otherwise you don’t have the ta’ira b’khala [proper fulfillment]. If it’s in Lashon HaKodesh, then even if you don’t understand it, you still have it. Do I have it? It’s written there.

Student Objection: Mitzvah as Action, Not Meaning

Student: Begash me [excuse me]. I feel like we’re talking about two separate things. I wrote it as a ta’ira [tefillin]. I wrote it as a ta’ira. It’s like I put on a ma’akif [sukkah]. It’s like nothing to do with meaning. It’s just I wrote it as a ta’ira and it’s kushim [valid]. It’s like I made a ma’akif on my gag [roof]. It doesn’t have to have a meaning. It’s just a mitzvah like a mitzvah ma’aseh [action-based commandment].

Instructor: No, we can write it in khallush [?]. Which are you talking about? The idea is to learn the Torah. So that if I don’t have a—if I don’t have an understanding of these words, then I’m supposed to do the Torah. You’re a mazalit [?]. You’re a mazalit. I live on so it’s like I see it.

By the way, what other nafka minna [practical difference] is there? I mean it’s not actually—I see that it’s not—and what does [unclear] even mean? Sometimes I say, it’s [unclear] and it’s [unclear] with it, things like that. What else does it mean?

Student: You’re right, we don’t understand that anyways, that doesn’t help.

Chapter 9: The Critical Question – Does Inaccurate Translation Invalidate Torah?

Two Possible Assumptions Behind the Mishnah

Instructor: But I’m saying so, but now back to my question. If your translation of your written is inaccurate, does that mean that becomes [invalid] Torah? Very important question. Very important question.

It seems like, I don’t know the answer, right? It seems like whoever said this Mishnah that said [the law about translation], and said that all of these things, assumed either one of the two things: either that there can be an accurate translation, or accurate enough for any purpose, or that it’s not important. As long as you more or less say that point—right, one of these two things. And probably the second thing is the [correct one]. The first one is just very unrealistic or very naive, right?

Alternative Explanation: Confidence in Understanding

Or another way of saying this would be that this earlier Mishnah was written by someone who had enough confidence they understand the Torah—I don’t know why I’m saying it earlier, the comment on the [Mishnah]—they had enough confidence that they understand the Torah. Therefore if they would write a translation of it, it would be a hundred percent what it means.

Counter-Evidence: Rav Yosef on Targum Onkelos

Talking English, we know that some [scholar] said, or Rav Yosef said about Targum Onkelos [Aramaic translation by Onkelos], that if not of the Targum, he wouldn’t understand the pasuk [verse]. Meaning that he couldn’t have written the Targum, right? Because he doesn’t know what the pasuk can mean.

But whoever wrote this Mishnah said, I could write a Targum in any language, because I understand the Torah. Just explain me the language and I’ll explain you how to say the Torah in that language.

Student: If you took the Targum Onkelos, the correct one, the historically correct one from Onkelos, and you wrote it, then it would be considered…

Instructor: Exactly.

The Tanna’s Radical Position: Nothing Special About Hebrew

But the point is, the point is, however you understand it, the point is that according to this Tanna, there’s nothing special about the language of the Torah, nothing. All hilchot Torah [laws of Torah] would be the exact same in any language, even if there’s a problem with translation.

Chapter 10: The Philosophical Core – Even Perfect Translation Changes the Text

The Thought Experiment

The answer is that he doesn’t even think—I’ll just be very clear, even if there’s an accurate translation, even if it has the correct meaning, meaning, let’s say that, like you said, let’s say the Tanna Onkelos is from Hashem [God] Himself, Adrabba [on the contrary], Kadosh Baruch Hu [the Holy One, Blessed be He] and so on, and gave us a correct authorized translation of the text—just to be clear, even then it wouldn’t be the same exact, right? Everyone knows this, right? Everyone knows that a text still changes in translation.

What Is Lost in Translation

It would have the same meaning, it might have the same meaning, but even that is not entirely accurate. Right? There would be a lot of connotations and a lot of, let’s say, cultural things that would change, right?

We call things the names of the Torah because we read the Torah, and therefore, you know, if you’re a ganav [thief], you call it a Lavan Rami [Laban the Deceiver], and if you’re a tzaddik [righteous person], an Eisav [Esau], and so on. And if they would be called Lavan Ramis, it’s a name, not really translatable, but if the guy would be called something else, we would call it different something else.

There’s a lot of things, I’m not going to go at this at length, but it’s known to everyone, but there’s many things in a language, in the material of the language, in the structure of the language, besides for the meaning, and you do lose them when you translate, even in the theoretical impossible 100% accurate translation, right?

The Tanna’s Core Principle: Torah Is Thoughts, Not Words

So what we learn from this Mishnah is that the Rav Tanna Kamma [the first Tanna] held that that doesn’t matter. The Torah is thoughts, not words.

Chapter 11: Ibn Ezra as the Extreme Version of This View

Ibn Ezra’s Principle

The extreme version of this would be what Ibn Ezra [Abraham ibn Ezra, medieval biblical commentator] said, right? Remember what Ibn Ezra—Ibn Ezra said, the Torah writes the ideas and not the words. And this is why he said in the Torah, there’s sometimes the same story twice.

Famously, [he] says it’s [about] the [Eliezer story], but he talks about other examples too. And it has different words, and that makes no difference, because that means the same thing. For example, that’s one example, but there’s other examples.

Ibn Ezra’s Methodology

He’s against people that take the language literally. He says that I could show you in the Chumash [the Five Books of Moses] itself—he has those different examples. I love [the example where] Eliezer tells—says one thing, and when he says the story, and then another thing when he tells the story over, and it means the same thing. It’s just a different phrase.

Student: Exactly.

Instructor: And so on. And what’s going on? Ibn Ezra says no, this means the same thing and don’t worry about it. We don’t care about the words.

