Clarification: It is obvious, Rabeinu Chananel explains, that the Torah was given to Moshe in Lashon ha'Kodesh, and that the question of 'be'Chol Lashon' concerns whether one is permitted to copy it in another language or not.

Inferred Halachah: And from his explanation it appears that according to those that hold that it is forbidden, one may also not read it in another language ...

Inferred Halachah (cont.): Since if someone reads it in Persian when it is written in Lashon Ivri, it is as if he read it by heart ...

Source: Like the Gemara says in the second Perek of Megilah (Daf 18a) 'If one read it in Arama'ic, one is not Yotzei. What is the case? If it is written in Ashuris and one reads it in Arama'ic, that is akin to reading it by heart. It must therefore speak where it is written in Arama'ic and one reads it in Arama'ic'.

Question #1: Tosfos fails to comprehend Rabeinu Chananel's explanation however; How can one possibly think that according to Rebbi, one is permitted to transcribe it in any language? In that case, when Rebbi says 'Keri'as Sh'ma the way it is written', he means in any language, since one is permitted to write it in any language according to him. And if that is so, this is synonymous with the Rabbanan (with whom he is supposed to be arguing)?

Question #2: Furthermore, we ought to extrapolate from here that at least, according to Rebbi, it was said in Lashon ha'Kodesh (It is not clear what Tosfos is asking [See Maharsha])?

Question #3: Moreover, what is the She'eilah ...

Question #3 (cont.): Seeing as this is a Machlokes in the first Perek of Megilah, sa we learned in the Mishnah 'The only difference between Sefarim and Mezuzos is that whereas the former may be written in any language, whereas the latter must be written exclusively in Ashuris (i.e. Lashon ha'Kodesh) ...

Question #3 (concl.): Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says that also Sefarim they only permitted to be written in Greek, exclusively'.

Answer: One cannot extrapolate from Rebbi's words 'Keri'as Sh'ma the way it is written' (to mean in any language, as we explained in the Kashya).

Reason: Since he could mean like the writing that pertained to it when it was written independently, such as Mezuzos and Tefilin, which everybody agrees must be written in Lashon ha'Kodesh.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara suggests that Rebbi holds that the entire Torah was written in every language ...

Answer: It means that he does not concur with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who permits Greek exclusively.

Answer (cont.): Whereas the Rabbanan who say 'in Lashon ha'Kodesh' do not concur with the Rabbanan (of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel) who say that Sefarim may be written in any language. This is how we must explain the Gemara according to Rabeinu Chananel.

Text #1: Rashi changes the text, by omitting the word 'Minalan' (from where do we know it)?

Text #1 (cont.): Because (he maintains) we do not require a Pasuk, since why would we even think that it needs to be read in Lashon ha'Kodesh?

Text #2: The correct text however, is like the Sefarim that insert 'Minalan', because we would otherwise have thought that we learn Birchas ha'Mazon from the B'rachos on Har Gerizim, by which the Torah writes (in Devarim, 27) "Eileh Ya'amdu Lavarech".

Text #2 (cont.): Just as there they were said in Lashon ha'Kodesh, so too, here ...

Reason: Bearing in mind that it is via this Gezeirah-Shavah that in this Perek (Daf 38a) we learn that Birchas Kohanim must be said in Lashon ha'Kodesh.

Text #2 (concl.): Hence the Torah writes "u'Verachta es Hash-m" - to teach us that since the B'rachah and the praise is towards the Shechinah, you are permitted to recite the B'rachah in any language that you wish; Presumably, you will opt to praise Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu in a language that you understand, with a full heart to your advantage.

Support: And this is also what the Yerushalmi in our Perek says "u'Verachta", 'in order that one should know to whom one is addressing one's B'rachos.

Extension of Previous Ruling: It even implies in Perek Keitzad Mevorchin (B'rachos, Daf 40b) that even if one recites the B'rachah not accurately translated one is Yotzei ...

Proof: Like Binyamin the shepherd who, when he ate bread, he said 'Blessed be Hash-m, the Master of this bread'. And Rav ruled that he was Yotzei with the B'rachah Rishonah.

Implied Question: We cannot learn it (Birchas ha'Mazon) from the Pasuk "ve'Amarta lifnei Hash-m Elokecha" that is written in connection with Viduy Ma'aser ...

