Daf Ditty Megillah 9: Ekphrasis 1

Ptolemy II Discussing the Translation of the Old Testament

with the Hebrew Scholars, Spadarino 1620s2

1
See also Daf Ditty Succah 51,
2
Spadarino is considered to be among Caravaggio's closest followers. The present painting was executed by combining dramatic
chiaroscuro with a muted colour palette.
Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.) was the second ruler of the Ptolemaic Dynasty in Alexandria. An enlightened ruler, he
demanded a translation of the first five books of the Old Testament, or Septuagint, for the Alexandrian Jews who more commonly
spoke Koine Greek than Hebrew.

1
The Gemara continues: And this was due to the incident of King Ptolemy, as it is taught in a
baraita: There was an incident involving King Ptolemy of Egypt, who assembled seventy-two
Elders from the Sages of Israel, and put them into seventy-two separate rooms, and did not
reveal to them for what purpose he assembled them, so that they would not coordinate their
responses. He entered and approached each and every one and said to each of them: Write
for me a translation of the Torah of Moses your teacher. The Holy One, Blessed be He, placed
wisdom in the heart of each and every one, and they all agreed to one common understanding.
Not only did they all translate the text correctly, but they also all introduced the same changes into
the translated text.

And they wrote for him: God created in the beginning [bereshit], reversing the order of the
words in the first phrase in the Torah that could be misinterpreted as:

.‫ ְוֵאת ָהָאֶרץ‬,‫ ֵאת ַהָשַּׁמ ִים‬,‫ִהים‬L‫ ָבָּרא ֱא‬,‫א ְבֵּראִשׁית‬ 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and
the earth.

2
 Gen 1:1

“Bereshit created God” They did so to negate those who believe in the preexistence of the world
and those who maintain that there are two powers in the world: One is Bereshit, who created the
second, God. And they wrote:

‫ ַנֲﬠֶשׂה ָאָדם‬,‫ִהים‬L‫כו ַויּ ֹאֶמר ֱא‬ 26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our
‫ְבַּצְלֵמנוּ ִכְּדמוֵּתנוּ; ְו ִי ְרדּוּ ִבְדַגת ַהָיּם‬ likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
,‫ָהָאֶרץ‬-‫ וַּבְבֵּהָמה וְּבָכל‬,‫וְּבעוֹף ַהָשַּׁמ ִים‬ and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all
.‫ָהָאֶרץ‬-‫ ָהֹרֵמשׂ ַﬠל‬,‫ָהֶרֶמשׂ‬-‫וְּבָכל‬ the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth.'
Gen 1:26

I shall make man in image and in likeness, rather than: “Let us make man in our image and in
our likeness” as from there too one could mistakenly conclude that there are multiple powers, and
that God has human form.

Instead of:

‫ ְמַלאְכתּוֹ‬,‫ִהים ַבּיּוֹם ַהְשִּׁביִﬠי‬L‫ב ַו ְיַכל ֱא‬ 2 And on the seventh day God finished His work which He
-‫ ִמָכּל‬,‫ֲאֶשׁר ָﬠָשׂה; ַו ִיְּשֹׁבּת ַבּיּוֹם ַהְשִּׁביִﬠי‬ had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His
.‫ְמַלאְכתּוֹ ֲאֶשׁר ָﬠָשׂה‬ work which He had made.
Gen 2:2

“And on the seventh day God concluded His work” which could have been understood as though
some of His work was completed on Shabbat itself, they wrote: And on the sixth day He concluded
His work, and He rested on the seventh day. They also wrote:

,‫ ֹאָתם‬u‫ ְבָּרָאם; ַו ְיָבֶר‬,‫ב ָזָכר וּ ְנֵקָבה‬ 2 male and female created He them, and blessed them, and
.‫ ִהָבּ ְרָאם‬,‫ ְבּיוֹם‬,‫ְשָׁמם ָאָדם‬-‫ַו ִיְּקָרא ֶאת‬ called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Gen 5:2

Male and female He created him, and they did not write as it is written in the Torah: “Male
and female He created them” to avoid the impression that there is a contradiction between this
verse and the verse:

3
 ‫ ְבֶּצֶלם‬,‫ָהָאָדם ְבַּצְלמוֹ‬-‫ִהים ֶאת‬L‫כז ַו ִיְּבָרא ֱא‬ 27 And God created man in His own image, in the image
.‫ ָבָּרא ֹאָתם‬,‫ ָזָכר וּ ְנֵקָבה‬:‫ִהים ָבָּרא ֹאתוֹ‬L‫ֱא‬ of God created He him; male and female created He
them.
Gen 1:27

“And God created man” which indicates that God created one person.

The mishna cites that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even with regard to Torah scrolls,
the Sages permitted them to be written only in Greek. Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi
Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?
He based his opinion on an allusion in the Torah, as the verse states:

-‫ ְו ִיְשֹׁכּן ְבָּאֳהֵלי‬,‫כז ַיְפְתּ ֱא^ִהים ְלֶיֶפת‬ 27 God enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of
.‫ ֶﬠֶבד ָלמוֹ‬,‫ֵשׁם; ִויִהי ְכַנַﬠן‬ Shem; and let Canaan be their servant.
Gen 9:27

“God shall enlarge Japheth, and He shall dwell in the tents of Shem” indicating that the words
of Japheth shall be in the tents of Shem. The language of Javan, who is the forbear of the Greek
nation and one of the descendants of Japheth, will also serve as a sacred language in the tents of
Shem, where Torah is studied.

4
Summary

Translating the Torah

Continuing with yesterday’s conversation, our rabbis speak about the languages of Torah, mezuzot
and tefilin.3 They discuss the beauty of the Greek language and the differences between Hebrew
of the times and Ashurit, what we know as modern Hebrew script. Originally, the rabbis agree
that Torah can be written in Greek4 but that mezuzot and tefilin must be written in
Ashurit. However, the rabbis agreed that all are best written in Ashurit.

A story is told of King Ptolemy II, who ruled Egypt approximately 300 years BCE. He wished to
have the Torah translated to Greek. To ensure that the translation was done properly, he asked 72
elders to sit in separate rooms to complete their translations. It is said that each of the 72 rabbis
translated using the same words and phrases – including numerous changes. For example, they
wrote “G-d created in the beginning” instead of “In the beginning, G-d created…”, or ‘Bereshit
bara Elohim…’ They did this so that Ptolemy could not misinterpret Genesis 1:1 as, “The
beginning created G-d”. Each example suggests another way that the 72 elders knew that they
should change the words of the Torah to reflect G-d’s supremacy and oneness. They also ensured
that they did not insult Ptolmy with their translation and that the Jewish people were shown in a
positive light.

Today’s daf includes two more Mishnayot with Gemara and the beginning of one additional
Mishna. The first discusses the difference between the High Priest and his second. We learn that
the difference is the bull offering and wearing eight versus four priestly garments. The second
looks at great public altars used by communities and small altars used by individuals. Public altars
are used for mandatory vows, while individual altars can be used for all voluntary offerings. Rabbi
Shimon suggests that offerings that are compulsory and without a set time must be offered at the
Temple.

It is fascinating to see that the Talmud includes a story about elders changing the words of
Torah. If the words of Torah are the words of G-d, do we ever have the right to change those
words? Are we allowed to change G-d’s words for the sake of others’ understanding or
compassion? Or to best represent our understanding of G-d? Certainly I “translate” Torah when
I explain the meanings of phrases and ideas. Of course, I do not do this in the same way at the
same time as 71 other people. But perhaps there is some room here to stretch our understandings
of how to translate Torah.

3
http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/07/
4
a specific miracle involved translation of the Torah that allowed the Torah to be written in Greek.

5
Rav Avrohom Adler writes:5

The Mishna states: There is no difference between the Books of Scripture and tefillin and mezuzos,
except that the Books of Scripture may be written in any language, and tefillin and mezuzos are
written only in Ashurit (the Hebrew script that is used in our Torah scrolls). Rabban Shimon ben
Gamliel says: The Books of Scripture may be written only in Greek (not any foreign language).
The Gemora infers from the Mishna that with regard to sewing them with sinews and rendering
the hands tamei, they are both identical.

The Mishna had stated that the Books of Scripture can be written in any language. The Gemora
asks from a braisa which states: If one wrote a Hebrew text in Aramaic or an Aramaic text (certain
words in the Torah that are Aramaic) in Hebrew (from any Scripture Book) or he used the Ivri
script (instead of Ashuris), the scroll is not sacred and does not render the hands tamei. The scrolls
must be written with the Ashuris script on parchment and with ink.

It is evident from this braisa that a Book of Scripture must be written in Ashuris. Rava answers:
Our Mishna is referring to a case where the Scriptures were written in a different language, but it
was transliterated in the Ashuris script; that is why the Book is sacred. The braisa is referring to a
case where the Scriptures were written using the Ivri script; this is why the Book is not sacred.
Abaye questions Rava’s answer: If the reason the braisa states that the Scripture scrolls are not
sacred is because they were not written in Ashuris script, why does the braisa mention cases of
writing Hebrew texts in Aramaic or vice versa? Even a Hebrew text written in Hebrew, or an
Aramaic text written in Aramaic will not be sacred if it is not written with the Ashuris script!?

The Gemora answers that the braisa is following the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel of
the Mishna, who maintains that the Scriptures can be sacred even if they are not written in Ashuris.
The Gemora asks: The braisa states that the scrolls must be written with the Ashuris script on
parchment and with ink. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it will be sacred even if it is
written in Greek!?

The Gemora offers another answer. The braisa is referring to tefillin and mezuzos, which everyone
agrees, must be written in Hebrew and with the Ashuris script. This is learned from the verse
[Devarim 6:6]: and they shall be, which means that they should stay as they are; their language
and script should not be changed. The Gemora questions this: The braisa states a case where
Aramaic text was written in Hebrew; this is understandable if it is referring to the Torah, where
there are Aramaic words (yegar sahadusa Breishis 8:48), but there are no Aramaic words
mentioned in tefillin and mezuzos!? The Gemora answers: The braisa is referring specifically to a
Megillah and that must be written in Hebrew and with Ashuris script.

Rav Ashi answers that the braisa is referring to the other Books of Scripture (the Prophets and the
Writings, not the Torah), and it is following the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah who explains the
viewpoint of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabbi Yehudah said: Although Rabban Shimon ben
Gamliel permitted using Greek, this is only in regard to the Torah, but not for the other books of
Scripture; they must be written in Hebrew and in Ashuris. The Gemora explains: Rabban Shimon

5
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Megillah_9.pdf

6
ben Gamliel permitted a Torah scroll to be written in Greek based on the incident that occurred
with King Talmai, an Egyptian king. Talmai gathered the seventy-two Elders of Israel and placed
them in seventy-two chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they
were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: “Write for me a Greek translation of the
Torah.” Hashem put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did.

The Gemora proceeds to illustrate the changes that these Elders made in the Torah in order not to
anger Talmai or to prevent a denigration of the Torah, Heaven forbid.

God created in the beginning (instead of ‘In the beginning God created’; the purpose of this change
was to prevent the idea that another diety, referred to as ‘In the beginning’ created ‘God’).
I shall make man in image and likeness (instead of ‘Let us make,’ for then it would appear as if
there were two deities).
And he finished on the sixth day, and He rested on the seventh day (instead of ‘and he finished on
the seventh day’, which might be taken to imply that some work was done on the seventh day).
Male and female he created him, but they did not write ‘created them’ (which could be taken to
mean that they were separate from the first).
Come, let Me descend and I will confound their tongues.
And Sarah laughed among her relatives (instead of ‘in herself,’ in order to make a distinction
between Sarah and Avraham, who also laughed inwardly; this way, it indicated that Sarah laughed
in public and that is why God rebuked her and not Avraham).
For in their anger, they killed an ox, and at their whim they uprooted the manger (to save our
ancestors from being called murderers).
And Moshe took his wife and his children and made them ride on a carrier of men (instead of a
donkey; so, they wouldn’t mock Moshe for not having a horse or a camel at his disposal).
And the abode of the children of Israel which they stayed in Egypt and in other lands, was four
hundred years.6
And he sent the elect of the children of Israel. And against the elect of the children of Israel he did
not put forth his hand. I have not taken one valuable of theirs (instead of a donkey, so it shouldn’t
be said that Moshe took other things).
Which Hashem, your God distributed to give light to all the peoples (so that it shouldn’t be said
that the other nations are permitted to worship idols).
And he went and served other gods which I commanded should not be served. They also wrote for
him ‘the beast with small legs’ and they did not write ‘the hare,’ because the name of Ptolemy's
wife was hare, lest he should say, “The Jews have mocked me and put the name of my wife in the
Torah.”

The Mishna had stated: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The Books of Scripture may be written
only in Greek (not any foreign language). Rabbi Avahu says in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that
the halacha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabbi Yochanan offers a reason
explaining Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s viewpoint. It is written [Breishis 9:27]: May Hashem
extend Yefes, and He will dwell in the tents of Shem. We can interpret these words as follows:
The language of Yefes (Greek) will be in the tents of Shem (the Torah).

6
The words ‘and in other lands’ are inserted because, according to the Biblical record, the Israelites were at the utmost 210 years
in Egypt.

7
The Mishna states: There is no difference between a Kohen Gadol who is anointed with the oil of
anointing (shemen hamishchah) and the Kohen Gadol whose dignity was marked with a larger
number of garments (ribuy begadim, when the oil was lacking), except the bull which comes for
all the mitzvos (a Kohen Gadol that was anointed will bring a bull chatas if he issued an erroneous
ruling, however, a kohen gadol appointed through the extra garments will bring a regular chatas).

The Mishna continues: There is no difference between a serving Kohen Gadol and one who has
retired except for the bull of Yom Kippur and the tenth of the efah (which is offered every day).
The Gemora states that the first part of our Mishna does not subscribe to Rabbi Meir’s viewpoint
for he states in a braisa that a kohen gadol appointed through the extra garments will bring the bull
which comes for all the mitzvos.

The Gemora infers from the end of the Mishna that a serving Kohen Gadol and a retired Kohen
Gadol are identical, and both would be permitted to perform the service in the Beis Hamikdosh
while wearing the eight garments (reserved for the Kohen Gadol). This would be in accordance
with the viewpoint of Rabbi Meir cited in the following braisa. The braisa states: Rabbi Meir
maintains that if the Kohen Gadol became temporarily disqualified and another Kohen Gadol was
appointed to replace him, when the first Kohen Gadol becomes fit again, he returns to his service,
but the second Kohen Gadol still has all the mitzvos of a Kohen Gadol upon him i.e. he cannot let
his hair grow very long, he cannot tear his garments in mourning, he cannot become tamei to
deceased relatives, he cannot marry a widow, and when he performs the service in the Beis
Hamikdosh, he must wear the eight vestments of a Kohen Gadol.

Rabbi Yosi, however, maintains that the first Kohen Gadol returns to his service when he becomes
fit again, but the substitute Kohen Gadol can no longer serve in the Beis Hamikdosh as a Kohen
Gadol wearing eight vestments or as an ordinary Kohen wearing four vestments. He cannot serve
as a Kohen Gadol because this will cause hard feelings for the first Kohen Gadol, and he cannot
serve even as an ordinary Kohen because there is a rule that one can ascend in matters of sanctity,
but one cannot descend in matters of sanctity.