Implications: Internal “Translation” Within Hebrew

In other words, you could translate it into Hebrew too and it would be the same [valid]. But the words are not important. If someone goes and he says, the Torah is [written in] very complicated language, I’m gonna simplify it, like Tanakh Lam [simplified Bible], whatever. I’m gonna simplify it. I’m gonna write instead of “the miketz [at the end of] Shmoneh Esrei [eighteen],” “the softness,” I’m—you know, because nobody knows what miketz means anymore. Still has the same [validity] because who cares? The Torah is ideas.

It’s like editing, like this internal [editing] clearly within the same story, right? So that seems to be the shittah [position] of the Tanna. I think it’s a pretty defensible opinion. And that’s why he didn’t even have the problem of accuracy. All these things, the Torah itself doesn’t care about that level of material accuracy, because the thought is what’s holy, what’s important.

Chapter 12: Practical Objection and Response

Does Translation Affect Reality?

Student: [But don’t] the ideas that people get from them [affect the reality]?

Instructor: The reality is that it does. But these people, they had enough confidence in what they thought the idea really was, that it wasn’t—that they didn’t. That’s the fact. It has to be like this. Okay?

Historical Evidence: Translations Were Accepted

Anyone, if [they made] a translation and said everyone’s going to read the Torah and hear this translation and not going to know the original text, and everyone was fine with this, right? Right? Everyone was fine with this, right?

The Chachamim [Sages] didn’t say this is not [acceptable]—either you read Hebrew or you become a goy [non-Jew], because what’s [with] these people that not gonna ever hear the Torah, only through some translation? They said no, it’s good, right? It’s fine with us as long as it’s authorized, as long as it’s good enough for our purposes, accurate enough for our purposes, right? Okay?

I’m showing [this is a] very important point and people are very confused about this.

Chapter 13: Comparative Religion – Contrasting Views on Sacred Language

The Common Misconception

People think—I think this is a Muslim thing, I don’t know who made it up. It’s not a Christian thing. The Christians hold like this, that’s [their position on] the Bible. [They hold] the same position [as this Tanna]: every language.

The Muslim Position: Text as Sacred

Christian and Muslims—very famously [Muslims] hold that the Quran is only holy, or holy in Arabic, and it doesn’t even have any meaning in any other language. They don’t even call their translations “translation.” They call them “interpretations.”

If you buy a Quran, it never says “translation of the Quran.” If it’s a religious one, no. It’s connected to [their theology]. It’s connected to this modern [concept]—the work in particular [that] calls it—where it talks about [something]—I’m [thinking] about where it talks about the God’s Word, the logos, whatever. It’s not going—it has to do with this. In any case, it’s—but it’s not getting into this. That’s time for [another discussion].

The point is they hold that the text, the words, are holy, not the meaning of them. And therefore you have to learn the Arabic. If you don’t read in Arabic, you don’t understand [it]. Your [obligation is to read it]. This [is their position]. Like I said, if you buy a religious Quran, it’s always gonna say “interpretation of the Quran,” and it’s gonna tell you [you] should read in Arabic, even if you don’t understand.

Of course, the Arabic—like it is to say it—because then the [understanding] isn’t the point anyways.

Digression: Critique of the Quran’s Content

By the way, it’s nothing to understand there. Don’t tell anyone. Anyways, just a long list of, “you should be good, otherwise you’ll burn in hell again.” And that’s what it says, like, over, throughout 150 chapters or whatever it is. That’s basically what it says.

So, a very simplified version, but more or less, that’s what it says. So, it makes sense that there’s only—if you’re saying simple stuff and just repeating them, of course, the only value is in, like, supposed poetry of the Arabic and so on, because it doesn’t really say anything.

But anyways, maybe that’s the conspiracy theory of why they made up this shittah [position].

The Kuzari’s Argument Against Islam

The Kuzari [Sefer HaKuzari by Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi] famously says that the Muslims say that the Quran is eloquence, is evidence of its godliness. And he says, well, sadly, I can’t judge that because I don’t listen to [understand] Arabic.

He has the Kuzari king say that because, of course, he [Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi] did read Arabic. This is supposed to be an argument against Islam, because if you really have a religion that’s supposed to show evidence of its divine origin, it should be accessible to everyone. That’s the argument. Very funny argument for the Kuzari to say.

But anyways, this is one of the hidden problems in the Kuzari. And [the] point [is], this is not the [Jewish position].

Chapter 14: Summary of the Two Positions

Position A: Text as Sacred (The Muslim Example)

There was a [view]—like it [exists in Islam]—so [regarding] vows and the [unclear], I’m done [with that topic]. Actions and [unclear]. I can’t stop reading the [unclear] interesting anyways.

Anyways, so the important thing is that there’s a different, there’s a shittah, and for example the Muslims have it on their holy book, which says that the text is what’s heilig [holy] and not the meaning, or at least as heilig as the meaning. And according to that, you have to of course have the original text and the original words, not only the original [meaning].

Position B: Meaning as Sacred (This Tanna’s View)

That is not the shittah of the heilig Tanna Kamma [the holy first Tanna].

The Superiority of Greek for Torah Translation: Rabban Shimon Gamliel’s Position

Chapter 1: Rabban Shimon Gamliel’s Distinctive View on Greek Translation

The Specific Authorization of Greek

Instructor: Even according to Rishonim Gimelim, I’m going to talk about it in a second. It says *Belusha Kodesh* [in the Holy Language] and maybe it also doesn’t hold its exact words, it’s just for some reason these languages. I’m going to talk about it in a second. This is an important theory of the *Kedushat HaTorah* [holiness of the Torah], of the Holy Mishnah, and you should remember it. Because this is also behind whoever said that Midrash of *Beheret* of the *Shiv’im* [Seventy], of course.