Answer: Since it is not comparable, seeing as here it is written "es Hash-m", and there "lifnei Hash-m".

Explanation: And the reason that the Torah writes there "lifnei Hash-m" is to teach us that Viduy Ma'asros must take place in the Azarah.

Conclusion: That is why we need the Gezeirah-Shavah of 'Amirah' 'Amirah'.

Explanation #1: The correct explanation appears to be that, were it not for the Pasuk, we would have learned "Kol" "Kol" from Moshe. Therefore the Torah wrote "ve'Sham'ah", implying in whatever language one hears it, since it did not write "ve'Hishbi'a be'Kol Alah".

Explanation #2: But according to Rashi, who explains that if not for the Pasuk, we would have thought that it needs to be similar to the Shevu'ah of Har G'rizim and Har Eival, which were in Lashon ha'Kodesh ...

Refutation #1: To the contrary, let us learn it from the Shevu'ah of a Sotah, which could be made in any language?

Refutation #2: Furthermore, why can we not learn it from "Alah" "Alah" from Sotah, where the Torah writes "bi'Shevu'as ha'Alah".

Conclusion: Therefore one has to explain that, had the Torah not written "ve'Sham'ah", we would not know whether to learn from "Kol" "Kol" or from "Alah" "Alah".

Reservation: It would seem, that this Gezeirah-Shavah is mentioned here La'av Davka ...

Reason: Since why would we have even thought that it requjires Lashon ha'Kodesh? To the contrary, without the Gezeirah-Shavah of "Secheta" "Secheta" it would have implied even more in any language ...

Reason (cont.): Because we would have learned "Me'ilah" "Me'ilah" from Sotah.

Conclusion: Only since we already learned in Shevu'os (Daf 34a) from this Gezeirah-Shavah that the Pasuk is talking about a monetary claim, it cites it here too.

Question: To the contrary, Let us learn "ve'Amarta lifnei Hash-m Elokecha" from "ve'Amarta lifnei Hash-m Elokecha" from Viduy Ma'aser, since one should learn to that what is similar?

Refuted Answer: And If you will argue that here we are learning "Aniyah" from"Aniyah" ...

Refutation: Above the Gemara asked that we should learn "Amirah" "Amirah" from the Levi'im?

Answer: We learn 'Aniyah va'Amirah' from 'Aniyah va'Amirah, and not 'Aniyah' on its own from 'Aniyah' on its own (See Maharsha) (Others say - that we do not learn 'Aniyah and Amirah' from 'Aniyah' on its own [See Hagahos Chochmas Sh'lomoh]).

Refuted Question: We cannot ask on this Let us learn "Kol" "Kol" from Shevu'as ha'Eidus ...

Refutation: Because we learn 'Aniyah ve'Kol' from'Aniyah ve'Kol'; we do not learn 'Aniyah ve'Kol' from "Kol" alone.

Quandary, Side #1): Tosfos does not know whether Rebbi Yehudah learns from "Koh" "Kachah" that whatever is said in the Parshah is crucial, includes even the Keri'ah, because one is not permitted to initiate a change in all that is written.

Quandary, Side #1 (cont.): Since that is why the Torah writes "Koh" Kachah". And automatically Lashon ha'Kodesh is crucial too, seeing as the Parshah is written in Lashon ha'Kodesh.

Question: It is difficult to say that however, because like which of his Rebbes will he then hold, not like Rebbi Eliezer and not like Rebbi Akiva ...

Question (cont.): Both of whom agree that the Keri’ah is not crucial? They disagree only about Rekikah (Yevamos 104b); Rebbi Eliezer holds that it is crucial since it is an act, while Rebbi Akiva holds that an act performed by the husband is not crucial.

Quandary, Side #2: Whereas if one explains that, according to Rebbi Yehudah, Davka Lashon ha'Kdesh is crucial, but that if she did not read at all, it doesn't matter ...

Question: This too, is highly illogical - to say that reading is not crucial, but to read it in Lashon ha'Kodesh is?

Conclusion: It is therefore more logical to say he holds that Keri'ah is crucial, and he disagrees with the Tana of the Mishnah in Perek Mitzvas Chalitzah (Ibid. Daf 34b) ...