The Gemora asks: It emerges that the first part of the Mishna does not follow Rabbi Meir’s opinion
and the end part of the Mishna follows his view? Rav Chisda states that indeed, this is the
explanation of the Mishna. Rav Yosef says that the Mishna is actually the opinion of Rebbe; he
agrees with the Chachamim in the first part and with Rabbi Meir in the end part.

GREEK TRANSLATION

The Gemora relates that when the Greek king Ptolemy ordered the Sages to translate the Torah
into Greek, they made a number of changes, including changing the name of the hare mentioned
(14:7) as one of the four forbidden animals which possess one sign of kashrus but not the other.

Because Ptolemy’s wife was named “Arneves,” the word the Torah uses for the hare, the Sages
changed the wording so as not to offend him. Reb Oizer Alpert cites the Taam V’Daas in Parshas
Shemini who asks: How were they permitted to do so in light of the ruling of the Yam Shel Shlomo
(Bava Kamma 4:9) that one is required to give up his life rather than alter a single word or ruling
of the Torah to appease others? He answers that by the fact that Hashem put it in the heart of each

8
one to translate identically as all the others did, this is similar to a Divine spirit and therefore it
was permitted. Furthermore, they didn’t change the meaning of the words, only the language.
Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld of Har Nof, Jerusalem discusses our Gemora in an article.

GREEKS & DARKNESS

The world was chaos and void, with darkness over the face of the deep; and the spirit of Hashem
hovered over the water. (Bereishit 1:2)
"The world was chaos" -- this is an allusion to the Babylonian exile...
"And void" -- this refers to the Medean exile...
"With darkness" -- this is an allusion to the exile imposed by the Greeks, who darkened the eyes
of Israel with their decrees.

They would tell the Jews, "Write on the horns of an ox that you have no more to do with the G-
d of Israel!" (Bereishit Rabba 2:4) Why is specifically the Greek exile represented by the word
"darkness?" Didn't other nations also persecute the Jewish People through their anti-religious
decrees? What, then, is unique about the Greek exile that it is likened to darkness? Rav David
Cohen of Cong. G'vul Yaavetz in Flatbush, N.Y., suggests a novel explanation for this Midrash
based on the following selection from Massechet Sofrim:

Five elders translated the Torah into Greek for King Ptolemy (a successor to Alexander the Great).
The day this was accomplished was as unfortunate for Israel as the day that the Golden Calf was
worshipped, because it is impossible to present a truly adequate translation of the Torah in any
foreign language.

On another occasion, Ptolemy gathered together seventy-two elders and placed them in seventy-
two separate rooms, not informing any of them the purpose of their summons. He approached each
of them and said, "Write down the Torah of your teacher Moses for me." Hashem arranged that
the same thoughts occurred to all of them, and they made the same thirteen modifications in their
translations. [This translation is commonly known as Targum Shiv'im, or the Septuagint.] (Sofrim
1:7-8; Megillah 9a)

The Tur (Orach Chayim 580; see also Shulchan Aruch ad loc.) quoting the opinion of the Halachot
Gedolot, tells us that one should observe a fast day on the eighth day of Tevet because that is the
anniversary of the day that Ptolemy commissioned his translation of the Torah. On the day that the
translation commenced, adds the Tur, "A three-day long period of darkness descended upon the
world." This, Rav Cohen suggests, is the "darkness" of the Greek exile.

THE LIGHT OF THE ORAL TORAH

It remains to be explained why the translation of the Torah should cause a global darkness. What
was the great tragedy of translating the Torah into another language, and why should it cause the
world to become dark? The tragedy, Rav Cohen explains, is implicit in the words of Massechet
Sofrim -- "because the Torah could not be translated adequately." Although the written text of the
Torah can be translated with reasonable accuracy into another language, all the nuances of meaning

9
-- the double-entendres and the various implicit insinuations in the words of the Torah -- are lost
in the process. Gematrias, acrostics and other word-based analyses are impossible to carry over
from one language to another. The entire body of the Oral Torah which lies beneath the surface of
the written text was thus severed -- and deleted -- from the Torah. It is interesting to note that, as
Rav Cohen points out, the Sadducees (a sect that believed in the literal interpretation of the written
Torah and denied the existence of an oral tradition) were a powerful force in Israel only until the
Hasmonean uprising which culminated in the Chanukah miracle (Megillat Ta'anit, Ch. 5).

Once the Hasmoneans succeeded in uprooting Greek culture from the hearts of the Jewish people,
the Sadducees also submitted to the Halachic renderings of the Torah-true elders of the generation.
The Greek influence on Torah analysis that caused the Sadducees to give credibility to the written
word alone was done away with along with the Greek culture. The Oral Torah is compared in the
Midrash to a light that illuminates the darkness:

The Oral Torah is difficult to learn, and its mastery involves great hardship. It is therefore
compared to darkness in the verse "the people who walked in darkness saw a great light,"
(Yeshayahu 9:1). The "great light" is a reference to the great light that is seen by the Talmudic
sages [i.e. they understand matters with great clarity], for Hashem enlightens their eyes in matters
of ritual law and laws of purity. In the future it is said of them, "those who love Him will shine as
bright as the sun when it rises with its full intensity" (Shoftim 5:31) ....

Reward for the study of the Oral Torah is to be received in the Next World, as it says, "The people
who walk in darkness saw a great light." "Great light" is a reference to the primeval light which
was hidden away by Hashem during Creation as a reward for those who toil over the Oral Torah
day and night. (Midrash Tanchuma, Noach #3)

Those who "shed a great light" on the Oral Torah are allowed, in return, to benefit from the "great
light" of Creation. It is now clear why translating the Torah into Greek caused a darkness to
descend upon the world. The darkness was caused by the obstruction of the "great light" of the
Oral Torah that resulted from the translation of the Torah into a foreign language. It is this "great
light" that shines true once again in our Chanukah candles, in which we celebrate the Hasmonean
victory over Greek culture and its destructive effects! (Rav David Cohen in "Bircat Yaavetz," p.
147)

THE TRANSLATION OF THE TORAH INTO GREEK

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:7

The Gemara relates that Ptolemy secluded 72 Chachamim in separate rooms and ordered them to
translate the Torah into Greek. Miraculously, they all wrote the exact same translation, and even
the changes they made were identical. They altered the translation in several places in order not to
offend Ptolemy or to give him grounds to misinterpret certain verses in the Torah. One of the
changes they made was in the verse which records Yakov Avinu's reproof to his sons, Shimon and
Levi. In the original version, Yakov says, "In their wrath, they killed a man (Hargu Ish), and they

7
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/megilah/insites/mg-dt-009.htm

10
willfully uprooted an ox (Akru Shor)" (Bereishis 49:6). The Chachamim, however, translated the
verse to say, "In their wrath, they killed an ox (Hargu Shor), and they willfully uprooted
a trough (Akru Avos)."

Rashi (to Bereishis 49:6) explains that the words, "In their wrath they killed a man," refers to the
residents of the city of Shechem, whom Shimon and Levi killed for defiling Dinah, the daughter
of Yakov. "They willfully uprooted an ox" refers to Yosef, whom they uprooted from his place
and caused to descend to Mitzrayim.

Why did the Chachamim find it necessary to make these changes in the verse? Rashi here explains
that they feared that if they translated the words literally ("they killed a man"), Ptolemy would
accuse their forebears of being murderers, and thus the Chachamim wrote instead that "they killed
an ox." Rashi adds that the reason why they wrote "Hargu Shor" was because the people of
Shechem were immersed in idolatrous and immoral behavior and thus were considered to be like
animals in the eyes of Yakov.

There are a number of difficulties with Rashi's explanation.

(a) If the Chachamim feared that Ptolemy would accuse Shimon and Levi of being murderers
because "they killed a man," then what did they gain by altering the translation to "they killed an
ox"? The Torah clearly relates the story of how Shimon and Levi decimated the entire city of
Shechem when they rescued Dinah from the house of Shechem and Chamor (see Bereishis 34:25-
31). Why should changing the word "man" to "ox" in Yakov's rebuke prevent Ptolemy from
misjudging Shimon and Levi, if the Torah earlier explicitly records the killing which they
perpetrated? If, however, Ptolemy would not have been disturbed by the narrative about the
destruction of the people of Shechem because he understood that the people of Shechem had
committed an injustice and Shimon and Levi had acted in self-defense, then why did the
Chachamim change "Hargu Ish" to "Hargu Shor" in Yakov's rebuke?

(b) Why does Rashi need to add that the people of Shechem were considered like animals in
Yakov's eyes? Rashi already explained that the reason why the Chachamim changed the words
"Hargu Ish" to "Hargu Shor" was in order to avoid upsetting Ptolemy. Since they already had
grounds to alter the translation, why does Rashi need the logic that Yakov considered the people
of Shechem like animals? Moreover, since Yakov himself did not say "Shor," how does Rashi
know that Yakov viewed them like animals? It was the Chachamim who wrote "Shor," not Yakov!

(c) If the Chachamim's translation, "Hargu Shor," implies that Yakov Avinu viewed the people of
Shechem like animals, why did this translation itself not upset Ptolemy? Ptolemy -- upon reading
that the sons of Yakov "killed an ox" after the Torah earlier relates that they killed the people of
Shechem -- will assume that the Jews consider Nochrim to be no different from animals, and he
surely will be enraged. What did the Chachamim gain by writing that Shimon and Levi "killed an
ox" in place of "killed a man"?

(d) Rashi concludes that Yakov would not have been upset had his sons’ killed animals. According
to the Girsa of the BACH and EIN YAKOV, Rashi says that he was not upset except about the
animals. According to either version, Rashi's words are difficult to understand. To what animals

11
does Rashi refer? The Torah states clearly (Bereishis 34:28) that they took all of the livestock of
Shechem as plunder and did not kill any animals. How could the Chachamim translate the verse
so that it implies that Yakov was upset that they killed animals (or, according to the other Girsa in
Rashi, that Yakov was not upset that they killed animals)? The Torah itself says earlier that they
did not kill the animals of Shechem.

Even though Ptolemy may have read earlier in the Torah that Shimon and Levi killed the people
of Shechem, that account did not upset him. He understood that it was done in a time of war and
in self-defense. The Chachamim were concerned with how Ptolemy would react when he would
read the words, "Hargu Ish" -- "they killed a man," in the singular form. Ptolemy would wonder
why Yakov reprimanded them for killing all of the men of Shechem by saying that they killed "a
man." (Rashi on the Torah addresses this question and gives two answers.) Ptolemy would assume
that Yakov was reprimanding Shimon and Levi not for the destruction of Shechem but for the
murder of a single, innocent person on another occasion. The Chachamim translated the word "Ish"
as "Shor" so that Ptolemy would not say that in another incident -- which is not mentioned
explicitly in the Torah -- Shimon and Levi killed an innocent person. (YEFEH MAR'EH;
see PNEI YEHOSHUA.)

Rashi was bothered by a question which motivated him to add that the people of Shechem were
like animals in the eyes of Yakov. The Chachamim's concern for the reputation of Shimon and
Levi in the eyes of Ptolemy was not sufficient grounds to write an untruth in their translation of
the Torah. Why, then, did the Chachamim write that Shimon and Levi killed an ox when no record
exists of such an event? The ox which they killed cannot refer to the animals of the city of
Shechem, because they did not kill those animals but took them as plunder. (TOSFOS (DH v'El
Zatutei) also points out that the Chachamim were careful not to write an untruth.)

For this reason, Rashi explains that when the Chachamim wrote "Shor," they indeed meant
the people of Shechem and not the oxen, because all of the people of Shechem were like animals
in the eyes of Yakov. The Chachamim, therefore, were justified in writing "Hargu Shor" and that
translation does not constitute an untruth. (MAHARSHA)

Why, though, were the Chachamim not concerned with Ptolemy's reaction when he would read
that Yakov referred to Nochrim as oxen? The answer is that Ptolemy certainly would not know or
suspect that their logic in writing "Shor" was because the people of Shechem were like oxen in the
eyes of Yakov. They knew that Ptolemy would not understand the verse as an allegorical reference
to the residents of Shechem, because the verse mentions a single "Shor" and thus could not be
referring to the entire populace of a city that Shimon and Levi killed. Ptolemy would interpret the
verse as a reference to an incident in which Shimon and Levi became upset with each other and
fought over the ownership of a single ox and ended up killing it. (YEFEH MAR'EH)

The fourth question is also answered. When Rashi says that "he was indifferent about the animals,"
he prefers not to Yakov but to Ptolemy. Although Ptolemy would have become upset had the verse
said that Shimon and Levi killed a person, he would not become upset if it said that they killed an
animal.

12
Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:8

Our daf tells the story of the targum shiv’im, the Greek translation of the Torah organized by King
Ptolemy of Egypt, who collected 72 sages, put them in separate rooms and commanded them to
begin translating. According to the Gemara all of the Sages responded to a heavenly message and
translated the Torah in the same way, including passages that could have been misunderstood had
they been rendered in a literal fashion.

The targum shiv’im was the first translation of the Torah into a foreign language, an occurrence
that the Sages viewed at first as dangerous, at best (Megillat Ta’anit records that a fast day was
established in commemoration of the event). After a time, however, the translation was accepted
as important and valuable and was treated with respect by the Sages. The Jews of Egypt, in
particular, viewed the targum shiv’im with great reverence and saw its creation as one of holiness.

Aside from the record of the event that appears in Rabbinic literature, a lengthy description of the
translation and how it came to be has been found in an ancient Greek letter entitled “the letter of
Aristias,” which describes the king’s initiative to have the Torah translated and the greatness of
the Sages who were brought from Israel to carry it out.

The targum shiv’im that is extant today was preserved mainly by Christians who believed it to be
even more reliable than the original Hebrew. Over time, changes were introduced into the work,
well beyond the changes described in the story that is told in our Gemara. Today’s version includes
occasional passages that we do not have in the standard Hebrew Tanakh; there are even entire
books – apocrypha – that appear in the targum shiv’im that do not appear in the Tanakh. At the
same time, not all of the changes that are recorded in our Gemara are actually found in the version
that we have today.

There is no difference between mezuzah and other scrolls...

Mark Kerzner writes:9

There is no difference between mezuzah and tefillin on one hand and other scrolls on the other -
except that mezuzah and tefillin need to be written in Hebrew, while other scrolls (such as
prophets) can be written on parchment in any language.

In other places, however, there are different, seemingly contradicting rules. The Talmud distills
this as follows: tefillin and mezuzah need to be written in Hebrew, because in their text there is a
phrase "these words will be for you," - that is, they will be as they are in the Torah, without change.
Megillah, too, has an instruction, "according to their script and according to their language," that
is, it should not be changed.