To assume that the Torah should be accessible, everyone should be able to understand it because it’s very simple and very good and very clear. And maybe it’s true that we’ll lose some nuance of cultural references. It doesn’t matter because that’s not the point of the Torah. The point is whatever basic message it has or messages or thousands of *chachmas* [wisdoms] and so on. And you can have that in every language. And therefore, the Torah is holy in any language. It’s very universalistic or philosophical understanding of it, unlike many people who seem to think that the whole point of the Torah is that it’s a certain language.

Rav Shimon Gamliel had a different *shita* [approach/opinion]. He said like this: even the *Sforim* [books], *Tzohot* [?], *Tziml Mezeh Zizmoideh* [?], of course you can’t write in *Yevonit* [Greek] in different language, but even the Sefer Torah you can only write in *Yevonit*. Now why?

Two Theories of the Greek Translation

So there’s really two theories of this and I think that both theories differ by different people. Of course, talking about the Torah in Greek is talking about a specific translation, which is probably the one that we have, the Greek translation, although some people have argued that it’s not the same one. Probably changed somewhat, but there’s very probably, yeah. There’s probably little reason to think that we have a totally different one. Of course, the things that we would have quotes from it are not really there, so it’s problematic. Or not all of them there. But it’s probably the same one, or some version of the same one. Why should you think differently? I don’t know.

In any case, the important thing is, and the Jews that had the tradition of reading the Torah in *Yevonit*, they had this one. It’s not like they had the same story or version of the same story. There’s two, so he’s talking about a certain Torah that’s written, right? He said this is the authorized translation and not all the ones.

Understanding Rabban Gamliel’s Position: Greek Chauvinism

So what’s the *pshat* [simple meaning]? How do we understand it? What the [Gemara] is apparently saying is that Rav Shimon Gamliel, he thought he was a Greek chauvinist. He was a Jewish chauvinist, of course, because he was Jewish. But he also was a Greek chauvinist. He said, and we know that on Rav Shimon Gamliel’s day he studied Greek. Everyone knows. He said, look, I don’t think the Torah would be good in any language. It’s not true. Most languages are not very good. Latin, he probably knew some Latin. Latin is a language for, what does it say in the Yerushalmi? Latin is good for something else, remember?

Student: Oh, each one is good for something else.

Instructor: Yeah, there’s a Midrash, I saw the Midrash once, each one for poetry, for this, for that. What’s Latin there for? There’s some for like love, I think Latin is for love, like one of these things, it’s a Midrash, I saw this one. Anyway, it says this in *Petish* [?] somewhere, I forget where. Rav Shimon Gamliel said that…

Student: What’s Latin for?

Instructor: I forget. I forget. I think it’s the *visas* [?].

Student: What are you looking for?

Instructor: I know, this is dumb. I don’t know. I’m not finding it in a second. I know where to find it, but it’s going to take me too much time.

Student: So no, he’s just making stuff up, this guy, the kids here.

Instructor: Not always. I think he doesn’t know. Now listen, so I know you have to look also in, what should we call it, in the book, but to get to it, it’s going to take me too long to search things now.

The Yerushalmi’s Explanation: “They Checked”

But it was like this, right? It could have two meanings. What it means is that, like I’m saying, that Greek was the best translation, the best language in general and therefore the Torah works in Greek. He doesn’t think it would work in any other language because other languages are less expressive and therefore they can have a worse *pshat* [understanding] of the Torah. So Greek, the Greek language is the best language of the *Yefet* [Japheth], and *Yavan* [Greece] is of course one of the children of *Yefet*, and therefore is what? Therefore the Greek Torah is the best one.

This is very unlike what you’ll hear in any Chanukah tradition, that the Greek is the worst thing. No, Rishon HaGadol [a great early authority] said the Torah can be written only in Greek. He doesn’t believe it can be written in other languages, but in Greek it can be written because Greeks have a good language. You can express the Torah perfectly in Greek. Alright? Perfect. *Stimmt* [correct]? That’s all. I didn’t make this up.

The Yerushalmi says like this on this Mishnah in Megillah: *”Badku mati shel’ayna tori choli li targim”* [They checked which language our Torah can be translated into]. Here, right? *”Badku mati shel’ayna tori choli li targim kol tzarka ele Yevonit”* [They checked which language our Torah can be translated into; they found only Greek]. They checked. They checked with the language. They say *Yevonit* is the language that can be translated Torah.

Of course, then it talks about Aramaic, that maybe you could have an Aramaic out of *Yevonit*. This is where there’s different *Rishonim* [early authorities], this is where we get *Targum Onkelos* or not, or it’s Aquila and so on, stories. Point is that he held that *Yevonit* is a great language, because Greek is very expressive for some reason. Probably there’s a lot of people that do, how do you call it, linguistics, that explain to you why he thinks this. I don’t think it’s entirely made up. It’s true that Greek is a pretty expressive language, at least for the Torah, and it’s translatable. *Stimmt*?

Therefore, if you don’t understand the word in the Torah, you should look in the Greek, because it has *askim* [authorization] from Rabban Gamliel. And from *shiv’im zekayin* [seventy elders], and whoever those were, but we don’t know their names. From Rabban Gamliel we know. He gave *askim*, he said this is the best way to translate the Torah.

Chapter 2: What “Checking Languages” Means

Greek as a Conceptual Fit for Torah

But he’s saying something deeper than that, right? He’s saying, because again, you remember, every language has its conceptual structure and its grammar and everything, and he’s saying that Greek is a good fit for the Torah, right? They *badku* [checked], they checked the Greek is a good fit for the Torah. It works very well in Greek. Greek with the Greek of Homer, right? The Greek with all the systems that the Greeks believe in which are built into their language, in that language the Torah works very well.

Student: As in the amount of words?

Instructor: I don’t know if the amount of words, for one word you don’t have to use three like with, let’s say, English you would…

Student: No, probably not, because who cares about that?

