Why Deduce Recitation in Any Language?
As background, I have an article (to be posted Thursday) discussing variants in the Mishnah on Sotah 32a, reflective of whether “in any language” means literally any language or only languages she understands. Similarly, on 32b, I wrote a Substack post about the gemara’s analysis of that idea, with variants of the verse in question, and whether it was בְּכׇל לָשׁוֹן שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר or בְּכׇל לָשׁוֹן שֶׁהִיא שׁוֹמַעַת.
On another topic, I am confused at what the gemara is trying to accomplish here, when it asks:
פָּרָשַׁת סוֹטָה מְנָלַן? — דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאָמַר הַכֹּהֵן לָאִשָּׁה״ — בְּכׇל לָשׁוֹן שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר.
GEMARA: From where do we derive that the portion of the warning and the oath administered by the priest to a sota can be recited in any language? As it is written: “And the priest shall say to the woman” (Numbers 5:21), which indicates: In any language that he speaks.
and similarly for other laws, asking about the derivation that it may be recited in any language.
After all, the Mishnah required explicit derashot to establish that certain texts, such as mikra bikkurim, had to be recited in Hebrew. That means that absent such a derasha, it should be allowed to be recited in any language he / she speaks. And the same for viduy maaser.
If so, why does the Talmudic Narrator — I tag him, because there is no name associated and it is in Aramaic — require a derasha. (Note though that we could ask the same question to Rabbi Yoshiya, or the Sifrei. Though they don’t have to operate in the same space as the Mishnah.)
I often like to attribute such difficulties in methodology to the Talmudic Narrator, and this is what I am doing here. The big problem with that is fourth-generation Abaye and fifth-generation Rav Zevid, in Pumbedita academy. They seem to address this setama. (Vilna, Venice, Bologna have Zevid. Munich, Vatican, Rostock have R’ Zeira.)
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב זְבִיד לְאַבָּיֵי, וְלֵילַף אֲמִירָה מִלְּוִיִּם: מָה לְהַלָּן בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקּוֹדֶשׁ — אַף כָּאן בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקּוֹדֶשׁ!
Rav Zevid said to Abaye: But let us derive a verbal analogy from the saying mentioned in the verse: “And the Levites shall speak and say” (Deuteronomy 27:14). Just as there, the Levites recited the blessings and curses in the sacred tongue, so too here, one must recite the declaration of tithes in the sacred tongue.
דָּנִין ״אֲמִירָה״ גְּרֵידְתָּא מֵ״אֲמִירָה״ גְּרֵידְתָּא, וְאֵין דָּנִין ״אֲמִירָה״ גְּרֵידְתָּא, מֵ״עֲנִיָּיה״ וַ״אֲמִירָה״.
Abaye answered: One derives a verbal analogy from the term saying in a verse where the word “say” appears alone and another instance where the word saying appears alone. And one does not derive a verbal analogy from the word saying when it appears alone, as it does in the verse about the declaration of tithes, and in a verse that mentions speaking and saying, such as the verse concerning the Levites.
That should establish the anonymous derasha to at least the fourth-generation stratum of the gemara!
Perhaps we could pluck out the exchange and give it an isolated meaning. Namely, in the Mishnah, every text had some version of ve’anita ve`amarta in its gezeira shava. So Rav Zevid could be asking why we wouldn’t apply the same gezeira shava, based on the parallel word amar. And locally, he could even be posing this question about Sotah, not about viduy maaser! To this, Abaye responds that it is a strange gezeira shava that requires the presence of both aspects of the overall phrase.
To bolster my question, see what appears on Sotah 33a:
לֵימָא קָסָבְרִי רַבָּנַן כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ בִּלְשׁוֹן קוֹדֶשׁ נֶאֶמְרָה, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ בְּכׇל לָשׁוֹן — ״שְׁמַע״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי?
The Gemara asks: Shall we say that the Rabbis hold that the entire Torah may be recited only in the sacred tongue and not in any other language? As, if it should enter your mind to say that the Torah may be recited in any language, why do I need that which the Merciful One writes: “Hear”? It is permitted for one to recite the entire Torah in any language, rendering a specific requirement with regard to Shema superfluous.
Rashi takes this as all readings of the Torah, and Tosafot takes it as generally about any Torah law. This is my very point. There has to be a default assumption about the way the law operates, such that a derasha moves it away from that.
While I am posting about Sotah 32b, I’ll make another point, about how everyone (including Artscroll and Koren) miss the way that a particular verse is being interpreted.
לָא תֵּימָא גְּנוּתוֹ, אֶלָּא אֵימָא צַעֲרוֹ. כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״וְטָמֵא טָמֵא יִקְרָא״ — צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעַ צַעֲרוֹ לָרַבִּים, וְרַבִּים מְבַקְּשִׁים עָלָיו רַחֲמִים. וְכׇל מִי שֶׁאֵירַע בּוֹ דָּבָר צָרִיךְ לְהוֹדִיעַ לָרַבִּים, וְרַבִּים מְבַקְּשִׁים עָלָיו רַחֲמִים.
The Gemara corrects the previous statement: Do not say that one should say that which is to his discredit in a loud voice; rather, say that one should publicize his pain in a loud voice. As it is taught in a baraita: It is derived from the verse: “And will cry: Impure, impure” (Leviticus 13:45), that a leper must publicize the fact that he is ritually impure. He must announce his pain to the masses, and the masses will pray for mercy on his behalf. And similarly, anyone to whom a painful matter happens must announce it to the masses, and the masses will pray for mercy on his behalf.
No. I find it off-putting to have a derasha, a brayta, which simply points to a pasuk, reads it in its straightforward manner, and makes a homiletic point about the way one should conduct himself.
The typical style is a clever and discovered reading, which reframes how you would parse the pasuk. Simply citing the pasuk does not do this.
So too, why belabor the point, that he announces his pain, and so too anyone who has something negative occur to him should announce to the masses, so that they will pray for him.
Also, derashot frequently make use of doubled language. You are telling me that this one doesn’t?!
Also, what is the basis for assuming that this announcement is to provoke people to pray for him, as opposed to e.g. avoiding him?
Rather, I believe that this translation, “And will cry: Impure, impure!” is incorrect. The word tamei can mean impure, and it can mean a person who is impure. The correct translation is: “And the impure shall call out: Impure!”
And just as the impure must call out “impure” for some reason (so others can aid him), so must anyone with any issue call out their own issue.
Besides saying it myself, I can appeal to Rabbi Abbahu in Moed Katan 5a. He does not take the verse in the same manner. But see what he says and how he parses the first and the second tamei:
רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״וְטָמֵא טָמֵא יִקְרָא״ — טוּמְאָה קוֹרְאָה לוֹ וְאוֹמֶרֶת לוֹ ״פְּרוֹשׁ״. וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי עוּזִּיאֵל בַּר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי עוּזִּיאֵל רַבָּה: טוּמְאָה קוֹרְאָהּ לוֹ וְאוֹמֶרֶת לוֹ ״פְּרוֹשׁ״.
Rabbi Abbahu said: An allusion to the marking of graves may be derived from here: “And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall go loose, and he shall cover his upper lip, and shall cry: Impure, impure” (Leviticus 13:45). This verse teaches that impurity cries out to the passerby and tells him: Remove yourself. The leper must inform others of his status so that they know not to come into contact with him and thereby maintain their ritual purity. So too, in our case, graves must be marked so that others will know to avoid them and prevent contracting ritual impurity. And similarly, Rabbi Uzziel, grandson of Rabbi Uzziel the Great, said: Impurity cries out to the passerby and tells him: Remove yourself.