The Ran brings from the Ramban that the megillah may only be read in another language for one who does not understand hebrew (aside from requiring the understanding of that language). The Rashash brings a proof to this from the mishna that says that it can be read for "loazos b'la'az", and not "loazim b'la'az", which implies we are speaking about women. Women generally don't understand hebrew and that is why it can be read for them in la'az.
On another point, I had some trouble with the gemara discussing whether to read in ashuris, one must actually understand the language. First the gemara proves that it is not necessary similar to "nashim v'amei ha'aretz", but then asks that what about us, we don't understand achashteronim... so the gemara concludes that the mitzvah is to read and bring to parsumei nisah (as rashi explains). What is the shakla v'tarya? What is the difference if we prove that one does not have to understand the language from women or from achashteronim....?
1 comment:
The Rishonim indicate that the advantage of learning from "achashteronim.." rather than from women and amei ha'aretz is a chidush that although we don't have to understand every word, we still must read and hear every word.
Based on this the shakla v'tarya would be: Q. But we don't know what is being said? A. It is like women and amei ha'aretz who are yotzei without understanding since there is parsumei nisah. Q. Instead of proving the point from women, it makes more sense to prove the point from "achashteronim.." which indicates that every word must be read? A. Yes. The mitzvah is to read every word, and by reading every word it will lead to parsumei nisah even if one doesn't understand anything bec. they will ask others about the storyline.
Post a Comment