Instructor: So then what, what exactly? English is also a very expressive language.

Student: English is probably the best language now.

Instructor: No, no, I don’t think that would be a problem. They’re saying that in some languages, who cares it’s going to be longer? So it’s going to be longer, that’s not a problem. That’s because it’s the opposite.

Student: So Greek is a better language than Hebrew?

Rabban Gamliel Knew What Torah Means

Instructor: You don’t know. Again, we read this. *Gam* [also] that they have. Rabban Gamliel didn’t think, he doesn’t understand, might think this. Rav Shmuel thought he knows what the Torah means. He’s just looking for a good way to express it to a translator in a different language, right? You have a problem. You’re not going to know the translation. That’s your problem. He does know.

Student: That means something inclusive…

Instructor: No, that’s not true. That’s not what he thinks. He thinks obviously the Torah means—that’s a nice theory of some literary theorist who thinks that the text of the Torah is *chol* [ambiguous/open], *haylik* [?]. This is not what Rav Shmuel said in the *Chillik* [?] on *Eriak* [?] line. Why do I have to go there? Listen to me.

Student: Why can’t I just talk about the actual…

Instructor: Because he’s not saying this. Because Rabban Gamliel said that the Torah is written in every language. Or the *Peshawar* [?] said it can be written in Greek because it’s the best language. There’s no such a thing as two languages where all the words that have the same range of meaning are translatable one for one. That’s impossible. And I don’t think that the *Chachamim* [Sages] ever had this problem. They thought the opposite. They thought that they knew what the Torah means and therefore they could translate it.

If the same word means in two different places two different things, so I’ll write a different word in both places and it’ll be even clearer than the original Torah. Very good, no problem.

Student: You think that sometimes it means both in one place?

Instructor: He obviously didn’t think that. He thought that it has a meaning and a definite meaning and it could be retranslated. They checked all the languages, they tried that you say the same thing in three languages, they see that it works better in a certain language. That’s the *b’aya* [problem], they give, carries the meaning better. What else could it mean? It carries the meaning better. Not the tricks, not the jokes, the puns. Nobody needs the pun. If you need the pun, then…

Student: No, but I’m saying in every language, if you really understand it, you could use, okay, so you’ll end up using three paragraphs, who cares?

The Real Problem: Languages Lacking Adequate Expression

Instructor: That’s not the problem. The problem is the opposite. You don’t have words at all, or you don’t have the correct formula to express a certain thing. You can’t say in Yiddish, you know that in Yiddish you can’t say most things?

Student: No, no, that’s a good example.

Instructor: Because it’s a bad language, it has not enough words. If you try to say something, anything complicated in Yiddish, you end up speaking English. That’s a true story, it happened to me every week in my *shiur* [class].

Student: Okay, so, and in English also say a lot of Yiddish words.

Instructor: Okay, just ask, but you, I can’t, you can’t. And that’s a good [example], and they thought of this, they thought, and this by the way…

The Linguistic Quality Debate and Competing Views on Translation

Chapter 1: The Reality of Language Quality Differences

Practical Example: Yiddish’s Limitations

Instructor: The problem is the opposite. You don’t have words at all or you don’t have the correct formula to express a certain thing. You can’t say in Yiddish. You know that in Yiddish you can’t say most things?

Student: No, no.

Instructor: That’s a good example. Because it’s a bad language. It has not enough words. If you try to say something, anything complicated in Yiddish, you end up speaking English. That’s a true story. Happened to me every week in my shiur [Torah class]. So, in English you also say a lot of Yiddish words. Okay, just ads. But you can’t. And that’s a good example.

The Linguistics Debate on Language Quality

Instructor: And they thought of, by the way, linguistics has a whole debate about this. If you’re allowed to say that there are better or worse languages, of course, it’s not woke to say. But I read a few, all the anti-woke linguists that I read about this, they all say that it’s nonsense. Of course, there’s languages that are more complex and more expressive and for certain things. Some languages are better for certain areas and so on. This is a different politic. But the point is that, of course, there’s languages that are better and better for certain things than others. What’s so difficult to understand?

Chapter 2: Puns and Word-Play Are NOT the Issue

Clarification on Translation Limits

Instructor: Not because of the puns. It’s very clear not because of the puns. Puns are never translatable. For example, you can see example of this in the translations the Targum [Aramaic translation]. I don’t know what this Targum machine does, but Targum Onkelos [Aramaic translation of the Torah by Onkelos], for example, which the Chachamim [Sages] very much like, just ignores every word play in the Torah. It just does a literal translation of everything, even poetry. Just tries and puts it back in the prose.

And this is because he thought—he obviously didn’t think that is even important to get the beauty of the poetry. That was not important to him. It was more important to him to get the meaning. And that’s all. That was the *kedushas haTorah* [holiness of the Torah]. And I think that the Greek does something similar. I’m not sure, you have to check how the Greek treats things like this. Good question, I’ll find out later. But I know that we should find out later. But the point is that this is definitely how Onkelos thought of it. And he thought that Greek was the best language and therefore the Torah is very well expressed in Greek.

Practical Implications of Rabban Shimon Gamliel’s View

Instructor: This means that if in the *emunah* [faith/belief] or if it is in the Torah one thing and the Greek it’s *pistis* [Greek: faith], then *pistis* is a very good translation for the concept of *emunah*. Unlike anyone would say, “No, he doesn’t have a concept of *emunah*.” No, he does. Hashem [God] will set every concept in Greek, maybe not in English. English is very good. And so on. I just said a random word that the Christians like to talk about very much. And so on, right? Every word is all kinds of words that are hard to translate. He has a translation for all of them in Greek.

And this means that us, that we don’t understand Hebrew, we could look in the Greek and understand things better, sometimes. That’s what advice from Rabban Shimon Gamliel [is]—to understand the Torah, or to connect, to get the real meaning, the real word that we’re looking for, the concept that we’re looking for. Words are all concepts. There’s the *shita* [approach/position] of Rabban Shimon Gamliel.