8
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_megillah915/
9
http://talmudilluminated.com/megillah/megillah9.html

13
Other books can be written in other languages - but Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and
allows, among all foreign languages, only Greek. Why Greek? Because of the story of the king
Ptolemy, who sequestered seventy-two Sages in seventy-two houses, and commanded them to
translate the Torah into Greek. Without communication, they translated word for word, and made
occasional emendations in the same places. They changed the name of God from plural into
singular, such as instead of "let us make man," - "let Me make man." They also changed the
"rabbit" into "creature with short legs," because Ptolemy's wife was called "rabbit," and the Sages
did not want Ptolemy to think that the Jews were mocking him by inserting the name of his wife
among non-kosher animals.

Greek also had the distinction of being the most beautiful language. Now that it has become
corrupt, one cannot write the Torah in Greek.

Alieza Salzberg writes:10

In a mishnah at the bottom of yesterday’s daf, we learned that a Torah scroll can be written in any
language. But Rabban Gamliel disagrees and says it may only be translated into Greek, which may
come as quite a surprise just a month after Hanukkah, the holiday celebrating the Maccabean
revolt against Greek culture.

On today’s daf, the Gemara tries to explain Rabban Gamliel’s preference for Greek in several
ways. One of these attempts is a midrashic reading of a verse in Genesis:

“God shall enlarge Japheth, and He shall dwell in the tents of Shem” (Genesis 9:27),
(indicating that) the words of Japheth shall be in the tents of Shem.

This verse links two of Noah’s sons, Japheth and Shem, the ancestors of Greek civilization and the
Jewish people respectively. The Gemaraunderstands the verse to be saying not only that Japheth
and Shem will dwell near each other, but that they will interact culturally, sharing language or
literature.

The Gemara goes on to play on the word Japhet, Yefet in Hebrew,which sounds like the Hebrew
word for beautiful (yafeh), saying:

The beauty of Japheth shall be in the tents of Shem.

The Gemara here shows respect for the Greek language, suggesting that the Torah may be
translated only into a worthy language such as Greek. But elsewhere on the daf, we get a historical
explanation for why Rabban Gamliel privileges the Greek translation of the Torah. This is the tale
of the Egyptian King Ptolemy, who was said to commission the translation of the Bible into Greek.

10
Myjewishlearning.com

14
There was an incident involving King Ptolemy, who assembled seventy-two Elders, and put them
into seventy-two separate rooms, and did not reveal to them for what purpose he assembled
them. He entered and approached each and every one, and said to each of them: Write for me
a translation of the Torah of Moses your teacher. The Holy One, Blessed be He, placed wisdom
in the heart of each and every one, and they all agreed to one common understanding.

In this story, Ptolemy tests the Jewish scholars to see if they can produce an accurate translation
of the Torah without deliberating with each other. While he may have split them up because he
was concerned the Jewish scribes might hide what is truly written in the Torah, the story raises a
very real problem of translation: There are so many ways to translate a single text, and every
translator must make interpretive decisions along the way. How could there ever be a perfect
translation of the Torah?!

But in this story, the Greek translation (known as the Septuagint) is special, and perhaps holy in
Rabban Gamliel’s eyes, because God intervenes so that the scholars are able to produce identical
translations. Fascinatingly, the scholars all make the same changes to the text thanks to the divine
inspiration they received. The Talmud lists a few of them.

For example, instead of translating the first three words of the Torah literally, which could have
been understood as saying some deity named Bereishit (“In the beginning”) created God, they
changed the order to read “God created in the beginning.” Similarly, instead of a literal translation
of Genesis 1:26 — “Let us make man in our image and in our likeness” — which could imply
multiple gods, they wrote: “I shall make man in image and in likeness.”

According to the Talmud, the Greek translation was respected specifically because the translators
were careful to counter Greek polytheism even as they translated the Torah into Greek words. In
fact this ambivalent relationship to Greek culture, in which polytheism is rejected while Greek
language is accepted, might be an appropriate model to think about the overall legacy of Jewish-
Greek cultural interaction. Rabbinic Judaism borrowed many ideas from Greek culture (for
example, the division of soul and body) yet took a clear stand against others (say, overvaluing
physical beauty and strength). The Greek translation of the Bible is just one example of the hybrid
nature of Jewish literature as it is translated and interpreted in new cultural contexts over the
centuries.

For us who study ancient texts in translation, today’s daf is a reminder not to take any one
translation as absolutely accurate. You can compare the original to the translation or even use
multiple translations side by side to try to get a fuller picture.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:11

Our daf (Megillah 9a-b) we are taught that beyond a Torah scroll being written in the classic ‫כתב‬
‫אשורית‬, Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel also permitted Torah scrolls to be written in ‫( יונית‬Greek). The
Gemara then relates the story of how King Ptolemy placed 72 elders in 72 different houses and

11
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

15
then instructed each of them to write a Greek translation of the Torah and that, inspired by God,
each made the same thoughtful changes while translating the Torah. After this, Rav Yochanan asks
for the reason for Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel’s justification for singling out Greek as being the
only language, beyond ‫כתב אשורית‬, into which a Torah scroll may be translated. The answer is then
provided by quoting Bereishit 9:27 which states: ‘May God enlarge Yefet, and let him dwell in the
tents of Shem’, and which is then understood to mean: ‘the words of Yefet shall be in the tents of
Shem’ (nb. to understand the connection between this verse and the overall teaching, it is important
to note that one of the sons of Yefet was ‫ – יון‬see Bereishit 10:2).

Based on this explanation it would appear that already from the earliest chapters of history, Greek
was identified as a language that the Jewish people may include ‘in the tents of Shem’ - with the
implication of this being that this the story told in today’s daf involving King Ptolemy and the 72
elders is some sort of affirmation of this timeless truth.

But as the Rambam explains (in his commentary to Mishna Megillah 2:1), this is not so. As he
writes: ‘and that which our Sages individuated the Greek language from all others was due to the
fact that it was known to them, and the fact that a Torah scroll was only permitted to be translated
into Greek is due to the fact that [the 72 elders] previously translated the Torah into Greek for King
Ptolemy and that this translation was then disseminated amongst the Jews to the point that Greek
became like a second language to them on par with ‫אשורית‬. This is why they ruled that Greek was
an acceptable language. Beyond this, Greek was considered to be an important language in their
eyes.’

What this means – as further explained by R’ Nachum Rabinovitch in his Yad Peshuta commentary
(to Hilchot Tefillin U’Mezuzah V’Sefer Torah 1:19) - is that it was only because Greek was then
considered an important language, and only because the Torah had previously been translated into
Greek, that there was a justification – as subsequently expressed through the citation and
explanation of Bereishit 9:27 – to translate Torah scrolls into Greek.

Nowadays, however, this is not the case, as the Rambam writes (in his Hilchot Tefillin U’Mezuzah
V’Sefer Torah ibid.): ‘[the] Greek [that our Sages spoke of] has since been diminished from the
world; it has been confused and lost’ – meaning that Greek is nowadays not known to many, it is
no longer considered as important as it once was, and while we still have the Septuagint, various
emendations have been made over the years whereby it cannot be considered as being reliable.

Given this, the Rambam rules that: ‘therefore, we do not write any of these three (i.e. Tefillin,
Mezuzot or Torah scrolls) other than in ‫’אשורי‬.

16
Psalm 1 from the Zechariah Ben ‘Anan Codex, rediscovered in 2017 by Israeli
scholar Prof. Yoram Meital in a Cairo synagogue12

12
https://www.timesofisrael.com/lost-1000-year-old-hebrew-bible-found-on-dusty-cairo-synagogue-shelf/

17
 Nusach Ha-mikra - Accuracy of the Biblical Text
Rav Amnon Bazak writes:13

Textual witnesses

As the last few shiurim have argued, the Masoretic text is the "most complete and most
accurate extant testimony" for the Tanakh.[1] Nevertheless, there are many other ancient textual
witnesses, which contain numerous instances of different versions of words or verses. Let us first
conduct a general review of these textual witnesses, and then address the question of how they
should be regarded.

The textual witnesses may be divided into two main groups:

1. Hebrew manuscripts

The first group consists of the ancient Hebrew textual witnesses, first and foremost among
them the Dead Sea Scrolls.[2] In the caves on the western side of the Dead Sea, especially around
the Khirbet Qumran area, hundreds of manuscripts were discovered, mostly during the years 1947–
1956. These manuscripts were written between the 3rd century B.C.E. and the 1st century C.E. –
i.e. more than a thousand years before the earliest Hebrew manuscripts that were known before
their discovery. The majority of the scrolls appear to belong to a cult that split away from the
central stream of Judaism, and much of the material is devoted to their cultic ideology, including
the "War of the Children of Light against the Children of Darkness" and the "Temple Scroll.”
However, this collection also included some two hundred biblical scrolls, with the remnants of all
the books of Tanakh (with the exception of the Scroll of Esther). Most of these were written in
square script used today; only a few copies of the Books of Torah and of the Book of Iyov are
written in the ancient Hebrew script (ketav Ivri).

The biblical scrolls discovered at Qumran may be further divided into two main groups.
One group includes those that reflect the normative Masoretic tradition, and here the letter-text is
adhered to very strictly. Within this category we find "the Second Scroll of Isaiah" (including parts
of chapters 53-60). Although a thousand years separate this scroll from the earliest versions of the
Masoretic text, the differences between them are very minor.

The second group includes scrolls whose letter-text differs from the Masoretic Tanakh, and
in general they display a fully 'plene' spelling and elongated language forms (such as ‫ הואה‬instead

13
https://torah.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-7f-nusach-ha-mikra-accuracy-biblical-text

18
of ‫ היאה ;הוא‬instead of ‫ ;היא‬and ‫ אתמה‬instead of ‫)אתם‬, and they are characterized by a freer version
of the letter-text, sometimes to the point of carelessness.

Until the discovery of these scrolls, many biblical scholars had dismissed the significance
of the Masoretic text owing to its relatively late appearance. The scrolls brought about a change in
attitude, since they demonstrated that the Masora preserved a tradition that was older by a
millennium or more, and that had been passed down meticulously. We may therefore state that the
text upon which the Masoretic version is based was one of the textual versions that existed in the
centuries prior to the Common Era. In addition, even those scrolls that cannot be easily categorized
with the textual tradition of the Masoretic version do not display far-reaching deviations from it;
the differences can be attributed to the normal processes of copying. Moreover, the instances of
significant deviations from the Masoretic version do not necessarily reflect a version that is earlier
than the Masora. There is a strong correlation between some of the scrolls and the version that
appears in the Septuagint, which we will discuss below, and there are also links between some of
the scrolls and the Samaritan version of the Tanakh.

The Samaritan Torah[3] is another Hebrew textual witness for the Chumash. The
Samaritans – or, as Chazal refer to them, "Kuttim" (Cuthites)[4] – accepted only the Five Books of
the Chumash and rejected the rest of the Tanakh. The existence of a sefer Torah in the possession
of the Kuttim is mentioned already by Chazal, who note differences in spelling between this
version and the Jewish Torah:

The Samaritan Torah is indeed written in ancient Hebrew script, but also in the Hebrew
language. There are no extant ancient manuscripts of the Samaritan Torah, and the oldest scroll
that the Samaritan community has in its possession dates back to approximately the 12th century.
It is generally agreed today that the Masoretic text predates the Samaritan one, especially owing
to the addenda and corrections found in the latter. In any event, it is essentially based on an ancient
text, which – as noted above – has parallels in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls as well.

There are some 6,000 differences between the Samaritan text and the Masoretic text, and
in about a third of these instances the Samaritan version is identical to that of the Septuagint. A
great many of the differences concern linguistic phenomena (such as plene spelling), exegetical
addenda, etc.; and these seem to derive from a text of a late date. There are also differences that
reflect the Samaritan ideology, especially in matters relating to the unique status that the
Samaritans attributed to Mount Gerizim.[5] However, there are also many other differences that
may reflect the existence of a version more ancient than that of the Masora – as indicated by the
connection between the Samarian text and some of the Qumran scrolls.[6]

19
 2. Translations

The second group of textual witnesses consists of ancient translations of the Tanakh.[7] The
most significant translation, for the purposes of our discussion, is the Septuagint. The Letter of
Aristeas[8] speaks of a delegation of seventy-two elders that arrived in Alexandria, at the order of
King Ptolemy, to translate the Torah. A similar account of the story appears in the Gemara:[9]

Without getting into the details of the account and the many questions that surround it, it
should be noted that while the story concerns only the Five Books of the Torah (Chumash), it has
served as the source for applying the name "Septuagint" to the Greek translation of Tanakh as a
whole – a project which was undertaken by different translators using different styles. There are
various extant manuscripts of the Septuagint, the oldest of them dating to the 4th century C.E.

Notably, with regard to our discussion, the Septuagint deviates in many instances from the
Masoretic text. In some places the differences may be attributed to the nature of the translation,
exegetical problems, or different emphases, but there are places where this version may reveal
something about the Hebrew manuscript that the translators worked with and the differences
between this text and our Masoretic version. As noted, the Dead Sea Scrolls also include some
manuscripts that reflect a Hebrew text similar to the one used by the creators of the Septuagint.

Aside from the Septuagint and other translations that were based upon or influenced by it,
it is also important to note the Aramaic translations from the 1st-8th centuries C.E., including the
translations of Onkelos and Yonatan ben Uzziel, and the Syriac translation – the Peshitta. These
translations generally adhere closely to the Masoretic text, but there are occasional differences, as
we shall see further on.

G. Proposals for textual amendments

As we have seen, the issue of the accuracy of the Tanakh text raises many questions. First,
we must consider instances where there is a discrepancy between the version found in the Dead
Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text with which we are familiar. Then there are the instances
where Chazal based their teachings on a version that is different from the Masoretic text. In
addition there are the disagreements between the various Masoretes: "easterners" vs. "westerners,"
and among the "westerners" themselves, between Ben Asher and Ben Naftali. To this we may add
the range of textual versions that were used during the Middle Ages, and – finally – the
discrepancies between different contemporary printed editions of the Tanakh. Thus, it is difficult
to assert that the textual version that appears in any Tanakh today is in every detail a perfect copy
of the "original" text. As Rabbi Mordekhai Breuer writes:

20
 Nevertheless, the version that is universally accepted today, with its very slight variations,
is the version that was decided upon by the Masoretes and this, of course, is the version that is
halakhically binding.

It must be asked - does all of the above open the door to proposing amendments to the text
where our version gives rise to textual difficulties? This question is especially pertinent in those
instances where the form of a verse in the Masoretic version is more problematic than its parallels
in the other textual witnesses. Furthermore, what is the proper attitude towards a textual
amendment that solves a textual difficulty, where the amendment has no basis in earlier textual
witnesses?

The fundamental rule here would seem to be set forth by Rabbi David Zvi Hoffmann
(Germany, 1843-1921), in the introduction to his commentary on Sefer Vayikra

This approach demands, first and foremost, that we try to understand the version that is
before us. Even if we are aware that errors may have crept into the text, we have no way of proving
this conclusively. For this reason, our responsibility is always to try to understand the version that
we have, with its difficulties, even though we are aware of the theoretical possibility of textual
errors.

