Halakhah su Deuteronomio 1:5

A similar distinction may be inferred from the comments of Me'iri, Sanhedrin 59a. Me'iri states that a non-Jew may study Torah if he does indeed intend to fulfill the precepts which he studies, but is deserving of punishment if he studies solely in order to acquire knowledge of "our Torah and our Talmud." Me'iri's inclusion of the phrase "our Talmud" would indicate that it is only the study of the Oral Law which is objectionable.¹⁶See Bet ha-Beḥirah al Masekhet Sanhedrin, ed. Abraham Sofer (Jerusalem, 5731), p. 229, n. 3. However, R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yabi‘a Omer, II, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 17, understands Me’iri’s phrase “our Torah” as including the Written Law. Again, in his commentary on Haggigah 13a, Me'iri speaks of "secrets of the Torah" which may not be imparted to non-Jews. It may be inferred that the Written Law, which is readily accessible to all, may be taught to a non-Jew. Among later authorities, Rabbi Naphtali Zevi Yehudah Berlin, Meshiv Davar, II, no. 77,¹⁷See also R. Naphtali Zevi Yehudah Berlin’s commentary on the Bible, Ha‘amek Davar, Harḥev Davar, Leviticus 18:15. rules that one may teach the Written Law to non-Jews as do Rabbi Judah Asad, Teshuvot Maharya, Yoreh De'ah, no. 135 and the son of this author in a gloss appended to Teshuvot Maharya, Oraḥ Hayyim, no. 4. Meshiv Davar points to the fact that "God commanded Joshua to translate the Pentateuch into seventy languages," presumably for the edification of non-Jews.¹⁸In response to Meshiv Davar’s argument, Divrei Yissakhar, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 96, states that only the content of the seven Noachide commandments were made available for non-Jews. There is, however, no hint of this distinction in the talmudic discussion recorded in Sotah 35b. See also Rashi, Deuteronomy 1:5, who interprets that passage as meaning that Moses expounded the Torah in seventy languages, presumably for the edification of the seventy gentile nations. See, however, Arugat ha-Bosem, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 213, who opines that Moses’ exposition was for the benefit of Jews only and that he taught Torah in seventy languages in anticipation of the exile of Israel and the dispersal of Jews among the seventy nations. Cf., also Magen Avraham, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 334:17. See also R. Abraham I. Kook, Iggerot ha-Re’iyah (Jerusalem, 5722), I, no. 90, sec. 5, who declares that no normative halakhah can be derived from this narrative since the divine command was limited to a particular incident and occurred in conjunction with the exodus from Egypt and the revelation at Mount Sinai. During this unprecedented and unparalleled historical epoch the Divine Presence was perceived in some manner even by the gentile nations. A similar distinction is made by numerous other authorities including Sefer ha-Mezaref, no. 97; Rabbi Jonathan Eibeschutz, Ahavat Yonatan, Parshat Beshalaḥ; Ma'or va-Shemesh, Parshat Hukat; R. Jacob Meskin, Mishpat le-Ya'akov, no. 24; and Anaf Yosef, Haggigah 13a.¹⁹According to the authorities who maintain that non-Jews may study the Written Law it is somewhat difficult to understand the negative attitude toward translation of Scripture expressed in Midrash Tanḥuma, Parshat Ki Tissa, 34, Soferim 1:6, and elsewhere, Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 580:2, states that it is proper to fast on the eighth day of Tevet because on that day the Torah was translated into Greek in the time of Ptolemy “and there was darkness upon the world for three days.” [The statements in Soferim 1:6 and Oraḥ Ḥayyim 580:2 with regard to the translation at the behest of Ptolemy do not appear to present a difficulty since the published text of Soferim 1:6 indicates that the source of grief was the inadequacy of the translation, apparently a reference to the intentional mistranslation of a number of passages as reported in Megillah 9a. Tanḥuma cannot be resolved in this manner because it specifically decries translation as a means of making Torah accessible to non-Jews.] Teshuvot Maharaẓ Ḥayes, no. 32, resolves this difficulty by stating that making the Written Law available to non-Jews is not decried in these situations because of the prohibition against non-Jews studying Torah, but because the gentile nations failed to adhere to the Noachide Code, as stated in Avodah Zarah 2b. Under such circumstances, knowledge of Torah serves no beneficial purpose, particularly since the meaning of the Torah was distorted by them. However, continues Maharaẓ Ḥayes, there exists no continuing objection to translation of the Bible since translations are now readily available and the teaching of Scripture to non-Jews is not intrinsically forbidden. Cf., R. Moses Sofer, Torat Mosheh, Parshat Shemot, and Teshuvot Arugat ha-Bosem, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 213. See, however, R. Ezekiel Landau, Ẓelaḥ al Masekhet Berakhot (New York, 5716), addendum to introduction, p. 110, who decries translation of the Bible. This statement should not be confused with statements against Mendelssohn’s translation of the Bible attributed to R. Ezekiel Landau. The statement contained in the introduction to Ẓelaḥ decries all translations but is not cited by R. Landau’s biographers or by scholars assessing his role in the Mendelssohn controversy. If this addendum is authentic it appears to be at variance with the same authority’s approbation of a facile German translation designed to aid students of the Hebrew text; see Ben-Zion Katz, Rabbanut, Ḥasidut, Haskalah (Tel Aviv, 1956), pp. 198-199 and Shlomoh Wind, R. Yeḥezkel Landau: Toldot Ḥayyav u-Pe‘ulotav (Jerusalem, 5721), pp. 118-119.