Chapter 3: The Competing Shittah: Rebbe Yehuda’s B’dieved View

Source and Basic Position

Instructor: There’s a different *shita*, different *shita*, that’s if you say *Yefei Sas Sofer* [uncertain reference]. There’s a different *shita* in Rabban Shimon Gamliel, which is the *shita* of—no? There’s a different *shita* of Rabban Shimon Gamliel, which is the *shita* of—no? A different *shita* of Rebbe Yehuda says that they were not *mutter* [permitted] only Torah *b’lashon* [in the language of]—*mishum ma’aseh shehayah* [because of what happened]. That sounds like a different *shita*. He sounds not to say that the *Yevonit* [Greek] is so great like Rabban Shimon Gamliel. And there’s some *Gedolim* [great scholars] seems to say here.

The B’dieved Interpretation

Instructor: But that about that it’s just that there was a story, like the story that said that Talmai HaMelech [King Ptolemy] forced us to translate the Torah. So it’s like with the effort because we had to—we had to—we have to keep it safe with him. So we have a *Yevonit Yisrael Torah* [Greek Torah for Israel] and it’s like *b’dieved* [after the fact, not ideal], it’s *mutter* [permitted]. Okay, we’re *mutter b’dieved* [permitted after the fact], but that’s all. That’s just a *hetter* [permission] for *b’dieved* for the time that was needed.

And maybe it’s therefore, it’s like grandfathered in. We could use this Torah always, but we can’t do any other translations, even of other texts, right? We can’t even translate the Tanach [Hebrew Bible] in the Greek. It’s not going to work because there’s not that *hetter* [permission]. That’s a different chapter, totally different reading of the story of the *Targum Hashivim* [Septuagint/Translation of the Seventy], right? Remember?

Student: Very good.

Instructor: You probably also know that there’s a totally different *shita* of the story, right? Which is from the—who said that *shita*? Who said that *shita*?

Student: Hmm.

Instructor: You know I’m talking about, right? Who?

Student: No, you don’t know?

Instructor: The *Megillas Taanis* [Scroll of Fasts], right? Who said *Adepshat* [uncertain term]?

Student: Yeah, who said *Adepshat*?

Instructor: There you go, that’s from *Megillas Taanis*, right? Is that where it’s from?

Student: I think so.

Chapter 4: The Third View: Maseches Sofrim’s Negative Assessment

Source Identification and Dating

Instructor: So someone, not the [unclear], but [unclear], it’s really [unclear], which is, these are much later texts, a long time after the—where is the source? It’s very interesting, you have to see something, you have to see this, okay? [Unclear], it says, like this, okay? [Unclear], very different [unclear].

*Maseches Sofrim* [Tractate of Scribes] is not a real *masechta* [tractate], it was written in the times of the *Gaonim* [post-Talmudic rabbinic authorities], who knows when, very late. It’s a lot of *minhagim* [customs]. *Maseches Sofrim*, it says, by the way, it says, we don’t write the Torah *b’chol lashon* [in any language]. *Asot eksiv ha-shiris* [uncertain phrase], right? *Keshitas*, not *keshitas haTanach* [uncertain phrase], right? Or *keshitas ra-mabdil* [uncertain phrase]. *Mechilik ha-netanohim* [uncertain phrase], right? Why, because it doesn’t say Greek either, right?

He doesn’t write, not Greek. It’s not even in the right. He’s more *machmir* [stringent], even though he says we can’t write—he literally says he can’t write the Torah in any language, right?

The Negative Narrative

Instructor: And there’s a story behind the *Chachamim* [Sages] that wrote the Torah to the king of the king, in *Yevonit* [Greek]. And he said to the king of the king, that he said the Torah can be translated into any language. This is very weird, because this is literally the language from the Yerushalmi [Jerusalem Talmud] that said that they checked and they found that we can only be *metagim* [translate] in the Torah *kol tzarkah* [adequately] in Greek, right? And here it says that it was as bad as *yom b’shenasah b’ya’eigel* [the day the Golden Calf was made], that’s the *shita* [position] of the *Maseches Sofrim*. And why is that? Because it was not—they could not translate it.

Interpretation and Implications

Instructor: In other words, this person who wrote—who was a much later person than the *Tanaim* [Mishnaic sages], and not that I care about that, but just showing you that there’s something different—he held that theoretically maybe it would be nice to translate it, but it’s impossible. Impossible. Why is it impossible? Possible maybe because of all these things that he shows, all these things that he shows about all the things that he shows about the differences that they have to change, like this whole thing.

Student: No, where to say which Gemara [Talmud]?

Instructor: There’s no such Gemara, Tzadik [righteous one/term of address]. There is not a Gemara in the sixth of *Taanis* [Tractate of Fasts]. There’s not such a Gemara. The *Taanis* was made up by someone a long time after the Gemara. That’s not how it’s done. No, that’s not the Gemara. That’s not the Gemara. That’s what I was thinking. That’s what I was thinking. Okay?

There was not a *ta’anis* [fast] on that in the Gemara. There was a *ta’anis* on that in some other book called what? *Maseches Sofrim*, that’s what you’re saying. *Maseches Sofrim* says that it was very bad because the *Maseches Sofrim* is in the *machloket* [dispute] with the Yerushalmi. If there’s a *Maseches Sofrim* in the Yerushalmi, of course the Yerushalmi is right. It’s *machmir* [stringent] *tzoi* [uncertain term].