In addition, it must be remembered that it often turns out that the seemingly less coherent
or logical version is actually the accurate one. The reason for this is that the scribes would always
aspire to produce clear and intelligible manuscripts, and where the ancient version was difficult to
understand, they would tend to "amend" it to the best of their ability. In many cases we find that
the amendment arose from a lack of comprehension on the part of the scribe, or from an attempt
at independent, unfounded exegesis. It is for this reason that the general rule among scholars is,
"lectio difficilior potior" – "the more difficult reading is the stronger [option].”

21
 This is especially relevant in the realm of translation, where the content needs to be
conveyed in a different language, and this transition is highly dependent on subjective
interpretation, along with the objective challenges of translation, as noted in Massekhet
Sofrim (1:7, Higger edition p. 101), concerning the Septuagint:

In the past, since academic biblical scholars had little confidence in the accuracy of the
Masoretic text, they would propose textual amendments on the slightest pretext. The work of some
of these scholars gives the impression that there is not a single verse in Tanakh that is free of
corruption. However, while textual amendments may be an easy and convenient solution for
textual difficulties, they may turn out – and have often turned out – to be a superficial and
unsatisfying solution.

In recent generations, the trend of exaggerated reliance on textual amendments has been
somewhat put in check, and scholars are more cautious in proposing such solutions.[13] The
proposed amendments often turn out to miss significant literary messages which the text manages
to convey specifically by means of the seemingly more complicated wording. In-depth familiarity
with the linguistic and literary character of the Tanakh shows that the text consistently and
systematically uses various means to emphasize the messages conveyed by the content, and
therefore the scholar needs to be sensitive to these means in order to attain a better understanding
of the text. Today we also have a broader and deeper knowledge of the idiosyncrasies of ancient
Hebrew, and forms of expression which in previous generations might have been dismissed as
scribal errors, have been shown to preserve a certain tradition of writing or pronunciation. In the
next shiur we will look at some examples of such instances, each representing a different type of
proposed textual amendment to a textual difficulty which may turn out to reflect the deliberate
literary expression of a concept or idea.14

[1]
Talshir, p. 52

[2]
For more on the scrolls see Tov, pp. 80-93; Talshir pp. 56-67.

[3]
For a discussion of the relationship between the Samarian Torah and the Masoretic text, see Tov, pp. 62-80; Talshir pp. 67-76;
A. Tal and M. Florentin, Chamisha Chumshei Torah: Nussach Shomron ve-Nussach ha-Masora, Tel Aviv 5771, pp. 11-57.

[4]
Regarding Chazal's attitude towards the Kuttim in general, see "kuttim,” Encyclopedia Talmudit 27, Jerusalem 5752, columns
649-730.

[5]
For instance, in the Samaritan Torah the tenth Commandment concerns the building of an altar on Mount Gerizim. Similarly,
the expression that appears repeatedly in Sefer Devarim, "the place which God will choose (yivchar)" (Devarim 12:5, 11, 21, and
others) is replaced with the expression "the place which God has chosen (bachar)" – in other words, the place is already designated

14
Translated by Kaeren Fish

22
(this, of course, being understood as a reference to Mount Gerizim). Chazal note these ideological differences:
In Devarim 11:30 there is a description of the exact location of Mount Gerizim and Mount Eval – "Are these not on the other side
of the Jordan, by the way where the sun goes down, in the land of the Canaanites who dwell in the Arava over against Gilgal, beside
Elonei Moreh.” The Samaritan version appends two words to the end of the verse: "mul Shekhem" (over against Shekhem) (Tal
and Florentin edition, p. 559). Chazal heap scorn on this addendum: "R. Elazar son of R. Yossi said: In this matter I proved the
Samarian scrolls to be false. I said to them, 'You have falsified your Torah but have gained nothing by doing so. For you say that
'Elonei Moreh' refers to Shekhem; we, too, agree that 'Elonei Moreh' is Shekhem. We infer this using the principle of 'gezerah
shavah;' but [since you do not accept the sanctity and authority of the hermeneutical laws,] on what basis do you infer it?!"
(Sifri Devarim, 56; see also Talmud Yerushalmi, Sota 7:3).

[6]
Unlike the Masora, the Samaritan Torah has no uniform text, and the various manuscripts reflect different versions. These textual
discrepancies between various Samaritan texts do not trouble the Samaritans, since their tradition places greater emphasis on an
oral, rather than a written, tradition.

[7]
On Tanakh translations, see, inter alia: Y. Komlos, Ha-Mikra be-Or ha-Targum, Tel Aviv 5744; C. Rabin, Targumei ha-Mikra,
Jerusalem 5744.

[8]
An extra-canonical work from the 2nd century B.C.E. and the earliest source relating to the translation of the Torah into Greek.
The letter was written in Greek and several translations exist. Hebrew translations include that of A. Kahana, Ha-Sefarim ha-
Chitzoniim, vol. 2, Tel Aviv 5697, pp. 1-71; A. S. Hartoum, Ha-Sefarim ha-Chitzoniim: Sippurim ve-Divrei Chokhma, Tel Aviv
5728. For more on the period of the letter and its author, as well as on the nature of the Septuagint, see the introduction to the above
editions as well as Z. Doribel, "Al ha-Mekorot shel Targum ha-Shiv'im la-Torah,” Beit Mikra 50, 1 (180), 5765, pp. 3-19. An
English translation of the letter can be read here: http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/aristeas.htm

[9]
The Gemara makes no explicit mention of a translation into Greek, but it can be deduced both from the content of the narrative
and from a comparison to the account in the Letter of Aristeas.

[10]
Avot de-Rabbi Natan, version B, chapter 37, Schechter edition p. 94, and Massekhet Sofrim 1:7, Higger edition p. 101, mention
"five elders.”

[11]
Rabbinic sources recount how the king placed the elders in separate buildings and how each of them miraculously amended the
biblical text in their translations in precisely the same way as one another, owing to different problems – mostly theological
questions – that might have arisen from a literal translation. For instance, the verse "Let us (in the plural form) make man in our
image and after our likeness" (Bereishit 1:26) might create the impression of a multiplicity of divinities, or of God's corporeality.
For this reason, each of the sages translated the verse "I shall make man in the form and in the likeness.” The various sources offer
differing counts of the instances where the translators introduced amendments: Avot de-Rabbi Natan asserts "they changed ten
things in the Torah"; Massekhet Sofrim puts the count at 13; and Massekhet Megilla 9a enumerates 15 amendments. The version
of the Septuagint that we have today features only four of the changes mentioned (see Kahana p. 16, n. 6).

[12]
Rabbi M. Breuer, "Emuna u-Mada' be-Nussach ha-Mikra,” reprinted in Y. Ofer (ed.), Shitat ha-Bechinot shel haRav Mordekhai
Breuer, Alon Shvut 5765, pp. 71-72.

[13]
As noted by Cohen, p. 69: "The demand to avoid imaginary speculation and to exercise caution in the examination and
assessment of facts is heard increasingly today among scholars themselves as one of the fundamental conditions for sound
exegetical conclusions."

23
 The Translation of the Seventy15

At the beginning of the period of the Second Beit Hamikdash, the Second Temple, the people of
Israel lived under Persian dominion. After the fall of the Persian Empire, Greece inherited her
place, and Israel was subjugated to Greece. Ptolemy, one of the Greek Kings who succeeded
Alexander (The ‘Great’) of Macedonia, wanted the Jewish Sages to translate the Torah into Greek.

The way he went about it, however, proved his motives were highly questionable. He did not
assemble the Jewish scholars all in one place so that they might consult each other on the
translation. In the Talmud it is related:

15
https://www.ou.org/holidays/translation-seventy/

24
Ptolemy found that each translation was exactly the same as the other. Even in places where the
Sages intentionally altered the literal translation, the results were still identical; this constituted
an “open miracle” and public sanctification of God’s Name.
If the interpretations of the Elders had varied widely, it would not blemish either the Torah or its
interpreters in Jewish eyes, since we know that the Torah is open to different interpretations. To
non-Jews, however, any dispute in interpreting the Torah would cast blemish on the Torah, and on
the Torah Scholars who interpret it. G-d in His infinite mercy allowed all 72 scholars to translate
the Torah identically, thereby foiling (touche!) the evil plan of Ptolemy.

Examine additional aspects of this incident: A true miracle of translation.

A Troubled Day

The day on which the 72 Elders concluded their Greek translation of the Torah, the 8th of Tevet,
was a day of sorrow for Israel, despite the clear hand of G-d in the events of the day. Although
God’s Providence on behalf of His people was made manifest that day, and though the matter
evoked general wonder in non-Jewish eyes, the day was nevertheless a very tragic day. The sages
call it as tragic a day for Israel as the day on which the Golden Calf was made. In Megilat Ta’anit,
the Sages described the event as follows:

Likewise, the Torah, as long as the Torah was in Hebrew and was interpreted by the Sages, it
evoked reverence, and many feared to cast blemish upon it. Even the non-Jews who desired to
study the Torah, had no contact with the Torah until he or she had acquired a knowledge of the
Holy tongue and the prescribed ways for understanding the Torah.

Once the Torah was imprisoned in the Greek translation, it was as if the Torah were divested of
reverence. Whoever wished to, could now gaze at the Torah. Anyone who wanted to find fault
with its logic, could now do so, based on the translation. The Sages, therefore, likened the event
of this day, to the day on which the Golden Calf was made. For just as the Golden Calf had no

25
reality, and yet its servants regarded it as having real substance, likewise the translation, devoid of
the true substance of Torah, allowed non-Jews to imagine that they already knew the Torah.

LOST IN TRANSLATION

26
 Rebbetzin Aviva Feiner writes:16

The Jewish calendar is a cycle one with peaks and valleys each replete with emotions and growth.
Often the sensation is like a roller coaster rising high and then plummeting down swinging from
joy to sorrow from triumph to defeat. The festivities inherent in the joy of reclaiming the Beis
Hamikdash on Chanukah conclude on the third day of Teves only to be followed a week later by
a fast that plunges us into mourning the Churban — the Tenth of Teves.

This seemingly innocuous juxtaposition needs to be assessed properly to impact our personal
travels through the Jewish year.

Dark and Gloomy

The long nights of Teves are thick with darkness representing the hester Heavenly concealment
that characterizes our long and bitter galus. Rav Moshe Wolfson in his Emunas Itecha explains
that it’s not a coincidence that we fast in this month. We’re mourning the limited vision we have
in a world where the Shechinah is hidden.

The Jewish year contains several fast days ranging in intensity and strictness. Although some may
consider Asarah B’Teves one of the less strict fasts Rav Avraham Schorr in his Lekach V’halevav
(Vayigash) explains that it’s one of the more stringent.

He quotes the Avudraham who comments that the Tenth of Teves is the only fast observed on Erev
Shabbos. Furthermore the Avudraham mentions a fascinating albeit theoretical halachic concept:
If the Tenth of Teves fell out on Shabbos it would be permitted to fast on that Shabbos! (The way
the calendar is currently set this never happens.)

In contrast even Tishah B’Av the most stringent of the fasts commemorating the Churban is
postponed when it falls on Shabbos. What then separates the Tenth of Teves as the most tragic of
fasts with a status similar to Yom Kippur?

A Day of Din

The Chasam Sofer describes the Tenth of Teves not merely as a physical day of siege but a
Heavenly day of judgment. It’s on this day that the Heavenly courts decide the potential life and
death of the Beis Hamikdash. Therefore even at the time when the Second Beis Hamikdash was in
its prime Klal Yisrael fasted on this day as the future of the Temple was hanging in the balance.

We know that every generation that doesn’t merit seeing the Beis Hamikdash rebuilt it’s as if they
destroyed it anew. Therefore we should utilize this day of judgment to beseech Hashem for the
eternal rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash.

16
https://mishpacha.com/lost-in-translation/

27
Rabbi Schorr cautions that it does not befit any Jew to think: “Who am I what would make me
worthy of davening about the Churban?” As the Mesilas Yesharim cautions us each person was
created as an individual and it is every individual prayer that Hashem seeks.

A Day that Lives in Infamy

To properly mourn our loss we must explore the events we commemorate on the Tenth of Teves.
Besides the infamous laying of siege by the Babylonians and Romans we are also remembering
the tragic translation of the Torah which actually preceded the Chanukah story by 78 years.

There were three days of darkness that began on the 8th of Teves when Ptolemy II (the Greco-
Egyptian King Ptolemy II reigned 283–246 BCE) ordered the translation of the Torah.

This translation became known as the Septuagint or in Hebrew the Targum Shivim.

The Talmud (Megillah 9a) recounts the incident: “It happened that King Talmai gathered 72
[Jewish] sages and housed them in 72 houses. The king did not reveal to them the purpose for
which he’d gathered them. He visited each one of them individually and said, ‘Write for me the
Torah of Moses your teacher!’”

All of these tzaddikim placed under tremendous pressure merited Divine intervention; each made
identical changes within their translation. The new Greek translation prevented the literal reading
of the text in 15 places to avoid misunderstandings that would result in a heretical or slanderous
interpretation of concepts and personalities in the Torah. This was no coincidence but the clear
Hand of Heaven.

Despite that Heavenly intervention the actual completion of this translation is a black day in our
history. Chazal (Sofrim 1:7) declare that this day was “as hard for Israel as the day of the making
of the Golden Calf.”

People of the Book

What was so tragic about this event? Did not the famous ger Onkelos translate our Torah and the
great Tanna Rabi Yonason ben Uziel translate much of Nach? Haven’t the tremendous strides
made by ArtScroll in translating so much of our scripture into English enabled many more Jews
access to bona fide Torah study?

Rav Aharon Leib Steinman shlita in his sefer on Chanukah writes that this step of translation was
the first in the ultimate goal of the Greeks. In the words of the al hanissim their aim was “to make
them forget the Torah.”

The Greeks wanted to deny both the uniqueness of Torah as the ultimate wisdom and the
uniqueness of the relationship between the Jewish People and the Torah.

28
Every morning in birchos hashachar we reaffirm our unique relationship with Hashem and His
Torah: “that He chose us and gave us his Torah.” We further bless Hashem as the “Nosein
HaTorah” the Giver of the Torah.

Rav Dovid Cohen shlita of the Chevron Yeshivah points out that the relationship with Torah is
one that’s contingent on the relationship with its Giver. This is a package deal. The Yalkut
illustrates in parshas Terumah (25:1):”The Torah was Mine [says Hashem]. You took her — take
Me with you!”

The Chasam Sofer explains that with this momentous translation the Greeks “stripped” the Torah
of its identity. What is a Torah that’s not a Jewish Torah? It’s just a string of letters and words
without Hashem!

Rav Yitzchok Hutner (Pachad Yitzchok on Chanukah) explains that the Greeks wanted access to
our Torah as part of their quest for supremacy over all wisdom in the world. They wanted to
demonstrate that our “book” is but another tome to master and bolster knowledge. By allowing
easy access in their language they could reduce it to a menial manual for all to read and use for
self-aggrandizement.

The translations of Onkelos and in our times ArtScroll were done to bring Torah closer to the
Jewish People and make it a living book that can speak to them. But for our Torah to sit on the
table of Aristotle says the Chasam Sofer is the ultimate desecration. Such a humiliation of Torah
is a degradation of the core fundamental value of what qualifies the Jewish People as Am Segulah.

