Censorship TB Megillah 11

Beginning with yesterday’s daf and continuing into the end of the first chapter, our massekhet begins to explicate midrashically word by word and sentence by sentence the actual Megillat Esther. An example found on today’s daf TB Megillah 11 explains the meaning of the redundant word “הוּא -hu” in the first sentence. The midrash will prove that when the word “hu” is used in this way, the person behaves consistently either for bad or for good throughout his life.

““This is [hu] Ahasuerus” (Esther 1:1); the term hu, this is, comes to teach that he remained as he was in his wickedness from beginning to end. Similarly, wherever the words “this is” appear in this manner, the verse indicates that the individual under discussion remained the same from beginning to end, for example: “This is [hu] Esau” (Genesis 36:43); he remained in his wickedness from beginning to end. “This is [hu] Dathan and Abiram” (Numbers 26:9); they remained in their wickedness from beginning to end. “This is [hu] the king Ahaz” (II Chronicles 28:22); he remained in his wickedness from beginning to end.

“The Gemara continues: The word hu is also used to recognize sustained righteousness. “Abram, this is [hu] Abraham” (I Chronicles 1:27); this indicates that Abraham didn’t change, as he remained in his righteousness from beginning to end. Similarly, “This is [hu] Aaron and Moses” (Exodus 6:26); they remained in their righteousness from the beginning of their life to the end of their life. Similarly, with respect to David: “And David, this was [hu] the youngest” (I Samuel 17:14), indicates that he remained in his humility from beginning to end. Just as in his youth, when he was still an ordinary individual, he humbled himself before anyone who was greater than him in Torah, so too, in his kingship, he humbled himself before anyone who was greater than him in wisdom.” (Sefaria.org translation) King Ahasuerus is depicted in the Megillah itself as either a very gullible, manipulable, or silly person. The rabbis in the Talmud paint him as a very evil anti-Semite.

Obviously, before the printing press all copies of the Talmud were written by hand. Comparing these copies of the Talmud, we can see different versions of the same text. Based on a commentator’s explanation, sometimes scholars believe that his version of the Gemara is different than our printed text.

In the Middle Ages some texts were changed because of church censorship. “The words to be expurgated were scored through more or less heavily with pen and ink, and sometimes were rendered quite illegible by means of crosslines. In consequence of this heavy crossing with acid ink, the paper in the course of time frequently crumbled, as was especially the case with prayer-books, Bible commentaries, and liturgic works, wherein many so-called anti-Christian passages were treated with unusual severity. At the same time, in many other cases, the ink of the expurgator has in the course of centuries gradually faded and revealed the original text. The application of printing-ink, to render the passage completely and permanently illegible, seems to have been an invention of nineteenth-century censorship. Occasionally the objectionable passage was emended, not by being stricken out, but by the addition of one or more words, such as   after  , "worshipers of the stars and constellations"), in order to exclude any possibility of applying the word   to the holy images of the Christians. Sometimes a totally unobjectionable word was substituted for that erased by the reviser: thus, instead of  , that might be referred to the Christians, was inserted the word   ("Cuthean") or   ("Babylonian"); and for  , abbreviated into   ("strange rite"), which might also mean Christianity, was substituted  , abbreviated   ("idolatry"). Still, such emendations can hardly have been made by the Christian revisers, on account of the trouble connected therewith; they were probably undertaken by the Jewish owners themselves, either under compulsion or as a precaution. From the end of the sixteenth century, whenever a large part of the text of a folio, of a page, or even of a column was considered objectionable, the reviser, not taking the trouble to strike out the several expressions and passages, preferred to deal summarily by cutting or tearing out the whole folio or a part of it. This explains for example the absence of several folios from the middle (ch. iii., § 25) of Joseph Albo's "'Iḳḳarim" in most of the Italian copies of the first three editions.

"In several cases it has been definitely stated that the revisers lightened their work either by correcting only one copy of each book, and using that as a pattern for all the other copies of the same edition, or by employing the so-called "Index Expurgatorius" ( ), a list of passages to be expunged, prepared either by themselves or other experts.” (https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4170-censorship-of-hebrew-books)

Two examples can be found on today’s daf.

The first example: “And Shmuel said his introduction from here: “And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, nor will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break My covenant with them; for I am the Lord their God” (Leviticus 26:44). Shmuel explains: “I will not reject them”; this was in the days of the Greeks. “Nor will I abhor them”; this was in the days of Vespasian. “To destroy them utterly”; this was in the days of Haman. “To break My covenant with them”; this was in the days of the Persians. “For I am the Lord their God”; this is in the days of Gog and Magog.” (Sefaria.org. translation) Vespasian was the general who began to put down the first Jewish rebellion against Rome in the year 66 CE. In the course of events he was made Caesar and his son Titus led the Roman troops to victory and destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem. In the margins there is a list of variant versions of this text. One names him Caesar Vespasian. The second changes Vespasian to Nebuchadnezzar, who destroyed the first Temple, and acknowledges that this was changed because of censorship.

The second example: “An alternative understanding was taught in a baraita: “I will not reject them”; this was in the days of the Chaldeans, when I appointed for them Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to pray on their behalf. “Nor will I abhor them”; this was in the days of the Greeks, when I appointed Shimon HaTzaddik for them, and the Hasmonean and his sons, and Mattithiah the High Priest. “To destroy them utterly”; this was in the days of Haman, when I appointed for them the righteous leaders Mordecai and Esther. “To break My covenant with them”; this was in the days of the Romans, when I appointed for them the Sages of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Sages of other generations. “For I am the Lord their God”; this will be in the future, when no nation or people of a foreign tongue will be able to subjugate them further.” (Sefaria. org translation) Instead of “in the days of the Romans, when I appointed for them,” a version reads “in the days of the Persians, when I appointed them” with the same reason for the scribal change, censorship.

I think even though at this time period alluded to, the Romans were pagans and not Christians, I think the church was sensitive and felt these versions could be understood as anti-Christian because the head of the church was in Rome. Therefore, the antagonists became either Babylonians or Persians instead of Romans.