Conclusion (cont.): Inasmuch as Rebbi Yehudah holds that Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Eliezer do not argue in this matter.

Precedent: As the Gemara says elsewhere, such as in Perek Rebbi Eliezer de'Milah (Shabbos, Daf 135b) in connection with the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel. (cont. on the next Amud)

Quandary, Side #1: Tosfos' Rebbe asks why, since the Torah places "Kachah" between the Keri'ah and the act (of Chalitzah) let us say that both are crucial.

Quandary, Side #2: On the other hand, according to Rebbi Yehudah, we ought to say the opposite, that even if the Torah had only written "Koh", Keri'ah is crucial but not the act ...

Source: Since in the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 9b), Rebbi Yehudah says 'Mikra Nidrash lefanav ve'Lo le'Acharav' ...

Source (cont.): When the Gemara cites him there as saying that the Yovel takes effect even though they did not return the fields to their owners, even they did not blow the Shofar, but not if they did not set free their Jewish servants, since the Torah writes "Hi" ...

Source (cont.): And the Gemara there ascribes this to the principle - Mikra Nidrash lefanav ve'Lo le'Acharav ve'Lo lifnei Fanav.

Source (concl.): Meaning that - "Hi" pertains specifically to "u'Kerasem D'ror" (freeing the servants) that precedes it, but not to "ve'Shavtem Ish el Achuzaso" that follows and not to blowing the Shofar that precedes "u'Kerasem D'ror"?

Answer: What Rebbi Yehudah means is that the act is crucial, because the Torah writes "Koh" "Kachah" ...

Conclusion: Because had it written only "Koh", we would have confined it to the Keri'ah that precedes it. Therefore it adds an extra word "Kachah", to include also the act that follows it.

Clarification: This implies the location that is opposite Gilgal, as the Gemara says in Chulin (Daf 19b) "mi'Mul Orpo" - 'the point at the back of the neck that faces the Oref (the back of the head).

Clarification (cont.): And that is why Rebbi Elazar says "Mul ha'Gilgal" - 'But they did not see Gilgal?'

Yerushalmi #1: In reply to the question how Rebbi Elazar will explain 'Har Gerizim and Har Eival?', the Yerushalmi answers that thy found two mounds of earth, one they called 'Har Gerizim', the other, 'Har Eival'.

Yerushalmi #1 (cont.): According to Rebbi Yehudah, the Yerushalmi continues, they traveled a hundred and twenty Mil on that day, whereas according to Rebbi Elazar, they did not move from their place.

Yerushalmi #2: Furthermore, it says there quoting Rebbi Yishmael, wherever the Torah uses the a derivative of 'Bi'os', it refers to after the first fourteen years, seven when they conquered the land and seven when they distributed it.

Yerushalmi #2 (cont.): So according to him, the B'rachos and K'lalos were only said after fourteen years.

Question: Rebbi Chanina queried this in front of Rebbi Mana from the Pasuk in Ki Savo "And it shall be when you cross the Yarden, you shall set up these stones"?

Answer: To which the latter replied that whereas the stones were to be set up immediately, the B'rachos and the K'lalos were only said after fourteen years.

Implied Question: But the Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim says that the Levi'im carried the Aron?

Answer #1: This is one of the twenty-four places where the Kohanim are referred to as 'Levi'im'.

Proof #1: Seeing as it says there that "They carried the Aron and the Ohel Mo'ed" ... and it also says there that "The Kohanim the Levi'im brought them".

Proof (cont.): Meaning that the Kohanim brought the Aron and the Levi'im, the Ohel Mo'ed and its vessels.

Proofs #2 #3: And it is written "And the Kohanim brought the Aron of the covenant of Hash-m to Its location", and in Melachim it describes how the Kohanim carried the Aron, and says there and then it says "And they brought the Aron of Hash-m and the Ohel Mo'ed".

Proof #4: And the Pasuk also writes "And the Kohanim and the Levi'im brought them up.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Kohanim took it from the location where David had placed it and handed it to the Levi'im, who carried it to the Heichal, after which the Kohanim brought it into the D'vir (the Kodesh Kodshim).

Conclusion: In this way, all the Pesukim fit nicely, and it is in this connection that Rebbi Yossi said 'When they brought it back to its location'.