Asarah B’Teves is a reminder to bolster our confidence in the uniqueness of the Jewish people. It
highlights our relationship with Torah and with He Who deigned us worthy of receiving it.

Light in the Darkness

Herein lies the connection to the Chanukah celebration and the mourning of Asarah B’Teves. Both
are marking our battle in defense of Torah and our position as Am Segulah.

The weekly parshiyos during this time period (Mikeitz Vayigash Vayechi) describe the descent of
Klal Yisrael to their very first galus — Mitzrayim. Yet we move through these three bleak days in
Teves with the comfort of knowing that light can once again shine on this darkness.

To deserve the Geulah we must believe we truly deserve it.

Tragically we see many of our generation struggling with this concept the test of modern-day
Greece. We feel unworthy and as such don’t work to optimize our potential as a chosen nation.

On the Tenth of Teves we should use our abstinence from food to proclaim that our physical bodies
acknowledge and are subjugated to their higher purpose. Our connection to Torah is eternal and
its light continues to shine in our batei medrash batei knesses and each and every mikdash me’at
— our Jewish homes.

29
May Hashem see our earnest struggle within the hester our resilient pride in being His Chosen
Nation living His Chosen Torah and may He turn all of Teves into a time of happiness joy and
light.

What Was Wrong with Translating the Torah into Greek?

Yossi Ives writes:17

Around 2,300 years ago, the Greek-Egyptian emperor Ptolemy ordered the Jewish sages to render
the Torah into Greek on two separate occasions. The first time, he had five scholars carry out the
translation together. The second time, he assembled 72 scholars, isolated them in separate rooms,
and had them prepare their own simultaneous Greek translations. On the 8th of Tevet, all 72
scholars produced identical versions having made the same 13 changes, where they judged that the
literal rendition would result in a significant distortion to the intended meaning.

An ancient rabbinic source, Masechet Sofrim, provides an account of the first translation:

17
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/5346243/jewish/What-Was-Wrong-With-Translating-the-Torah-Into-Greek.htm

30
It happened once that five sages wrote the Torah in Greek for King Ptolemy. That day was as
terrible for the People of Israel as the day that the Golden Calf was made, because the Torah was
unable to be translated adequately.1

Upon reading this passage, it seems that the rabbis were extremely hostile to the idea of translating
the Torah – or at least translating it into Greek. It appears that they were concerned the translation
would not do justice to the text’s intent, going so far as to compare it to one of the greatest religious
abominations in Jewish history. In fact, this tragic event is marked on the fast of 10 Tevet. Sounds
like some very unhappy rabbis!

This, however, is astonishing. Translating the Torah into other languages was nothing new! Before
the Jews entered the Land of Israel, Moses explained the Torah to them in 70 languages.2 3

Moses similarly instructed the Israelites to “write onto stone all the words of this Torah, explained
well,”4 after they would cross over the Jordan river into the Promised Land. Here, too, the rabbis
understand this as an instruction to translate the Torah into the 70 languages.5

So why did it arouse such consternation when it was translated into Greek a thousand years later?
And why were the sages concerned that “the Torah was unable to be translated adequately,” when
it had already been done successfully?

Especially baffling is the issue with the Greek translation, since the Talmudic sages had already
singled out Greek – the language in question – for being particularly well suited to a non-Hebrew
rendition of the Bible!6 7 So why the negativity towards the Ptolemaic translation?

What is most difficult to comprehend is why the rabbis would compare an apparently inadequate
translation to an event as notorious and disastrous as the making of Golden Calf. Is this not a wild
exaggeration?

In his iconi fashion, the Rebbe homes in on the fine details and offers a brilliant explanation. If
you read the wording carefully, the passage about the account of the Greek translation says, “like

31
the day the Golden Calf was made.” But why is the translation being compared to the day the idol
was fashioned, and not to the Golden Calf itself?
When reading the account of the Golden Calf, we discover that the idol was created a day earlier
than it was worshipped.

When Aaron saw [the Golden Calf], he built an altar in front of it, and Aaron proclaimed and said:
“Tomorrow shall be a festival to the L-rd.” On the next day they arose early, offered burnt
offerings, and brought peace offerings, and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and they got
up to make merry.8

So, the wording, “like the day the Golden Calf was made” is rather curious. Why not simply say,
“the day the Golden Calf was worshipped,” or better still, “like the worshipping of the Golden
Calf”?

This, the Rebbe explains, is because the sages indeed did not consider the Greek translation
problematic enough to compare it to an outrageous act of idolatry. They were comparing it to the
day the golden calf was made, insofar as it created the potential for great sin—i.e., this act of
translation was not without risks.

On the one hand, on the day the Golden Calf was created no act of idol worship occurred, yet what
was done that day laid the groundwork for the cardinal sin that followed. It is to this phenomenon
that the analogy is directed: The translation itself was not the problem; Moses had done the same
and instructed others to do likewise. But the rabbis understood that it created the potential for
future issues.

Masechet Sofrim (which we cited earlier) lists the alterations made by the sages when they
prepared the Greek translation. They felt these changes were necessary to avoid gross
misunderstandings of the Biblical message by Ptolemy and his courtiers. Yet those adjustments to
the original text could now pose a stumbling block for future readers who may be confused about
the Torah’s true intent. Should that indeed happen, it would be most unfortunate.

32
Just as the day the Golden Calf was created set the scene for a future downfall, the translation of
the Torah into Greek enabled future misunderstandings. It is this misgiving that the Talmudic sages
expressed.
A person may say, “But I did what I did with the best of intentions, and to the best of my abilities.
What more can be asked of me?” Unfortunately, good intentions and one’s best efforts are not
always enough.

“Who is wise?” ask the rabbis. “He who can see what is likely to come of something.”9 We have
to be appropriately cautious that our well-meaning actions do not inadvertently lead to negative
outcomes. We bear some degree of responsibility for the fallout of our actions, even when we act
in good faith. Be wise.18

A 3rd/4th cent. papyrus (P. Duke Inv. 740) from a codex. The fragment contains the LXX
version of Psalm 88. The recto has vv. 4-8 and the verso vv. 15-18.

18
Adapted from Likutei Sichot, vol. 24, Parshat Devarim I.

33
 Other Biblical Text Traditions

Prof. Emanuel Tov writes:19

We know that a variety of text forms existed in ancient Israel from the last centuries B.C.E.
onwards. In addition to the proto-MT texts (outside Qumran), we find several other text traditions
among the 230 biblical texts found in Qumran.

Most of these texts would have been considered authoritative Scripture texts at the time, yet if they
had not been discovered in the caves of Qumran, many of them would not have been known to us.

The only texts that have been transmitted consistently through the centuries were the texts that
have been embraced by religious groups that continued into later times, that is, MT by Judaism,
SP by the Samaritans and, in Greek, the LXX by early Christianity.[1]

19
https://www.thetorah.com/article/other-biblical-text-traditions

34
 The Abisha Scroll. (See “Afflicting the Soul” by Benyamim Tsedaka, TheTorah.com.)

a. Samaritan Pentateuch (SP)

…is the holy writ of the Samaritan community whose holy writings comprise solely the Torah,
the Pentateuch, since the second century B.C.E. until today. The full text of SP, like MT, is
known from medieval manuscripts dating to the ninth century C.E. onwards, and undoubtedly
goes back to ancient texts. The Israelite Samaritans, as they call themselves, are closely related
to the Jews, but they do not identify as Jews and therefore the SP is not considered a Jewish
text, or as I would say, not a Jewish text anymore.

Yet the Dead Sea Scrolls contain texts that are very similar to the SP, which demonstrates that this
text type was also considered to be an authoritative Jewish text. These predecessors of the SP
found at Qumran, named pre-Samaritan by scholars, share all the major features with SP. SP was
created probably in the second century B.C.E. by slightly rewriting one of these pre-Samaritan
texts to reflect the importance of Mount Gerizim (see especially SP’s tenth commandment).

35
 Codex Vaticanus: one of the oldest extant manuscripts of the Greek Bible (ca. 300-
325 C.E.)
b. LXX (Old Greek Translation)

The ancient Jewish translation of the Torah into Greek is named the Septuagint after the apocryphal
story of seventy (two) translators producing the same translation (see the Letter of Aristeas). As
the LXX differs from MT in many details, it is clear that the translation was based on a different
Hebrew text. Parts of this text are sometimes preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The enterprise of rendering the Torah into Greek in the beginning of the third century BCE in
Alexandria was a Jewish enterprise, created by Jews for Jews for Gentiles and Jews alike. The
Letter of Aristeas mentions King Ptolemy II Philadelphus (287–247 B.C.E.) as the person who
commissioned the translation. Although the letter itself is later than the events it describes, it likely
contains a kernel of truth.

36
This translation was probably used in Alexandria by Jews in their weekly ceremonial reading from
the first century B.C.E. onwards.[2] The Jewish background of the Greek translation of the Torah
is well established, while that of the post-Pentateuchal books is not, although these too
undoubtedly reflect a Jewish translation.[3]

Abandoning the LXX in Two Steps

Jews already began to see the LXX as problematic in the pre-Christian period, since it did not
reflect the proto-MT text current in Palestine. This began a process of revision of the LXX towards
the proto-Masoretic Text, reflected, for example, in such Jewish revisions as Theodotion
(named kaige-Theodotion in modern research), Aquila (from Asia Minor, 125 C.E.), and
Symmachus, in this sequence. As these new translations became more popular, the LXX
translation gradually fell into disuse.

The emergence of early Christianity made the split between Jews and the LXX a foregone
conclusion. In the first century C.E., when the NT writers quoted the earlier Scripture, they used
the LXX or an early revision of the LXX that was close to MT, such as the (kaige)-Theodotion
revision mentioned above. That was a natural development since the New Testament was written
in Greek, and it was normal for its authors to quote from earlier Scripture written in the same
language.

As a result of its adoption by Christianity, the Jewish-Greek translation of the LXX was held in
contempt by the Jews and was left entirely to the church. The Christians accepted the LXX
translation as it was, generally without changing its wording.[4]

Traditional Judaism’s Relationship to Other Text Traditions

Despite the desire to believe in MT as the sole text form of Scripture, the rabbis were long aware
of other text forms, at least those of SP and LXX. Nevertheless, from the rabbinic period and on,
these texts have posed no threat to the supremacy of the Masoretic Text among Jews.

37
LXX

The Greek Septuagint was mentioned in very few places in rabbinic literature, but those quotations
were accompanied by descriptions that the translators intentionally changed the contents of
Hebrew Scripture in their translation concluding that therefore the LXX should be
disregarded.[5] (The rabbis never considered the possibility that the LXX was based on a
different Vorlage.)

The text of the LXX was not quoted in rabbinic literature as support for their halachic or aggadic
deliberations since no sources other than the Hebrew text was considered “scripture.” When in rare
occasions the rabbis quoted from a Greek translator, they quoted from the Jewish translator
Aquila,[6] not from Symmachus or Theodotion.

SP

The rabbis describe the Samaritan Pentateuch as a falsification of the Jewish Torah (j. Sotah 7.3;
b. Sotah 33b; b. Sanhedrin 90b) and its text was never quoted in rabbinic literature.[7]

Targumim

The targumim were often quoted in rabbinic literature, not as witnesses to possible differences
between their text and MT, but for their exegesis. Traditionally, the targumim were considered the
in-house commentaries of rabbinic Judaism on Hebrew Scripture, and their exegetical traditions
were taken as supplementary to MT, even when a given translation might reflect a variant text.

38
 Codex Amiatinus: the earliest surviving manuscript of the complete Latin
Vulgate (692 C.E.).

Vulgate and Peshitta

The evidence of the Latin Vulgate and the Syriac Peshitta,[8] later to be sanctified in the Catholic
and Syriac church traditions respectively, were beyond the horizon of rabbinic Judaism.

In short, none of these texts or “versions” posed any challenge to the notion that within Judaism
MT served as the only text of Hebrew Scripture. Organized Judaism from the Rabbinic period
onwards always considered MT the only text of the Bible, and therefore, by implication, the
“original text” of the Hebrew Bible.

Qumran

In modern times, the Dead Sea Scrolls could have posed such a threat to MT, since they offer
evidence of a relatively fluid textual tradition in antiquity. I do not know, however, of any official

39
statement by any of the streams of Judaism concerning the implications of the biblical scrolls from
the Judean Desert.[9]

On the other hand, the New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh translation (NJPS, more on this
later), although based on MT, also provides editorial notes on readings from the LXX and the
scrolls when according to the editors of NJPS these sources may present a reading better than the
one of MT.

Footnotes:

1. In this context, we could also mention the Latin Vulgate that has become the holy Scripture of the Catholic church and
the Peshitta that has become the holy Scripture of several Syriac churches, but neither text differed sufficiently from MT
to be named a separate text tradition.
2. Philo refers to this custom in Alexandria. See Philo, Prob.81–82:

In these they are instructed at all other times, but particularly on the seventh days. For that day has been set apart to be

kept holy and on it they abstain from all other work and proceed to sacred spots which they call synagogues…Then one

takes the books and reads aloud….

See further Philo, Hypoth. 7:13; Vit. Mos. 2:215. The existence of Greek Torah scrolls is also referred to in m. Meg. 1.8;

2.1 andt. Meg. 4.13. 4 Macc 18:10-18, possibly written in Egypt in the first century CE, expressly mentions the reading

of the Law accompanied by readings taken from the Prophets, Psalms, and Writings.

3. Both issues are analyzed in detail in my study “Reflections on the Septuagint with Special Attention Paid to the Post-

Pentateuchal Translations,” in Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism … Collected Writings, Volume 3 (2015), 429–48.

4. See my study “The Septuagint between Judaism and Christianity,” in Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew

Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays, 449–70. It should also be mentioned that at a later stage Jerome rejected

the LXX as a base for the Scripture reading in the church, replacing it between 390 and 405 CE with a Latin translation

(the “Vulgate”) that was more faithful to the Hebrew text (of MT) than the LXX, and that in due course came to replace

the LXX within the Catholic church.

5. See b. Meg. 9a and parallels.

40
6. For example, in Gen 17:1 ‫אני אל שדי‬, “I am the God Shadday,” Aquila’s reading is quoted in conjunction with the opinion

that ‫ שדי‬should not be read as Shadday but as she-day (probably: “he who is sufficient”). See Gen. Rabba 46:1 [ed.

Theodor-Albeck, 460–61.

7. Editor’s note: See discussion of one example of this polemic in Jonathan Ben-Dov, “An Altar on Mount Ebal or Mount

Gerizim: The Torah in the Sectarian Debate,” TheTorah.com(2016).

8. For further information, see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 150–53.

9. In my view wrongly so, because the proto-MT scrolls from the Judean Desert sites strongly support the ancient roots of

the medieval Masoretic tradition and they therefore hold up the antiquity of that tradition.

The Origins of the Septuagint

41
The very first translation of the Hebrew Bible was made into Greek, probably as early as the
third century BC. This, the so-called Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, is
traditionally dated to the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt (285-246 BC)...20

The very first translation of the Hebrew Bible was made into Greek, probably as early as the third
century BC. This, the so-called Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, is
traditionally dated to the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt (285-246 BC).

