Talmud do Daniela 5:32

“One may go out with an expert amulet whether written or based on herbs, on condition that it be put neither in a chain nor in a ring.”¹²⁵As Babli and Tosephta explain, since chain and ring are forbidden, people would not realize that one wears them for a legitimate purpose. They asked before Rebbi Jonathan, may it be put in a tube? He answered him, “on condition that it be put neither in a chain nor in a ring.” They asked before Rebbi Jonathan, may one go out with a necklace? He said, because of jewelry. If because of jewelry, Daniel should have prohibited, and a golden necklace around his neck¹²⁶Dan. 5:7. Since Daniel accepted the golden chain he must have worn it also on the Sabbath.. If¹²⁷Babylonian spelling; the Yerushalmi form would have been אין. because of a load on the Sabbath, we may say¹²⁸Babylonian spelling; the Yerushalmi form would have been נימר. that anything connected to a garment is like a garment.

The following words are written without a waw,¹At the end of the word. but are to be read with the waw: and offered it;²1 Sam. 7, 9. said;³ibid. 19. Here and in the other verses which are cited the kethib is the singular and the ḳerë the plural. and [they] said;⁴ibid. XII, 10. and they spoke;⁵1 Kings 12, 7. shall they take away;⁶2 Kings 20, 18. and let them deliver;⁷ibid. XXII, 5. and eat;⁸Isa. 37, 30. together;⁹Jer. 48, 7, yaḥdaw to be read for yaḥad. and they shall profane it;¹⁰Ezek. 7, 21. and they offered;¹¹Ezra 3, 3. was made;¹²Dan. 5, 21. and took upon them;¹³Esth. 9, 27. Hananiah;¹⁴Added by GRA and H. The name Hananiah indicates Neh. 3, 30 where the text omits the waw at the end of ’aḥaraw (after him). Malchijah.¹⁵Indicating ibid. 31 where the waw at the end of ’aḥaraw is also omitted. The reverse of this [occurs in the following words]:¹⁶A superfluous waw is written but not read. my feet;¹⁷2 Sam. 22, 34; the kethib is ‘his feet’. [Although not included here, in the preceding verse my way is ‘his way’ in the kethib.] throw her down;¹⁸2 Kings 9, 33. [The added waw is due to dittography and superfluous.] and … commanded;¹⁹ibid. XVI, 15. The kethib means ‘commanded him’. straight before him;²⁰In Ezek. 46, 9 where the verb shall go forth is written as plural but to be read as singular. the fountain gate;²¹In Neh. 3, 15 where the kethib is ‘they set up’ and the ḳerë (he) set up. and called him;²²In 1 Kings 12, 3. The reference is to the word which follows which is plural in the kethib and singular in the ḳerë. and he assembled;²³ibid. 21. Here the reference is to the first verb was come which is written as plural but to be read as singular. took.²⁴In 2 Kings 14, 13. The reference is again to the verb came with the singular to be read for the plural in the text.

Assyrian has a script but no language; Hebrew has a language but no script. They choose for themselves Assyrian script and Hebrew language²⁸⁵This refers to the tradition quoted in the Babli, Sanhedrin 21a: “Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew script and the Holy Language. It was given to them a second time in the days of Ezra in Assyrian script and Aramaic language. Israel chose for themselves Assyrian script and the Holy language.” For this entire passage the Babli reference is Sanhedrin 21b–22a.. Why is it called Assyrian? Because it is beautiful script; Rebbi Levi said, because they brought it with them from Assyria²⁸⁶In the first version the name of the script has nothing to do with Assyria. In the second it is asserted that it is the Aramaic script of what earlier was Assyria.. It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, Ezra was worthy that the Torah could have been given through him, only Moses’s generation preceded him. Even though the Torah was not given through him, but he gave writing and language²⁸⁵This refers to the tradition quoted in the Babli, Sanhedrin 21a: “Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew script and the Holy Language. It was given to them a second time in the days of Ezra in Assyrian script and Aramaic language. Israel chose for themselves Assyrian script and the Holy language.” For this entire passage the Babli reference is Sanhedrin 21b–22a.; and the script of the letter written in Aramaic and explained in Aramaic²⁸⁷Ezra 4:7.. And they could not read this script²⁸⁸Dan. 5:8.; this teaches that it was given on that day²⁸⁹The Babylonian sages could not read the script on the wall because it was new. This claims divine origin for the square script.. Rebbi Nathan says, the Torah was given in paleo-Hebrew; this follows Rebbi Yose²⁹⁰The Babylonian R. Nathan follows the Babylonian tradition that traces Targum Onkelos to Ezra and asserts that he transcribed the Torah into Aramaic script.. Rebbi said, the Torah was given in Assyrian, but when they sinned it was changed into paleo-Hebrew. When they merited it in the days of Ezra it was changed into Assyrian: Also today I shall return to you what was told to change²⁹¹Zach. 9:12. The translation here tries to express the homily implied by the quotes.; he shall write for himself this changing Torah in a scroll²⁹²Deut. 17:18., a script which in the future is apt to change. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Protos who said it in the name of Rebbi Eleazar from Modiin, the Torah was given in Assyrian script. What is the reason? The hooks of the pillars²⁹³Ex. 27:10., that the letters vav of the Torah look like pillars²⁹⁴In paleo-Hebrew the letter vav, meaning “hook”, really looks like a hook on a stick. In square script the hook is lost, only the stick is left.. Rebbi Levi said, for him who said, the Torah was given in paleo-Hebrew, the letter ayin was a miracle²⁹⁵This does not refer to the Torah but to the stone tablets. From the description that the tablets were written on both sides it is inferred that the letters pierced the stone; the same letters were visible on both sides. This creates a problem for circular shaped letters, ayin in paleo-Hebrew and samekh in square script.. He who said, the Torah was given Assyrian, the letter samekh was a miracle. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Simon both were saying, in earlier copies of the Torah neither he nor final mem were closed²⁹⁶The open final mem is exemplified in the Aramaic inscription of King Uziahu’s ossuary. In early Medieval mss. the he looks like a ח, only that the left leg is not at the left end but touching the vertical bar somewhat to the right. The open he is recommended in the Babli, Menaḥot 29b. For a thorough discussion, cf. S. Liebermann, Tarbiz 4 (1933) pp. 292–293.. Therefore samekh was closed²⁹⁷This justifies R. Levi’s remark that only samekh but not final mem represented a problem..