Clarifying the Source: Megillas Taanis

Instructor: *Megillas Taanis* says that you should fast. *Megillas Taanis*, it’s not really *Megillas Taanis*. It’s probably a later part. Even *Megillas Taanis* has a lot of levels, because you have to look in the [unclear]. [It] says that you should fast on [unclear], and that the world was dark for three days, and therefore people used to fast [unclear]. That’s what it says in [unclear]. But not really this. I don’t think this is the real [unclear]. I’m pretty sure that this is a list of [unclear]. [Unclear] is a list of happy days. So it’s not the same thing. We could look up in whoever wrote about [unclear] and you’ll see that book. You could see what’s going on about that, okay? Let’s push it.

Chapter 5: Why Maseches Sofrim Held Translation Impossible

Two Possible Reasons

Instructor: In any case, whatever you’re saying, that’s all. Now, what am I saying? This person, whoever wrote [unclear], who explains this, he thinks that either you can’t, or he thought like the other, like the Muslim [shita], that the Torah is holy because of its words. By definition impossible to translate because you can’t translate a language. It’s just a language, it’s what it is. Make sense?

It doesn’t say anywhere in the Gemara that there’s a *ta’anis* [fast] on this, Tzadik. I’m not that kind of person. There’s some later in the book. There’s a lot of things that it says. *Machazoi* [uncertain term]. There’s a lot of places, but it doesn’t say in the Gemara. There’s no… It was fine. Of course not.

Chapter 6: Reframing the “Changes” in the Septuagint

The Nature of the Changes

Instructor: In any case, even in *Maseches Sofrim*, it doesn’t really say that. Maybe this is just an over-interpretation. He just says that it couldn’t have been translated and probably because of all these—probably with these means all these things that they were in *Megillah* [Tractate Megillah]. [It] brings all these—but I said they had to change for basically political reasons, right? For basically so [it] can’t be misinterpreted and so on.

And it’s weird because the *Gedolim* [great scholars], he realized that in the Gemara, even though they made all these changes, that still has to this stuff there because it’s because that’s what it means, right? But it says *Bereishis bara Elokim* [In the beginning God created]—there might be a reason why it says *Bereishis bara Elokim*, but *Elokim bara Bereishis* [God created in the beginning] means the same thing, right? It just took away one mistake. [Unclear] means [unclear]. It’s still the same thing. It’s just different words for the same animal, right?

Implications for Translation Theory

Instructor: So there’s nothing wrong with these mistranslations. It’s not really clear what things. So you think that’s how much the meaning means, that you could literally mistranslate it? Obviously. And it’s fine. The *Targum Onkelos* does this all the time. And this is, again, an example of a translation that we’ll be thinking of.

Chapter 6: The Fundamental Principle of Torah Translation

The Core Claim: Torah Transcends Language

Instructor: They’re as literal as can be. But they’re still a translation, and they still do all these kind of things. They still fix a lot of things. And sometimes they’ll say, okay, maybe I had a different case.

So what do we learn from all of this? We learn from all of this a very important thing. In principle, at least—this is the principle that I’m working with that I last year worked with and I brought you a book on the times a Mishnah that says this—in principle, the Torah can be translated, which means that all the concepts of the Torah can be said in every language, in principle.

It’s not true that thoughts belong to a language. Not true. We need to think in a language. Nobody thought without a language. Which means that there isn’t one language that one… And there also isn’t one correct language that created the world. That’s another way of saying it.

There is one, but it’s not an alphabet. There are certain correct concepts and wrong concepts. It’s not that you can say whatever you want or you can say everything however you want. There isn’t a specific alphabet that created the world, of course. Alphabet in the sense of the material alphabet, of course. Nobody really thinks that. Everyone thinks that it’s just confused.

The Story of the Rebbe Reb Bunim and the Mekubal

Instructor: I told you the Haile Ge’ech [the Gaon] and the Rebbe Reb Bunim. The Rebbe Reb Bunim said that he found a Mekubal [kabbalist], and the Mekubal told him that there’s a lot of secrets in the… There’s a big [daled in “echad” and ayin in “shema”]. So the Rebbe Reb Bunim told them, that’s very cute, but I have a question for you. So could you explain to me in Polish this thought that you just told me? And if not, obviously they don’t understand what you’re talking about, because it doesn’t stand with *b’chol lashon* [in any language—referring to the halacha that Krias Shema can be recited in any language].

Now, of course, it’s not necessarily true that that person had to be able to explain in Polish, because you have to know Polish very well and the Polish philosophical concepts and the way in which to translate—it’s very hard to translate accurately from one language to another. It’s not a simple thing to do, right?

Student: Yeah, that’s just for the… That’s not real. I know people say that much advanced enough people say that that’s this time you don’t need that, that it’s nonsense. That’s just over. That’s way over. That’s way over, that’s way over, over OCD. It’s not… He doesn’t end up there.

Instructor: Yeah, but the *kasha* [question/difficulty] doesn’t begin. It’s not real. The *kasha* doesn’t begin. You’re saying just access and language is not enough.

Student: Yeah, there were people in the Shevet Efraim [tribe of Ephraim] that didn’t know how to say the *shin* [the Hebrew letter shin].

Instructor: Well, therefore what? It doesn’t mean that they were not… I mean, the Mishnah says that there’s a problem, whatever, because they want to say it correctly, but you’re *yotzei* [fulfilled the obligation]. If you don’t say it correctly, it’s a *bedieved* [after the fact, acceptable though not ideal], not at all wrong. *Kara v’lo dikdek b’osiyoseha yatza* [if one read but was not precise in the letters, he fulfilled his obligation]—that’s what it means.

Languages and Their Limitations

The Possibility That Hebrew Is Not Ideal

Instructor: So this is very important, that you could, in principle, say everything in every language. And there’s problems with some languages and with some people. Some languages are just not very good.

Of course, it’s possible that Hebrew is not a very good language. I want to say this because it has to be a possibility. It’s possible. We know that we would have a very hard time expressing ourselves in Biblical Hebrew, or probably would be impossible. You know how we know this? No book since the Bible was written in Biblical Hebrew. And not because nobody knew it—they read the Torah every week. That’s because you can’t really say what you want to say in it, right?

