Megillah 16 Part 2

Megillah 16 Part 2

מְגִילָּה נִקְרֵאת בְּאַחַד עָשָׂר, בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר, בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר. לֹא פָּחוֹת, וְלֹא יוֹתֵר. כְּרַכִּין הַמּוּקָּפִין חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן — קוֹרִין בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר, כְּפָרִים וַעֲיָירוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת — קוֹרִין בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַכְּפָרִים מַקְדִּימִין לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה.

MISHNA: The Megilla is read on the eleventh, on the twelfth, on the thirteenth, on the fourteenth, or on the fifteenth of the month of Adar, not earlier and not later. The mishna explains the circumstances when the Megilla is read on each of these days. Cities [kerakin] that have been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, read the Megilla on the fifteenth of Adar, whereas villages and large towns that have not been walled since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, read it on the fourteenth. However, the Sages instituted that the villages may advance their reading to the day of assembly, i.e., Monday or Thursday, when the rabbinical courts are in session and the Torah is read publicly, and the villagers therefore come to the larger towns.

כֵּיצַד: חָל לִהְיוֹת אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר בַּשֵּׁנִי — כְּפָרִים וַעֲיָירוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת קוֹרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם, וּמוּקָּפוֹת חוֹמָה לְמָחָר. חָל לִהְיוֹת בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי אוֹ בָּרְבִיעִי — כְּפָרִים מַקְדִּימִין לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה, וַעֲיָירוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת קוֹרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם, וּמוּקָּפוֹת חוֹמָה לְמָחָר.

How so? If the fourteenth of Adar occurs on Monday, the villages and large towns read it on that day, and the walled cities read it on the next day, the fifteenth. If the fourteenth occurs on Tuesday or Wednesday, the villages advance their reading to the day of assembly, i.e., Monday, the twelfth or thirteenth of Adar; the large towns read it on that day, i.e., the fourteenth of Adar, and the walled cities read it on the next day, the fifteenth.

חָל לִהְיוֹת בַּחֲמִישִׁי — כְּפָרִים וַעֲיָירוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת קוֹרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם, וּמוּקָּפוֹת חוֹמָה לְמָחָר. חָל לִהְיוֹת עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — כְּפָרִים מַקְדִּימִין לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה, וַעֲיָירוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת וּמוּקָּפוֹת חוֹמָה קוֹרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם.

If the fourteenth occurs on Thursday, the villages and large towns read it on that day, the fourteenth, and the walled cities read it on the next day, the fifteenth. If the fourteenth occurs on Shabbat eve, the villages advance their reading to the day of assembly, i.e., Thursday, the thirteenth of Adar; and the large towns and the walled cities read it on that day, i.e., the fourteenth of Adar. Even the walled cities read the Megilla on the fourteenth rather than on the fifteenth, as they do not read it on Shabbat.

חָל לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת — כְּפָרִים וַעֲיָירוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת מַקְדִּימִין וְקוֹרִין לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה, וּמוּקָּפוֹת חוֹמָה לְמָחָר. חָל לִהְיוֹת אַחַר הַשַּׁבָּת — כְּפָרִים מַקְדִּימִין לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה, וַעֲיָירוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת קוֹרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם, וּמוּקָּפוֹת חוֹמָה לְמָחָר.

If the fourteenth occurs on Shabbat, both the villages and large towns advance their reading to the day of assembly, i.e., Thursday, the twelfth of Adar; and the walled cities read it on the day after Purim, the fifteenth. If the fourteenth occurs on Sunday, the villages advance their reading to the day of assembly, i.e., Thursday, the eleventh of Adar; and the large towns read it on that day, i.e., the fourteenth of Adar; and the walled cities read it on the next day, the fifteenth.

גְּמָ׳ מְגִילָּה נִקְרֵאת בְּאַחַד עָשָׂר. מְנָלַן? מְנָלַן?! כִּדְבָעֵינַן לְמֵימַר לְקַמַּן: חֲכָמִים הֵקֵילּוּ עַל הַכְּפָרִים לִהְיוֹת מַקְדִּימִין לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּסַפְּקוּ מַיִם וּמָזוֹן לַאֲחֵיהֶם שֶׁבַּכְּרַכִּים.

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna: The Megilla is read on the eleventh of Adar. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara expresses surprise at the question: What room is there to ask: From where do we derive this halakha? The reason is as we intend to say further on: The Sages were lenient with the villages and allowed them to advance their reading of the Megilla to the day of assembly, so that they would be free to supply water and food to their brethren in the cities on the day of Purim. Accordingly, the Megilla is read on the eleventh due to a rabbinic enactment.

אֲנַן הָכִי קָאָמְרִינַן: מִכְּדִי כּוּלְּהוּ אַנְשֵׁי כְּנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה תַּקְּנִינְהוּ, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אַנְשֵׁי כְּנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר וַחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר תַּקּוּן — אָתוּ רַבָּנַן וְעָקְרִי תַּקַּנְתָּא דְּתַקִּינוּ אַנְשֵׁי כְּנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה? וְהָתְנַן: אֵין בֵּית דִּין יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דִּבְרֵי בֵּית דִּין חֲבֵירוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְּחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן.