It is commonly called the 'Septuagint' version (from the Latin for 'seventy') because according to
the traditional account of its origin, preserved in the so-called Letter of Aristeas, it had seventy-
two translators. This letter tells how King Ptolemy II commissioned the royal librarian, Demetrius
of Phaleron, to collect by purchase or by copying all the books in the world. He wrote a letter to
Eleazar, the high priest at Jerusalem, requesting six elders of each tribe, in total seventy-two men
of exemplary life and learned in the Torah, to translate it into Greek.
On arrival at Alexandria, the translators were greeted by the king and given a sumptuous banquet.
They were then closeted in a secluded house on the island of Pharos close to the seashore, where
the celebrated 110 m. high lighthouse, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, had just
been finished.

According to the Letter of Aristeas, the translation, made under the direction of Demetrius, was
completed in seventy-two days. When the Alexandrian Jewish community assembled to hear a
reading of the new version, the translators and Demetrius received lavish praise, and a curse was
pronounced on anyone who should alter the text by addition, transposition or omission. The work
was then read to the king who, according to the Letter of Aristeas, marveled at the mind of the
lawgiver. The translators were then sent back to Jerusalem, endowed with gifts for themselves and
the high priest Eleazar.

Later generations embellished the story. Philo of Alexandria, writing in the first century AD, says
that each of the seventy-two translators were shut in a separate cell, and miraculously all the texts
were said to agree exactly with one another, thus proving that their version was directly inspired
by God.

Origins in Retrospect

It is difficult to know how much credence to give to these accounts. There are several known
historical inaccuracies in the Letter of Aristeas. It is known that on the assumption of his throne,
Ptolemy II banished Demetrius of Phaleron. One of those credited as being present at the banquet,
a certain Menodemus of Eritria, is known to have died two years before Ptolemy II succeeded to
the throne. But even if the stories relating to the origin of the Septuagint are not true, at least not

20
https://biblearchaeology.org/research/new-testament-era/4022-a-brief-history-of-the-septuagint

42
in all the details, it seems likely that Ptolemy II at least instigated a translation of the Torah, the
first five books of the Hebrew Bible
.

The Significance of the Septuagint

The significance of the Septuagint translation can hardly be overestimated. Following the
conquests of Alexander, the Great (336-323 BC), Greek became the official language of Egypt,
Syria and the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea. The Septuagint translation made the Hebrew
scriptures available both to the Jews who no longer spoke their ancestral language and to the entire
Greek-speaking world. The Septuagint was later to become the Bible of the Greek-speaking early
Church and is frequently quoted in the New Testament.

Hints of the Egyptian Origin of the Septuagint

Does the Septuagint translation itself give any hints of its supposed Egyptian origins? In Leviticus
11 and Deuteronomy 14 are given a list of unclean animals and birds, that is, creatures that the
Israelites were prohibited from eating. The precise identification of many of the birds in the list of
unclean birds remains uncertain. The list is an ornithologist's delight but a translator's nightmare.
The detailed identification of the birds need not concern us here. Even the accuracy of the
Septuagint's translation here need not concern us either.

In Lev.11:22 we encounter a bird called yanshuph. The Septuagint translates this ibis, a bird that
the Egyptians knew as hbj. The Septuagint's translation 'ibis' is followed by the Revised Standard
Version. Yanshuph, however, is rendered as a kind of owl by the majority of English versions.

The Hebrew bird qa'a of Lev. 11:18 is rendered 'pelican' by some English versions. Here they are
following the Septuagint's pelekan. However, a number of English translations do not follow the
Septuagint and opt for another type of owl.

Earlier in the chapter is a list of unclean animals. Arnebet is clearly the 'rabbit' or 'hare.' Yet in
both versions of the list it is not translated by lagos, the normal Greek word for 'rabbit' or 'hare.'
Lev. 11:6 has the word choirogryllion meaning a 'young pig,' and Dt. 14:7 has a euphemism,
dasypous, 'rough foot.' Another Greek translation, that of Aquila, uses lagos. The reason for
avoiding lagos appears to be that Ptolemy II's grandfather was nicknamed 'Lagos,' apparently
because of his large ears!

A more famous and ultimately more significant example concerns the term 'Red Sea.' In Hebrew
it is yam suph meaning 'reed sea,' a term which was used most famously to describe the body of
water that the Israelites crossed as they escaped from Egypt. This body of water is often thought

43
to be the lakes or saltwater marshes at the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba. The Septuagint,
however, renders it Erythra thalassa meaning 'Red Sea,' and it is this translation that is used by the
New Testament in Acts 7:36 and Hebrews 11:39. All English versions apart from the Jerusalem
Bible stick with this tradition.

But where did the term 'Red Sea' come from? It may be significant that the Hebrew term Edom
means 'red,' and the Edomites occupied the area south of Israel towards the Gulf of Aqaba. This
sea may have been popularly known as the Edomite or Red Sea. Another explanation is that it was
named 'red' from the predominant color of the Edomite and Arabian mountains which border the
Gulf of Aqaba.

Distinctive Features of the Septuagint Translation

A number of the special distinctive features of the Septuagint should be pointed out. In Proverbs
6:8b, after the Hebrew proverb of the ant, the Septuagint adds a Greek proverb of the bee. 'Or go
to the bee and learn how diligent she is, and how earnestly she is engaged in her work; whose
labors kings and private men use for health, and she is desired and respected by all, though weak
in body she is advanced by honoring wisdom.'

The original Septuagint translation of Daniel was thought to be too much of a paraphrase. It was
replaced by another translation whose origins would seem to lie in Asia Minor, that ascribed to
Theodotion at the end of the second century AD. Indeed, only one manuscript of the Septuagint of
Daniel has survived - a tenth-century manuscript from the Chigi collection in the Vatican.

In the long passage in Daniel 11 about the kings of the north and the kings of the south, the original
Septuagint of Daniel consistently translates the term 'king of the south' by 'king of Egypt.' The
version of Theodotion, which largely superseded it, has 'king of the south' throughout.

More significantly, the four letters YHWH that form the personal name of God in the Hebrew Text
are rendered ho Kyrios throughout the Septuagint. This is the usage, traditionally rendered 'the
LORD' in English versions, which is adopted by writers of the New Testament and is still by far
the most common nomenclature for the divine name.

There are numerous examples where the writers of the New Testament follow the Septuagint
translation rather than the Hebrew text. Four examples will suffice:

44
1) For Genesis 47:31, where the Hebrew text says 'Israel worshipped as he leaned on top of his
bed,' it is rendered 'on top of his staff' in the Septuagint and Hebrews 11:21.
2) Where the Hebrew text of Ps.8:5 has 'You made him a little lower than God and crowned him
with glory and honor,' the Septuagint and Hebrews 2:7 have
'You made him a little lower than the angels and crowned him with glory and honor.'
3) In Ps.16:10, where the Hebrew text has 'Because you will not abandon me to Sheol, nor let
your Holy One see the pit,' the Septuagint and Acts 2:27 have
'Because you will not abandon me to Hades, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.'
4) 'Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced' in Ps. 40:6 becomes
'Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you have prepared for me' in the Septuagint
and Hebrews 10:5. Here the Septuagint translators are explaining the metaphor, not just in terms
of the ear, but in terms of the whole body of the LORD's servant listening and obeying the
LORD's command.

Limitations of the Septuagint

The Orthodox Church argues that the Septuagint is more accurate than the Hebrew Bible and
should be used in Bible translation. However, it is good to be aware of some of the Septuagint's
limitations.

The Septuagint of Job is about a sixth shorter than the traditional Hebrew text of the Bible known
as the Masoretic Text. The missing portions were supplied from the Greek version of Theodotion.
The Septuagint of Jeremiah is about an eighth shorter than the Masoretic Text, repeated passages
are cut out and the order is changed. Furthermore, the Septuagint often preserves different
numbers, e.g. the ages of some of the patriarchs in Genesis are given variously, thus:

So, perhaps for all the plaudits the Septuagint supposedly received from Ptolemy II, it should
come as no great surprise that the Septuagint did not receive a universally favorable reception
among the Jews: 'That day was as ominous for Israel as the day on which the golden calf was made
since the Law could not be accurately translated' (Mesechet Sopherim [Tractate for Scribes] 1.7).

45
Ultimate Significance of the Septuagint

It was the adoption of the Septuagint by the early Church that was the biggest factor in its eventual
abandonment by the Jews. The Septuagint's use of parthenos, meaning 'virgin' in Isaiah 7:14 to
describe the mother of the promised son Immanuel, was used by Matthew 1:23 as evidence for the
virgin birth.

Like any translation the Septuagint has its limitations, but it was the first translation of any part of
the Hebrew Bible into another language, so its place in world history is assured. Furthermore, its
use as the version of the Old Testament most frequently used by the writers of the New Testament
only serves to further enhance its significance.

46
 ARISTEAS, LETTER OF:

Kaufmann Kohler, Paul Wendland write:21writes:

Contents of the Letter

Errors in the Letter

The author of this letter declares himself (§ 16) a heathen; as such, in §§ 128, 129, he asks Eleazar
concerning the purport of the Jewish dietary laws; and in § 306 consults the translators about the
meaning of the ceremony of washing the hands before prayer (see Schürer, ii. 444, note 57). But
it is universally recognized that in point of fact his panegyrizing tendency toward Judaism
throughout shows him to be a Jew (Kautzsch, "Die Apokryphen," i. 16); it is also certain that he
cannot have lived in the time of Philadelphus. However important and reliable his general
information may be concerning Egyptian affairs, government, and court-ceremonial in the times
of the Ptolemies (Wilcken, in "Philologus," iii. 111), his historical statements about the time of
Philadelphus are unreliable. In § 180 he changes Philadelphus' defeat at Cos into a victory; he does
not know that Demetrius was banished on the accession of Philadelphus, or that the latter's
marriage with his sister was childless (§§ 41, 185); he transplants the philosopher Menedemus
arbitrarily to the court of the Ptolemies (§ 201) and lets the historian Theopompus and thetragedian
Theodektes relate incredible stories to Demetrius (§§ 314, 315). Of Theodektes, who died before
333 B.C., Demetrius can scarcely have had cognizance.

21
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1765-aristeas-letter-of

47
Opinions about the date of the letter vary considerably. Schürer ("Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes
im Zeitalter Jesu Christi," ii. 468) assigns it to about 200 B.C. He bases his opinion upon the
acknowledged use made of the letter by Aristobulus, but Aristobulus' time is also a matter of
divergent opinion (see Aristobulus). Schürer thinks that in every aspect the letter presupposes the
situation before the conquest of Palestine by the Seleucids (Syrians), when it stood in a state of lax
dependence on Egypt. But this cannot be proved; Palestine appears to have been in no way
dependent upon Egypt. The high priest is represented as an independent ruler, with whom the king
of Egypt negotiates as with an independent sovereign. He maintains a strong garrison in the citadel,
nothing concerning the date can be learned from the description of the citadel. It is certain only
that it lay north of the Temple. Schürer (in private correspondence) takes it to be the tower
mentioned in Neh. ii. 8, vii. 2; Josephus, "Ant." xii. §§ 133, 138; II Macc. iv. 12, 27; v. 5; while
Wendland understands it to be the large building (βάρις) built by the Hasmoneans, also north of
the Temple. Schürer (p. 470) is right in holding that the mention of the harbors proves nothing. and
gives the translators military escort (§ 172).

The Question of Date

Although the title of king is not mentioned, Philo, who reproduces closely the contents of the letter,
does speak of βασιδεύς. Schürer has to allow that if the period of the letter is conceived to be that
of the Hasmonean independence, it is superfluous to suggest the hypothesis of "an artificial
reproduction of by gone circumstances." And in truth, there are many indications pointing to the
later Maccabean times. Can it be only chance that the names Judas, Simon, and Jonathan appear
three times each, and Mattathias once, among the names of the translators (§§ 47 et seq.)? The
names Sosibius and Dositheus (§§ 12, 50) are borrowed probably from Philopator's minister and
from the Jewish general. It is also extremely probable that Aristeas borrows even his own name
from the Jewish historian Aristeas, of whose work, Περὶ 'Ιουδαίων, a fragment exists in Eusebius'
"Præparatio Evangelica," ix. 25).
Examination of the parallelism with the verbal usages of the Septuagint cited in the index to
Wendland's edition of Aristeas' letter will show by the multitude of the resemblances that the letter
was written at a period in which the translation of the whole Bible (not only that of the Law) had
already exerted wide influence. Of special importance, however, is a passage in the prologue to
Jesus Sirach, wherein the latter's grandson excuses the imperfections of his translation by stating
that the Greek translation of the Law, the Prophets, and the other books varies considerably from
the original Hebrew.
If the Greek translation had still enjoyed, in the year 130 (when the translation of Sirach was
probably made), that esteem which Aristeas (according to Schürer, seventy years earlier)
presupposes, such condemnatory criticism could not have been offered to Egyptian Jews. All of
this is testimony in favor of the later Maccabean age; and the possession of Samaria and parts of
Idumea by the Jewish state (§ 107) proves the era to have been at least the time of John Hyrcanus.
One can, therefore, readily understand how it is that Alexander Polyhistor was unacquainted with
the work, if written in the first century B.C. That it was written before the invasion of Palestine by
Pompey (63) and the loss of Jewish independence cannot be doubted. These facts are sufficient to
contradict the theory advanced by Grätz ("Gesch. der Juden," iii. 379, 582) that it was written in
the time of Tiberius. The fact that, according to Aristeas (§ 301), the island of Pharos was built
upon and inhabited, gives a definite date against Grätz, for according to Strabo, xvii. 6, Pharos

48
remained waste and desolate after Cæsar's war. The ἐμπανίσταί, "informers," mentioned by
Aristeas (§ 167), whom Grätz imagines to be the Roman delators, are mentioned in early papyri
of the Ptolemies.
The visit which, in Aristeas (§ 304), the translators pay every morning of their seventy-two
working days to the king, does not necessarily refer to the "salutatio matutina" of the Roman
imperial court. This detail may well have been founded upon the court ceremonial of the Ptolemies,
about which we know little, but which, as we learn from Aristeas himself (§ 175), was very
elaborate. Nor does Grätz prove convincingly that Aristeas' description of the Temple and of the
citadel refers to the Herodian Temple and the Antonia.

Its Philosophy Only Commonplace.

That the author lived in Egypt has been mentioned; and it accounts for the rather superficial
influence of philosophy upon him.
His references to the Epicurean doctrine of pleasure (§§ 108, 223, 277), the recommendation of
the μετριοπάθεια—restraint of the passions— (§ 197), and many parallels to Greek proverbial
wisdom, never rise above the platitudes and commonplaces of an ordinary education. When
Aristeas says (§ 132) that God's power reveals itself in everything, because His dominion fills the
whole world (compare § 143), only strong prejudice would discern the conception of intermediary
beings, or would interpret, as applied to "angels," the various attributes applied to God really only
in their Biblical conceptions (Gfrörer and Dähne).
To consider Aristeas the disciple of an Alexandrian school of philosophy is to do him too much
honor. When he deems that the heathens pray to the one God, only under other names (§ 16), and
interprets the dietary laws in the fashion of the allegorical Midrash, he shows simply how
attenuated his Judaism has become. And if one fancies Biblical resemblances are to be detected in
the sayings of the translators, doubt is awakened by their superficial conception, or by coincident
resemblance to Greek proverbial wisdom, showing only how every characteristic and national
feature had become reduced to vagueness.