Even the Mishnah wasn’t written in Biblical Hebrew, right? It was written in Mishnaic Hebrew, which is maybe a version of Biblical Hebrew, or maybe a later stage of it, or whatever you want to say, but it was able to express itself only in that, and it has a bunch of Greek loan words and so on. Of course, the Bible also has loan words from other languages.

Mishnaic Hebrew as a Viable Alternative

Instructor: And later, people can’t even write… Actually, I do think… It’s very interesting. I actually think, for example, that you could express most things in Mishnaic Hebrew still to this day. Most people don’t actually write in the language of the Mishnah, but it’s not very hard to express yourself in that language if you know how it works.

Now, people have done that, right? So Agnon does that, more or less. And he’s pretty good at getting across whatever he’s trying to get across. So it is possible. It’s also possible to do it in later versions of Hebrew, but those are just stylistic things.

But nobody can do it in the biblical language. Or at least you could do it, but nobody would understand what you’re saying. You would not be very successful at expressing yourself. You could probably do it in the way that the Torah is translated into English or into Greek or into any other language you know.

The Paradox of Understanding Torah

Instructor: English is a very good language because it has a lot of words. You can’t do it in Hebrew in the language of the *Lashon Kodesh* [Holy Language] and the *Kodesh* of the *Chumash* [the holiness of the Five Books of Moses]. And therefore, we have to translate the Torah into a different language in order to understand it. Because like we said, there’s a problem with the original language also. You could say, we’re *yotzei*, but we’re not trying to just be able to understand it.

Chapter 7: The “Pro-Greek” Chanukah Message

Why Greek Is More Accessible Than Biblical Hebrew

Instructor: So, therefore, this is a counter-Chanukah drasha, counter-anti-Yevanish drasha [counter to anti-Greek sermon]. This is a pro-Yevanish drasha. This is saying that if we translate it into Yevanish [Greek]… Of course, Ancient Greek is not very accessible to us either. It’s a little bit more accessible to us than Ancient Hebrew. You know why, right? You don’t know why?

Because we speak a language that’s somewhat descended from it—not entirely, but somewhat, or at least has a lot of… A lot of what?

Student: We stopped using the language.

Instructor: Which language?

Student: Hebrew.

Instructor: Well, we don’t… We know Hebrew. We know a lot about Hebrew. But English has very little to do with Hebrew. It has more to do with Greek—not a lot to do with Greek either, but a little to do with Greek. It belongs to the same family in very wide senses and so on.

The Authorized Greek Translation

Instructor: So, it’s better. And we also have a translation, an authorized translation by Rabban Shimon Gamliel of all the 70 sages of the Torah into Greek, which means that also we could use every concept they translated into Greek to identify the Greek concepts.

And the Greeks were much better at explaining their concepts to us than the Torah was, that’s for sure. And, of course, people have this funny idea that the Greek philosophers just make up concepts, but they don’t. They’re just explaining concepts that exist in their language and making it better and clearer.

But the people that we have that are doing the Torah are pretty bad at explaining the basic concepts of the Torah, and the Greeks are doing a much better job at explaining their concepts. And since Rabban Shimon Gamliel said that this is the best language, and it’s the best language to express the Torah in, so the best way to understand the Torah is to do what the Holy Rambam [Maimonides] did and read the Greek text—of course translated into Arabic, complicated—and read the Torah through their eyes, because they’re saying… Rabban Shimon Gamliel said that they should do this, not that Rambam… And I’m pretty sure… I’m pretty sure… Why? No, those are just… No, thanks.

Chapter 8: The Chachamim Thought in Greek

Evidence from the Sages’ Practice

Instructor: Therefore, and not only that, I also think another thing. Since the *Chachamim* [Sages] thought this, or at least some of them thought this, it’s probable that a lot of what they’re doing is translating into Greek.

And you’ll notice that the people that we call *Chachamim*—which are really only one part of the ones that lived in Hellenic period and later in other periods and so on—people living in Rome and Hellenic Palestine and these people are thinking in Greek, many of them, at least the ones that are sophisticated. That doesn’t mean that they read Greek philosophy. It doesn’t make a difference. Like there’s a whole argument about that. But it does mean that they’re thinking in Greek often.

The Evidence: They Express Complex Ideas in Greek

Instructor: And you know how I know that, right? Because whenever they want to express themselves something that’s complicated, they just say it in Greek. Very often. Right?

Even when they count, they count in Greek. They just say alpha, beta, gamma, and they don’t say alef, beis, gimmel.

The Example from the Beis Hamikdash

Instructor: Even in the *Beis Hamikdash* [Holy Temple], in the Holy *Beis Hamikdash*, there were three *krenos* [Greek: containers] of *Trumas Hashkolim* [the half-shekel Temple tax], and there was… and they were labeled alpha, beta, gamma.

And there’s like a *shaila* [question]… The *Binyan Yehoshua* [a commentary] says, why did they write alpha, beta, gamma? Alpha, beta, gamma is just alef, beis, gimmel. Like, seriously, it’s literally the same letters, or descended from the same letters. Why can’t they write alef, beis, gimmel? Because alef, beis, gimmel is so holy, they don’t want to use it just for counting.

But this is a nice piece of information. The truth is that they just counted in Greek. It’s like we count in English. None of you… One of the signs of what your native language is thinking is how you count in it, right? Because counting is like something we do very automatically.

So, the people in the *Beis Hamikdash* just counted in Greek, and many other things that they explained in Greek. And even when they explain things in Hebrew, which they used, they borrowed… They either… How do you call it? They conjugate Biblical terms into new kinds of words, concepts. They’re probably thinking in Greek ways.

