וְשִׁנַּנְתָּ֣ם לְבָנֶ֔יךָ וְדִבַּרְתָּ֖ בָּ֑ם בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ֤ בְּבֵיתֶ֙ךָ֙ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ֣ בַדֶּ֔רֶךְ וּֽבְשָׁכְבְּךָ֖ וּבְקוּמֶֽךָ׃
и будешь усердно учить их своим детям и говорить о них, когда сидишь в доме твоем, и когда идешь по дороге, и когда ложишься и когда поднимаешься.
Jerusalem Talmud Sotah
HALAKHAH: “The priest anointed for war,” etc. Why4Why must he speak in Hebrew only? the priest anointed for war? Because it is written “he shall speak5Deut. 20:2.”? But about the reading of the Šema‘ it is written: “You shall speak about them,” and it may be recited in any language. But because it is written there “saying6Deut. 20:3.”. But for the declaration of tithes it is written “saying7Deut. 26:13.” and it may be recited in any language! Rebbi Ḥaggai said, it says here “to come close5Deut. 20:2.” and it says there, “the Levitic Cohanim shall come close8Deut. 21:5.;” since “coming close” there implies [recitation in] the holy language9Mishnah 7:2., so also “coming close” here implies [recitation in] the holy language10This is an example of an argument outside the hermeneutic rules, used quite frequently in the Babli but very sparingly in the Yerushalmi. It is not an “equal cut” since there is no transfer of meaning involved; it is what is known as הֶקֵּשׁ “tying together”. Both in the case of the priest chosen for war and the calf selected to atone for an unsolved murder case, it should be quite clear that the people involved cannot be heard unless they are reasonably close. In both cases, the note that they have to come near is somewhat redundant. Therefore, one may conclude that the additional expression was used to indicate similar circumstances, which by rabbinic authority is declared to concern the language to be used.. That follows Rebbi Aqiba who says, these are expressions of additions11This refers to the ceremony for the unsolved murder case, where R. Jehudah in 7:2 states that common use of the roots אמר, ענה implies use of the holy language. That argument is acceptable only following R. Aqiba, not following R. Ismael. For the latter, the argument of R. Ḥaggai does not prove anything.. Following Rebbi Ismael who says, these are double expressions? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, it says here “to come close” and it says there, “Moses shall come close to the mist12Ex. 20:21; the word order is incorrect in the quote.”, since “coming close” there implies [recitation in] the holy language13Since Moses was deputized by the people to speak to God Who obviously spoke to them and him in Hebrew. This reference to the holy language is acceptable to R. Ismael., so also “coming close” here implies [recitation in] the holy language.