Influence of Aristeas

The legend which forms the framework of the book has attained great importance in the Christian
Church. However much the Jewish writer's fancy may have given itself play in its embellishment—
as, for instance, in the quasi-legal style of the reports of the deliberations, and in the clumsy
imitations of the accustomed forms of dinner-table philosophy—still the legend in its main features
may easily have reached Aristeas through the channel of popular tradition. The threefold
cooperation of king, high priest, and Palestinian sages, and especially the solemn sanction of the
Greek translation, have for their sole objects the legitimation of the version, and the obtaining for
it of equal authority with the original text. Philo, who otherwise follows Aristeas, goes beyond him
in attributing divine inspiration to the translators, and in making them by divine influence produce
an identical translation, and in calling them prophets ("Vita Mosis," ii. 7).
This exaggeration must be considered simply as a popular development of the legend, and Philo's
regard in his exegesis for the translation as a holy text testifies to the general appreciation in which
it was held. When the use of the Septuagint in the synagogue service speedily surrounded it with

49
an atmosphere of sanctity, pious belief easily accommodated itself to a myth, the material and form
of which closely resembled the familiar legend of the restoration of the holy books by Ezra under
divine inspiration; a legend which is found for the first time in IV Esdras, but which is certainly
far older.
The Christian Church received the Septuagint from the Jews as a divine revelation, and quite
innocently employed it as a basis for Scriptural interpretation. Only when Jewish polemics assailed
it was the Church compelled to investigate the true relationship of the translation to the original.
Origen perceived the insufficiency of the Septuagint, and, in his "Hexapla," collected material for
a thorough revision of it.
But the legend long adhered closely to the Septuagint and was further embellished by the Church.
Not only were "the Seventy" (the usual expression instead of Seventy-two) credited with having
translated all the Sacred Scriptures instead of the Law only (according to Epiphanius, a whole mass
of Apocrypha besides), but the miraculous element increased. At one time we are told the
translators were shut up in seventy cells in strictest seclusion (pseudo-Justin and others); at another,
in thirty-six cells, in couples.
Epiphanius in his work, "De Mensuris et Ponderibus" (written 392), furnishes the most highly
elaborated and most widely accepted form of the story. The legend became a weapon in the battle
which was waged around the Bible of the Church; the "inspired" Septuagint was not easily
surrendered. The rigid orthodoxy of the fourth century, which resulted in the ruin of all knowledge
in the Church, did not scruple to set this legend in its crassest form in opposition to the promising
beginnings by Origen of a proper Biblical text criticism, and so to arrest the latter completely at
the start. Only Jerome, who as a philologist understood the value of Origen's work, made use of
his material, and in the Vulgate preserved for the Western Church this most precious legacy,
exercising, consistently with his usage, a rational criticism upon the legend.
Thus, Aristeas plays a great, even a fateful, rôle in the Church. The varying opinions as to this
legend very often reflect dogmatic views about the Bible in general, and the understanding, or the
misunderstanding, of his critics concerning textual questions.

Bibliography:
• Various editions: The ed. princeps of the Greek text, by S. Schard, Basel, 1561, upon which all subsequent editions are
based.
• M. Schmidt's ed. in Merx, Archiv f. Wissenschaftliche Erforschung des A. T. (Halle, 1868), 241-312.
• Aristeœ and Philocratem Epistula, cum Ceteris de Origine Versionis LXX Interpretum cum Testimoniis ex L.
Mendelssohnii Schedis, ed. P. Wendland, Leipsic, 1900.
• Schmidt depends mainly upon one Paris manuscript, but Mendelssohn compared all manuscripts extant.
• Wendland's index shows the importance of Aristeas for the study of Hellenistic Greek, by comparison with the LXX,
with inscriptions, papyri in the Ptolemaic age, and Polybius.
• Paragraph references in the above article are those in Wendland's edition.
• Wendland, German translation with introduction, in E. Kautszch, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des A. T. ii. 1-
31, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1899.
• Other literature is quoted by Schürer, Gesch. des Jüdischen Volkes, 3d ed., iii. 470.

50
Raymond F. Surburg writes:22

The Letter of Aristeas is dedicated to Philocrates, brother of the author of the letter, in this way:
"My brother in character no less than in blood, but one with me as well as in the pursuit of
goodness." It begins by telling how King Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.) was advised by his
librarian to have the laws of the Jews translated for his library of 200,000 volumes which had no
translation of the sacred scriptures of the Jews (vv. 1-8). Ptolemy selects Aristeas to go on an
embassy to the high priest Eliezer with the request to send a body of scholars to translate their
sacred scriptures into Greek. Aristeas takes the opportunity to suggest to Ptolemy the freeing of
the 30,000 men whom his father had brought from Palestine as garrisons for the country districts

22
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/letteraristeas.html... Introduction to the Intertestamental Period, p. 152

51
(vv. 17-27). The king agrees to free the Jews and also pays their owners 20 drachmae per head,
the total being 660 talents (vv. 28-40).

Eleazar answers Ptolemy's request favorably (vv. 41-50). The king then sends a gift of 100 talents
of silver to Eliezer for the temple sacrifices: a sacred table (vv. 51-72), gold and silver bowls (vv.
73-78), and golden vials (vv. 79-82).

A most interesting account of the temple, city, and country is then given (vv. 107-120), which is
believed to be from a lost work of Hecate. The translators selected by the high priest leave for
Egypt (vv. 121-127). This is followed by a disquisition on the enactment of laws that treat of food,
which are justified by means of the allegorical method (vv. 128-171). Ptolemy accords the Jewish
elder’s great deference (vv. 172-186), entertains them at a banquet for seven successive days, and
is delighted with the answers to the 72 questions given by the leaders from Palestine (vv. 187-
300).

At the end of the week the elders are installed on the island of Pharos, where they work every day
and complete their translation in 72 days (vv. 201-311). The translation is read before the Jewish
population and recognized by the latter to be accurate (vv. 312-317). Any person who tampers
iwth it in the future is to be subject to a curse. The king receives the scrolls with great satisfaction
and dismisses the translators, who return to Jerusalem with costly gifts (vv. 318-322).

Emil Schürer writes:23

"This survey of the contents shows that the object of the narrative is by no means that of relating
the history in the abstract, but the history so far as it shows, what esteem and admiration were felt
for the Jewish law and for Judaism in general by even heathen authorities, such as King Ptolemy
and his ambassador Aristeas. For the tendency of the whole culminates in the circumstance, that
praise was accorded to the Jewish law by heathen lips. The whole is therefore in the first place
intended for heathen readers. They are to be shown what interest the learned Ptolemy, the promoter
of science, felt in the Jewish law, and with what admiration his highly placed official Aristeas
spoke of it and of Judaism in general to his brother Philocrates. When then it is also remarked at
the close, that the accuracy of the translation was acknowledged by the Jews also, this is not for
the purpose of commending the translation to Jews, who might still oppose it, but to testify to the
heathen, that they had in the present translation an accurate version of the genuine Jewish law, and
it is they, the heathen, who are thus invited to read it."

Martin McNamara writes:24

"This work is remembered for the legend it contains on the translation of the Pentateuch from
Hebrew into Greek. Although this letter casts light on the author's interests and theological views,
still the content seems to be fairly meagre. There is emphasis on the Law. The work has
conventional ethical teaching, with stress on trust in God. 'The highest good in life is to know that
God is the Lord of the universe and that in our finest achievements it is not we who attain success

23
The Literature of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus, pp. 308-309
24
Intertestamental Literature, p. 231

52
but God who by his power brings all things to fulfilment and leads us to the goal' (§195). The
author's interest in the Jerusalem temple is evident from his detailed description of it: the temple
itself including the arrangements for the water supply (§§83-91), the ministration of the priests and
of Eleazar in particular (§§92-99), the Akra or citadel (§§100-104). We also are given a brief
description of Jerusalem (§§105-106), and a description of the country districts of Palestine
(§§107-120)."

James C. VanderKam writes:25

"There has been a long debate among scholars regarding whether the Letter tells us anything
historically reliable about the translation of the law into Greek. It is not impossible that the process
happened or started in Philadelphus's reign since use of the translation is attested by ca. 200 BCE.
It seems unlikely on general grounds that it all transpired just as the Letter claims. It is possible
that the Letter was written in part to defend the validity of the Torah in Greek in face of claims
made for the sole sufficiency of the Hebrew version. In later Christian retellings of the story about
the translation found in the Letter, the tale expanded so that eventually the entire Hebrew Bible
was involved (so Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 68:6-7); indeed, all the translators worked
on the entire project independently, and when they compared their results at the end, wonder of
wonders, every one of them was exactly alike (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.21.2)."

Leonhard Rost writes:26

"The author claims to be a Greek—that is, non-Jewish—official in the court of King Ptolemy II
Philadelphus (285-246), who was one of the leaders of the mission to the high priest Eleazar and
is now reporting what happened to his brother Philocrates. This statement is a fiction. The letter
shows clearly that the author was an Alexandrian Jew living considerably later (§§ 28, 182) than
the events described. He commits historical errors: Demetrius of Phaleron had been banished
around 183 B.C. and had died soon afterwards; he could therefore not have been in office as the
administrator of the library. The sea battle against Antigonus near Cos (258 B.C.) was a defeat,
not a victory, as § 180 states; and the battle of Andros did not take place until the final year of
Ptolemy II's reign—247 B.C. Menedemus is said to have been at the banquet, but it is dubious
whether he ever came to Egypt from Eretria (§ 201).

These discrepancies are cited by H. T. Andrews. Bickermann, besides citing some earlier
observations, adds the demonstration that various idioms in the Letter do not occur until the middle
of the second century and later. Examples are the phrase 'if it seems good' (§ 32), the title 'chief
bodyguard(s)' in the plural, and the formula 'greetings and salutations.' It is therefore best to follow
M. Hadas and date the Letter around the year 130 B.C. Wendland assumes that it was composed
between 97 and 93 B.C. Willrich and Graetz suggest the reign of Caligula, but this dating is too
late, since Aristeas presumes that the island of Pharos is inhabited, whereas Caesar had made it
uninhabitable in 63 B.C."

25
An Introduction to Early Judaism, pp. 84-85
26
Judaism Outside the Hebrew Canon, p. 102

53
Emil Schürer writes:27

"No consensus concerning the date of this book has been arrived at by critics. It seems however
tolerably certain to me, that it originated not later than about 200 years before Christ. The legend,
that it was Demetrius Phalereus who suggested the whole undertaking to Ptolemy Philadelphus is
unhistorical, not only in its details, but in the main point; for Demetrius Phalereus in the time of
Ptolemy Philadelphus no longer lived at court at Alexandria (see above, p. 161). When then the
Jewish philosopher Aristobulus designates just Demetrius Phalereus as the originator of the
undertaking (in Euseb. Praep. evang. xiii. 12. 2, see the passage above, p. 160), it is very probable
that the book in question was already in his hands. Now Aristobulus lived in the time of Ptolemy
Philometor, about 170-150 B.C., and the result thus obtained is supported on internal grounds also.

The period when the Jewish people were leading a peaceful and prosperous existence under the
conduct of their high priest and in a relation of very slight dependence upon Egypt, i.e., the period
before the conquest of Palestine by the Seleucidae, evidently forms the background of the
narrative. There is nowhere any allusion to the complications and difficulties which begin with the
Seleucidian conquest. The Jewish people and their high priest appear as almost politically
independent. At all events it is to a time of peace and prosperity that we are transferred. Especially
is it worthy of remark, that the fortress of Jerusalem is in the possession of the Jews (Merx' Archiv,
i. 272. 10 to 273. 4 = Havercamp's Josephus, ii. 2. 113). Whether this stood on the same spot as
the one subsequently erected by Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc. i. 33) or not, the author is in any
case acquainted with only the one in the possession of the Jews. The fortress however erected by
Antiochus remained in the possession of the Seleucidae till the time of the high priest Simon (142-
141 B.C., 1 Macc. xiii. 49-52).

Of this fact the author has evidently as yet no knowledge, and as little of the subsequent princely
position of the high priest; to him the high priest is imply the high priest, and not also prince or
indeed king. In every respect then it is the circumstances of the Ptolemaic age that are presupposed.
If the author has only artificially reproduced them, this is done with a certainty and a refinement
which cannot be assumed in the case of a pseudonymous author living after it. Hence the opinion,
that the book originated not later than 200 B.C., is justified."

27
The Literature of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus, pp. 309-310

54
 La Table d'or des Pains de Propositions (The Golden Table of Shewbread)

Jacques Louis Constant Lecerf, 19th c. The Jewish Museum.

Ptolemy II’s Gift to the Temple in the Letter of Aristeas

The Letter of Aristeas embellishes its account of Ptolemy’s gift of a table and bowls to the

Jerusalem Temple with what Greek rhetoric calls ekphrasis, a graphic description of a thing or

person intended to bring the subject vividly to the eyes of the reader. What is the purpose of this

embellishment?

55
Prof. Benjamin G. Wright III writes:

LXX and the Letter of Aristeas

Sometime in the third century B.C.E., probably in Egypt, the Pentateuch was translated into Greek.
Current scholarship recognizes that the five books of the Pentateuch were translated independently
of one another.[1] This translation has important text-critical value as an early textual witness to
the first five books of the Bible.[2]

Subsequently the rest of the Hebrew Bible would be translated, and these texts, along with others
not eventually included in the Hebrew canon of scripture, became the scriptures of many
Hellenistic Jews as well as the early Christian church. The entire work is popularly known as the
Septuagint (LXX, or “seventy”), reflecting the apocryphal story of how the Torah was translated
into Greek by 72 translators.[3]

In Jewish circles, the story is best known from the version which appears in the Babylonian Talmud
(ca. 6th–7th cent. C.E.), Tractate Megillah (9a; MS Columbia 294–295):

The Talmud’s version of this tale, however, is by no means the oldest. The earliest known text
narrating the legend of the translation of the Jewish law into Greek by 72 translators appears in the
Letter of Aristeas, composed pseudonymously in the latter part of the second century B.C.E. by a
Greek speaking Jew from Alexandria.[4]

56
Letter of Aristeas: An Overview

The Greek text, made up of 322 verses or paragraphs, presents itself as a letter to a certain
Philocrates from his brother Aristeas, who, in the world of the narrative, was a courtier in the court
of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (reigned 283–246 B.C.E.). Pseudo-Aristeas (as I shall call the
pseudonymous author) describes how Demetrius, the royal librarian of Ptolemy wants a copy of
the Torah for the great library in Alexandria, but remarks that the book is only available in the
Judean language (§11), namely Hebrew. So, Ptolemy “proposed to write to the high priest of the
Judeans so that Demetrius might bring to completion the aforementioned matters [i.e., the
translation of the Judean books]” (§11).