The Final Clarification: Concepts Transcend Language

Instructor: The Greek way is… Nothing in Greek way. There’s no such thing as Greek ways. It just means that this language is very expressive and the kind of words that it gives you is expressive, and it allows you to explain the Torah better.

Doesn’t mean that it’s Greek. It’s not *chas v’shalom* [God forbid] that they’re taking Greek concepts, right? Because the concepts that we said, the Torah *b’chol lashon* [in every language]—the concepts are beyond language. You can’t think them without any language because we’re humans, we’re not angels or whatever, abstract intellects that think without language. But…

The Greek-Jewish Intellectual Tradition: Translation, Shared Wisdom, and the Tibbons’ Project

Greek Language as an Expressive Tool, Not Greek Philosophy

Instructor: We just said Greek ways doesn’t mean Greek ways. There’s no such thing as Greek ways. It just means that this language is very expressive and the kind of words that it gives you is expressive and it allows you to explain the Torah better. Doesn’t mean that it’s Greek. It’s not *chazashon* [their language/their way] that they’re taking Greek concepts. Right? Because the concepts that we said, the Torah of *Chazal* [the Sages], the concepts are beyond language.

You can’t think them without any language because we’re humans, we’re not angels or whatever. Abstract intellect, I think, without language. But what we’re thinking is not the language, what we’re thinking is the thoughts. But we do need good tools to do that for which languages are good, and for which the Greek language is one of the best.

The Value of Comparative Study

And therefore, it seems to me that reading Greek language, and specifically the language, and comparing it to how the *chachamim* [sages] thought, to how the *chachamim* of all generations, and how the Torah itself—but the Torah itself was not in that context, so it’s not going to help us much—is extremely helpful to understand both sides of the story which are really the same. They’re just trying to explain the same things.

And like I said, the Greek sages were just very much better at explaining themselves. They’re not infinitely better, just to be clear. There’s some things in which they’re worse probably. But for us, mainly because we have the tradition—we don’t really have a Jewish tradition or we don’t have it as clearly written down or transmitted as we have the Greek wisdom tradition, which is, of course, not so different from the parts of it are just the same.

The Myth of Shared Origins

I don’t think the first Greeks—there’s some myths, of course, how they literally studied from the Eastern Sages, which basically means the same people that we studied with or from or are. It’s not—of course, there’s big expanded versions of this myth, but it’s not crazy and it’s not wrong in the most Protestant where there’s like one part of the same tradition. They think you could, if you start reading it, you see that they think in the same way.

Of course, people in China and all over think in similar ways, just because human beings think in certain ways. Maybe there’s still kind of subtle differences, but these are the ones that are closer to us, probably.

The Translation Tradition: The Tibbons

And therefore, it’s very important, and you’ll read, and I have a whole sheet to talk about this, the people that—now we have a tradition of translators, like the Tibbons were the greatest translators, were the most famous, at least, translators of Arabic into Hebrew.

And a lot of what they’re doing when they’re good, and I have to show you in the fourth chapter of *Shemoneh Perakim* [Eight Chapters] that we’re studying now, Rav Shmuel ibn Tibbon explicitly writes this. I read a little later, further today, and he explicitly says this. It’s not—I mean, it’s also more or less explicitly in other places. But he explicitly has as this project to not only to give you the correct words, like to show you should understand what the Rambam [Maimonides] is meaning when he’s translating from Arabic, Arabic, which is translated from Greek, which is so on.

But he also tries to give you, put it back into the context of the language of the Mishnah, of the *chachamim* who lived in *Al-Anik* [possibly: Eretz Yisrael/the Land of Israel], Israel. And he does, sometimes he’s probably successful at it, sometimes he might have guessed wrong, because we don’t have a very good understanding of how their words work. But *pinti* [possibly: in any case] sometimes does guess correctly. And like we talked about *zehirus* [carefulness/vigilance] and so on, they sometimes do thing to say things that are correct.

Identical Aphorisms Across Traditions

And there’s sometimes even literally the same aphorisms or aphorisms from Greek sages and from Jewish sages, and there’s no reason to think that these are not literally the same thing. Whether they said it because they stole it from one another or they said it because they thought the same thing doesn’t make a big difference.

Remember it says in the Mishnah, *hayom katzar v’hamelacha merubah* [the day is short and the work is great]. You know who said that? Hippocrates. Very famous statement. Literally word for word. Life is long and art is short—life is short and art is long, it can’t be more word for word than that, and things like that.

Clarifying “Art” – The Concept of *Techne*

Student: What’s the Greek word for art?

Instructor: I forgot, it’s the same word, it’s not *melocha* [work/craft], *melocha* isn’t here. What does it tell us? He’s talking about art in the sense of *techne* [τέχνη: craft/skill], by the way, *techne* is the word, and he’s thinking of the like medical art because he was a doctor. So I’m not knowing how to be a doctor, that’s what he’s thinking of. But you see what just happened—it doesn’t matter, it’s the same.

Student: Narrower than—

Instructor: No, no, no, the translation of the word is art. That’s what means. What your art is whatever that depends on what your—what your job is or what you think your—

Student: Doesn’t *fach* or artisan—

Instructor: Yes, yes, no, no, I’m not art English. Do you want to say art? I mean the way the Greeks mean it. Not the way the English people mean it. Art not as in fine arts. That’s what I meant to say.

Student: What do the Greeks call it?

Instructor: Yes, yes, yes. That’s what I meant. That’s an example. There are thousands of such examples. I myself noted some examples of this. Because I think we just translated Plato.

The Question of “Stealing” Ideas

Student: What do you mean by stealing? How do you steal it? Steal what?

Instructor: No, it’s not stealing. You can’t steal it. You’re saying it.

Student: Yeah, it’s nothing. I’m just saying.

Instructor: There’s no reason to think otherwise. And showing that’s and we could see details of this and differentiate *shiurim* [classes/lessons].