In his letter, Ptolemy requisitions seventy-two scholars, six from each tribe, from the Jewish high
priest in Jerusalem, Eleazar,[5] to come to Alexandria to render the translation. Aristeas leads a
delegation to Jerusalem to retrieve the seventy-two scholars, whom Eleazar names in his
correspondence, and brings with him gifts from Ptolemy. The letter continues with:

• A travelogue that describes Jerusalem, especially the Temple and its ministrations, and
then Judea, and its surroundings.

• Eleazar’s long farewell speech to the translators, condemning idol worship and
emphasizing the symbolic meaning of some Jewish laws, especially laws concerning eating
kosher food;[6]

• Ptolemy’s reception of the translators and a series of seven symposia in which the king
questions each of the translators.

• The execution of the translation.

• Its presentation to Ptolemy and to the Judeans who heartily approve of it.

• The return of the translators to Judea.

57
Most, if not all, of the work is fictional. Its author knew the LXX translation of the Pentateuch,
quoting the Greek version in some places, employing its vocabulary, and alluding to it at various
points in the narrative.[7] For example, Aristeas arranges for the liberation of Jewish slaves in
Egypt, which connects the reader to the story of the exodus.

Elsewhere in the letter, Ptolemy has gifts made for the Temple in Jerusalem, a scene that reworks
parts of the Tabernacle account in Exodus.

A Gift of a Table and Bowls for the Temple

Along with the delegation to Jerusalem, Ptolemy sends gifts for the Temple in Jerusalem,
specifically a table and bowls intended to be used in the priestly ministrations. This description is
long and detailed (§§51b–82), immediately preceding the travelogue (§§83–120).

Did Pseudo-Aristeas have knowledge of the actual table in the temple? This seems unlikely
considering the fictional nature of the narrative as a whole. Although some scholars have suggested
that the travelogue in the letter came from narratives of historical pilgrimages to Jerusalem, the
idealized picture that Pseudo-Aristeas paints of Jerusalem and its surroundings renders such a
conclusion unlikely. By extension, it is highly doubtful that Pseudo-Aristeas’s description of
Ptolemy’s gifts has any basis in experience of the Jerusalem temple.

Pseudo-Aristeas was likely inspired by two main considerations in describing such gifts:

1. Ptolemy II’s extravagance—Ptolemy II had a wide reputation in antiquity for his love of
art and opulence.[8] In the description of Ptolemy’s gifts of the table and bowls, the Letter
of Aristeas’s author certainly plays on this reputation.

2. The tabernacle account in Exodus—The description of the table in Aristeas seems to

have been built upon the description of these same items in the book of
Exodus.[9]Nevertheless, Pseudo-Aristeas does not merely copy the passage or even

58
 paraphrase it, but in his 15-paragraph description, he goes well beyond his basic source
material in Exodus, and his 10-paragraph description of its bowls greatly exceeds their
brief mention in Exodus.[10]

The elaborate description of Ptolemy’s gifts in Aristeas takes the form of an ekphrasis, a Greek
rhetorical device that gives a graphic description of a thing or person intended to bring the subject
vividly to the eyes of the reader.

The Table

The Letter of Aristeas prefaces the description of the table with an account about how Ptolemy
initially wanted to make the table of colossal size. The king inquired about how large the “previous
one was that stood in the temple” (§52), presumably the table that his was meant to replace, and
was told that nothing prevented him from building a bigger one. He relents only when he realizes
that such a gargantuan table would serve no practical purpose in the Temple, and he wants the
priests to be able to use it.

This account emphasizes both Ptolemy’s extravagant nature as well as his great respect for the
Jerusalem temple, its priesthood, and customs. This is part of a consistent theme in the Letter of
Aristeas, that Ptolemy II showed great respect for the Jewish God.

Size

Exod 25:23-27 describes the table as part of God’s instructions concerning the Tabernacle.[11]

Pseudo-Aristeas takes the Exodus passage and runs with it, but he begins with a very close—
though not verbatim—parallel to Exodus 25:3a:

59
 Letter of Aristeas 57

The letter then adds: “Now I mean not of gold overlaid around something, but a metal plate was
fastened on.” [14]

Decoration

Having decided that an oversized table was impractical (§56),

[Ptolemy] ordered that the various types of arts be used to the highest degree, since he intended
everything to be majestic and he had a good ability for perceiving how objects looked. Wherever
things were not written down, he ordered them to be made according to beauty; wherever things
were written down, he ordered their measurements to be followed.

Thus, in its description of the table’s decoration, the Letter of Aristeas goes far beyond the source
in Exodus:

60
This brief description of a decorative motif in Exodus is replaced in Aristeas with 14 paragraphs
detailing a very complex set of ornamental features. Ptolemy’s table has a rim measuring a palm’s
breadth, and, like the table in Exodus, it has twisted molding. The rim is said to be triangular with
rope decorations with precious stones as well as egg decorations made from precious stones (§§60–
62). Underneath the egg reliefs were garlands of all kinds of produce—grape clusters, ears of corn
(stachus), dates, apples, pomegranates, olives—each having its proper color.

This decoration recalls the so-called egg-and-dart pattern often found in Ionic architecture—one
of the three forms of Greek architecture, the other two being Doric and Corinthian—which had
three registers: (1) the top, which had wave molding (kuma); (2) the middle having the egg-and-
dart pattern specifically; and (3) the bottom register of floral designs.[16]

Egg and Dart Pattern

61
Below this rim, Pseudo-Aristeas suggests that the table had a similar pattern, perhaps on the sides
of the table. The relief on the table itself was a winding pattern, which had precious stones in the
middle of it. Then came a web-like pattern, which also had inlaid precious stones. Pseudo-Aristeas
notes that the table was constructed the same way on both sides so that it could be used “from
whichever side they [i.e., the priests] chose” (§65).

Pseudo-Aristeas clearly tries to create an image of a luxurious table, consistent with Ptolemy’s
reputation for ostentation. The table, as the letter describes it, defies making a clear image of it.
Indeed, the description is so over the top and unrealistic that Erich Gruen has suggested that
Pseudo-Aristeas was actually making fun of the king’s reputation for such opulence.

Legs and Feet

Exodus 25:26 mentions legs, but gives no information about their construction, so Pseudo-Aristeas
lets his imagination soar when describing them. The legs were inserted into a “solid metal plate”
and had capitals decorated with gold-plated lilies, which bent underneath the table. The feet had
the shape of boots with a ruby support on the bottom. Thus, the table rested on four rubies
underneath the boot-shaped feet.

The legs were decorated with ivy, acanthus, and grapevines made of stone, which wrapped around
from the feet up to the capitals. In describing the design of these vines, Pseudo-Aristeas tells us
that “everything had been made effectively and fitted, having the unchangeable superiority of
experience and skill to approach reality, so that even when a breeze of air blew, the positioning of
the leaves allowed for movement, since the arrangement of everything was modeled on reality”
(§70).

No Rings

One element notably missing in the Letter of Aristeas, though prominent in Exodus, is the table’s
rings and carrying poles:

62
Pseudo-Aristeas skipped these elements, presumably because they belonged to the tabernacle’s
table, which needed to be portable, since the Israelites were always on the move; such portability
was not needed for the Temple table.

Repeating Ptolemy’s Intention

After describing the table’s decorative features at length, Pseudo-Aristeas explains why Ptolemy
did this (§72):

The Gold and Silver Bowls

In its description of the items that should accompany the table, Exodus merely states:

Here again our author uses his ekphrastic imagination, veering even farther from the biblical text.
Rather than the Greek terms used in the LXX, trublion (“bowl) and spondeion (“pouring cup”),
Pseudo-Aristeas distinguishes two kinds of bowls that the king ordered to be made: the krater, a
large drinking bowl that was used to mix wine and water and often to fill other cups, and the phialē,

63
a large, flat bowl used for drinking or for pouring libations. He does not include the
terms thuiskē (“censer”) or kuathos (“ladle”), the two other objects listed in Exodus.

In contrast to the Exodus passage that stipulates the bowls be made of pure gold, we are told in the
letter that some were made of gold and some of silver. Indeed, Pseudo-Aristeas relates that when
the bowls were lined up with gold and silver ones alternately “the arrangement was completely
indescribable, and when people drew near to the sight, they could not tear themselves away due to
the illumination and the pleasure of the sight” (§77). Like the table, the bowls were lavishly
decorated with lozenges made of precious stones, lilies, and grape clusters all around the rim. The
golden bowls had grape vines entwined with myrtle and olive with precious stones set in them.

As if this weren’t enough, Aristeas ends this section with three paragraphs describing how much
Ptolemy invested in money and care to this project of gifts for the Jerusalem temple (§§80–82):

As a Jew with a Greek education and in the manner of other Hellenistic writers, Pseudo-Aristeas
in this section displays his rhetorical skill, as he does throughout the text.[17] He signals the
ekphrastic nature of his descriptions with the number of times that he points out that indescribable,
amazing, and remarkable nature of these works of superior art.

The Goals of Ekphrasis

Why does Pseudo-Aristeas go to such lengths to describe these gifts as part of his fictional account
of how the Torah was translated into Greek?

64
Pseudo-Aristeas’s portrayal of Ptolemy’s gifts fits into one larger theme of the book: that Jews in
Alexandria can participate in elite Alexandrian Hellenistic culture without compromising their
identities as Jews. By creating this picture of Ptolemy II (and other Greek elites such as Aristeas
and the court philosophers) as respecting the Jewish god and Jewish traditions—the king even
serves kosher food at his symposia! —Pseudo-Aristeas emphasizes that elite Greeks understand
and respect Jewish traditions, especially those that set Jews apart.

In the world of the Letter of Aristeas, it is a matter of pride that Jews have their own laws given
by a lawgiver, Moses; their own ruler, in this case Eleazar the high priest; and their city, Jerusalem,
that stands on par with Ptolemy and Alexandria. Pseudo-Aristeas creates his fictional account as a
way of constructing a Jewish identity for his co-religionists that works in Hellenistic Alexandrian
society of the late second century. His ekphrasis of the table and bowls, and his emphasis on how
important this project was to King Ptolemy, play a role in that larger enterprise.

Footnotes

1. The translation techniques in the five books of the Pentateuch differ from one another in translation equivalents between

Hebrew and Greek and style, convincing scholars that the books were translated by different people. In one rabbinic

tradition, the number of translators is five. See Abot according to Rabbi Nathan, version B, ch. 37. Tractate Soferim1:7

has both traditions (5 and 72) back-to-back.

2. For accessible introductions to the LXX and the scholarly study of the Greek translations, see Jennifer Dines, The

Septuagint (London: T&T Clark, 2004); Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 2nd ed. (Grand

Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015).

3. Some versions of the story have the translators cooperating, as in the Letter of Aristeas; others have them working

independently and producing the same translation, as in this version from the Babylonian Tractate. On the different

versions of the legend, see Abraham Wasserstein and David J. Wasserstein, The Legend of the Septuagint from Classical

Antiquity to Today (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).

65
4. For a translation and commentary on the Letter of Aristeas, see Benjamin G. Wright III, The Letter of Aristeas: ‘Aristeas

to Philocrates’ or ‘On the Translation of the Law of the Jews’, Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature (Berlin: Walter

de Gruyter, 2015). Another version of the story, briefer than and a variant of the Letter of Aristeas, can be found in the

Hellenistic Jewish writer Aristobulus. The two writers do not appear to depend on one another; they likely relied upon

an earlier Alexandrian tradition about the translation.

5. Josephus (Antiquities 12.43) identifies this high priest as the brother of the Oniad Simon I. Scholars are divided over

whether the Eleazar in the Letter of Aristeas is the same person as Josephus’s Eleazar. James C. VanderKam, From

Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests After the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), 167 believes that he is, while Erich

S. Gruen, “The Letter of Aristeas,” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, ed. Louis H.

Feldman et al. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2013), 3:2716 is skeptical of this identification.

6. Editor’s note: For more on this, see Joshua Garroway, “The Earliest Explanation for Kosher: Allegory in the Hellenistic

World,” TheTorah.com (2016).

7. There is no evidence in the Letter of Aristeas that Pseudo-Aristeas knew any Hebrew. Although most scholars recognize

the essentially fictional nature of its story, some find historical nuggets in it. Some scholars even retain the idea of royal

involvement and argue for its ultimate deposit in the Alexandrian library. See, for example, Tessa Rajak, Translation &

Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) and Sylvie

Honigman, The Septuagint and Homeric Scholarship in Alexandria: A Study in the Narrative of the Letter of Aristeas

(London: Routledge, 2003). No evidence survives from the third century B.C.E. about the motivation for the translation

of the Pentateuch. Scholars have suggested several possibilities, such as education, liturgy, or law. See the introductions

in n. 2 for more detail.

8. For example, the Greek writer Athenaeus (2nd–3rd c. C.E.) in his work Deipnosophistscites the History of Alexandria by

Callixenus of Rhodes (a contemporary of Ptolemy II), who described a grand procession of Ptolemy and a lavish

banqueting tent that held one hundred and thirty couches.

9. Two other passages, 3 Kgdms (=1 Kings) 7:48 and 2 Chr 4:19, briefly mention that Solomon constructed a table for his

Temple, but this description contains no details, in contrast to the table described in Exodus. In any event, other than the

Greek Pentateuch, it is unlikely that Pseudo-Aristeas knew any (translated) biblical books beyond the Pentateuch; he

never refers or alludes to any.

10. On the various tables that were in the temple according to Jewish tradition, see Wright, Letter of Aristeas, 180–81.

11. Later in Exod 38:9-11, when Moses makes the table, unlike the Masoretic Text and Samaritan Pentateuch, which describe

the formation of the table in detail, the LXX has only a short note saying that he indeed made the table of gold.

12. I will be quoting from the LXX (NETS trans.), since this is what the author was using.

66
13. This phrase is found in Josephus’s report of the Letter of Aristeas but not in manuscripts of it, and many scholars think

it was part of the text. The carats indicate that some uncertainty remains.

14. It is not clear exactly what this phrase means in light of the preceding “pure gold.” The point seems to be that rather than

gold leaf or a veneer, the gold was solid in the form of a thick plate attached to some kind of base.

15. Editor’s note: “Twisted molding” is the LXX’s rendering of the obscure Hebrew term ‫זר‬. For a discussion of what the

biblical text may be picturing, see Raanan Eichler, “The Zer,” TheTorah.com (2015).

16. Although Pseudo-Aristeas does not reproduce these registers exactly as they would appear on a cornice or capital, he

uses the architectural term kuma, wave molding, in §64 rather than the phrase strepta kumatia of Exodus, which he does

use earlier in §58 to refer to the twisted molding.

17. On Pseudo-Aristeas’s Greek education and the rhetorical devices he uses, see Benjamin G. Wright III,

“Greek Paideia and the Jewish Community in the Letter of Aristeas,” in Second Temple Jewish >Paideia< in Context,

ed. Jason M. Zurawski and Gabriele Boccaccini (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2017), 93–112.

67