The Gemara explains: This is what we said, i.e., this is what we meant when we asked the question: Now, all of these days when the Megilla may be read were enacted by the members of the Great Assembly when they established the holiday of Purim itself. As, if it enters your mind to say that the members of the Great Assembly enacted only the fourteenth and fifteenth as days for reading the Megilla, is it possible that the later Sages came and uprooted an ordinance that was enacted by the members of the Great Assembly? Didn’t we learn in a mishna (Eduyyot 1:5) that a rabbinical court cannot rescind the statements of another rabbinical court, unless it is superior to it in wisdom and in number? No subsequent court was ever greater than the members of the Great Assembly, so it would be impossible for another court to rescind the enactments of the members of the Great Assembly.

אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא כּוּלְּהוּ אַנְשֵׁי כְּנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה תַּקִּינוּ. הֵיכָא רְמִיזָא?

Rather, it is obvious that all these days were enacted by the members of the Great Assembly, and the question is: Where is the allusion to this in the Bible? The Megilla itself, which was approved by the members of the Great Assembly, mentions only the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar.

אָמַר רַב שֶׁמֶן בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לְקַיֵּים אֵת יְמֵי הַפּוּרִים הָאֵלֶּה בִּזְמַנֵּיהֶם״, זְמַנִּים הַרְבֵּה תִּקְּנוּ לָהֶם.

Rav Shemen bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is alluded to when the verse states: “To confirm these days of Purim in their times” (Esther 9:31). The phrase “in their times” indicates that they enacted many times for them and not only two days.

הַאי מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ! אִם כֵּן לֵימָא קְרָא ״זְמַן״, מַאי ״זְמַנֵּיהֶם״ — זְמַנִּים טוּבָא.

The Gemara objects: This verse is necessary for its own purpose, to teach that the days of Purim must be observed at the proper times. The Gemara responds: If so, let the verse say: To confirm these days of Purim in its time. What is the significance of the term “their times,” in the plural? It indicates that many times were established for the reading of the Megilla.

וְאַכַּתִּי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה לֹא כִּזְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה! אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא ״זְמַנָּם״, מַאי ״זְמַנֵּיהֶם״ — שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ כּוּלְּהוּ.

The Gemara objects: But still, the plural term is necessary to indicate that the time of this walled city is not the same as the time of that unwalled town, i.e., Purim is celebrated on different days in different places. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse say: Their time, indicating that each place celebrates Purim on its respective day. What is the significance of the compound plural “their times”? Learn from this term that although the verse (Esther 9:21) specifies only two days, the Megilla may, at times, be read on all of the days enumerated in the mishna.

אֵימָא זְמַנִּים טוּבָא! ״זְמַנֵּיהֶם״ דּוּמְיָא דִּ״זְמַנָּם״: מָה ״זְמַנָּם״ תְּרֵי — אַף ״זְמַנֵּיהֶם״ תְּרֵי.

The Gemara asks: If so, say that the plural term indicates many times, and the Megilla may be read even earlier than the eleventh of Adar. The Gemara rejects this argument: The compound plural “their times,” should be understood as similar to the simple plural term, their time. Just as the term their time can be understood to refer to two days, indicating that each location reads the Megilla in its respective time on the fourteenth or the fifteenth of Adar, so too, “their times” should be understood as referring to only two additional days when the Megilla may be read.

וְאֵימָא תְּרֵיסַר וּתְלֵיסַר? כִּדְאָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק: שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר זְמַן קְהִילָּה לַכֹּל הִיא, וְלָא צְרִיךְ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, הָכָא נָמֵי: שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר זְמַן קְהִילָּה לַכֹּל הִיא, וְלָא צְרִיךְ לְרַבּוֹיֵי.

The Gemara asks: Say that these two added days are the twelfth and the thirteenth of Adar. How is it derived that the Megilla may be read on the eleventh as well? The Gemara answers: It is as Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said in a different context: The thirteenth of Adar is a time of assembly for all, as it was on that day that the Jews assembled to fight their enemies, and the main miracle was performed on that day. Consequently, there is no need for a special derivation to include it as a day that is fit for reading the Megilla. Here too, since the thirteenth of Adar is a time of assembly for all, there is no need for a special derivation to include it among the days when the Megilla may be read.

וְאֵימָא שִׁיתְּסַר וְשִׁיבְסַר! ״וְלֹא יַעֲבוֹר״ כְּתִיב.

The Gemara objects: And say that the two additional days are the sixteenth and the seventeenth of Adar. The Gemara responds: It is written: “And it shall not pass” (Esther 9:27), indicating that the celebration of Purim is not delayed until a later date.

וְרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״כַּיָּמִים אֲשֶׁר נָחוּ בָהֶם הַיְּהוּדִים״. ״יָמִים״, ״כַּיָּמִים״ — לְרַבּוֹת אַחַד עָשָׂר וּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר.

Having cited and discussed the opinion of Rav Shemen bar Abba, the Gemara cites another answer to the question of where the verses allude to the permissibility of reading the Megilla on the days enumerated in the mishna. And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: These dates are alluded to when the verse states: “As the days on which the Jews rested from their enemies” (Esther 9:22). The term “days” is referring to the two days that are explicitly mentioned in the previous verse, i.e., the fourteenth and the fifteenth. The term “as the days” comes to include two additional days, i.e., the eleventh and twelfth of Adar.

וְאֵימָא תְּרֵיסַר וּתְלֵיסַר! אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק: שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר זְמַן קְהִילָּה לַכֹּל הִיא, וְלָא צְרִיךְ לְרַבּוֹיֵי. וְאֵימָא שִׁיתְּסַר וְשִׁיבְסַר! ״וְלֹא יַעֲבוֹר״ כְּתִיב.

The Gemara asks: And say that the two additional days are the twelfth and thirteenth of Adar. How is it derived that the Megilla may be read on the eleventh as well? In answer to this question, Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: The thirteenth of Adar is a time of assembly for all, and there is no need for a special derivation to include it as a day fit for reading. The Gemara objects: Say that these additional days are the sixteenth and seventeenth of Adar. This suggestion is rejected: It is written: “And it shall not pass.”

רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר מִ״בִּזְמַנֵּיהֶם״? ״זְמַן״ ״זְמַנָּם״ ״זְמַנֵּיהֶם״ לָא מַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ.

Since two derivations were offered for the same matter, the Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani did not state that the days enumerated in the mishna are fit for reading the Megilla based upon the term “in their times,” in accordance with the opinion of Rav Shemen bar Abba? The Gemara answers: He does not learn anything from the distinction between the terms time, their time, and their times. Therefore, the verse indicates only that there are two days when the Megilla may be read.

וְרַב שֶׁמֶן בַּר אַבָּא מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר מִ״כַּיָּמִים״? אָמַר לָךְ: הָהוּא לְדוֹרוֹת הוּא דִּכְתִיב.

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rav Shemen bar Abba did not state that the days enumerated in the mishna are fit for reading the Megilla based upon the term “as the days,” in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you: That verse is written as a reference to future generations, and it indicates that just as the Jews rested on these days at that time, they shall rest and celebrate on these days for all generations.

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סְתִימְתָּאָה, דְּדָרֵישׁ ״זְמַן״ ״זְמַנָּם״ ״זְמַנֵּיהֶם״, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ אֶלָּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ.

§ With regard to the mishna’s ruling that the Megilla may be read on the day of assembly, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva the unattributed. Most unattributed statements of tanna’im were formulated by Rabbi Akiva’s students and reflect his opinions. As, he derives halakhot based on the distinction that he draws between the terms time, their time, and their times. However, the Sages say: One may read the Megilla only in its designated time, i.e., the fourteenth of Adar.

מֵיתִיבִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֵימָתַי — בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַשָּׁנִים כְּתִיקְנָן וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁרוּיִין עַל אַדְמָתָן, אֲבָל בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה, הוֹאִיל וּמִסְתַּכְּלִין בָּהּ — אֵין קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ אֶלָּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ.

The Gemara raises an objection based upon the following baraita. Rabbi Yehuda said: When is one permitted to read the Megilla from the eleventh to the fifteenth of Adar? One may read on these dates at a time when the years are established properly and the Jewish people dwell securely in their own land. However, nowadays, since people look to the reading of the Megilla and use it to calculate when Passover begins, one may read the Megilla only in its designated time, so as not to cause confusion with regard to the date of Passover, which is exactly one month from the day after Purim.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַלִּיבָּא דְמַאן? אִילֵימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא — אֲפִילּוּ בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה אִיתָא לְהַאי תַּקַּנְתָּא!

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: In accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi Yehuda issue his ruling? If we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, whose opinion is expressed in the mishna, there is a difficulty, as Rabbi Akiva holds that even nowadays this ordinance applies. According to Rabbi Akiva, it is permitted for residents of villages to read the Megilla on the day of assembly even nowadays, as he did not limit his ruling to times when the Jewish people dwell securely in their land.

אֶלָּא לָאו, אַלִּיבָּא דְרַבָּנַן, וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהַשָּׁנִים כְּתִיקְנָן וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁרוּיִין עַל אַדְמָתָן — מִיהָא קָרֵינַן, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן תְּיוּבְתָּא.

Rather, is it not in accordance with the opinion of the Sages, who disagreed with Rabbi Akiva? And, nevertheless, at least when the years are established properly and the Jewish people dwell securely in their land, the Megilla is read even prior to the fourteenth, as the Sages disagree only about the halakha nowadays. This contradicts the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that the Megilla could never be read earlier than the fourteenth of Adar. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan is indeed a conclusive refutation.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סְתִימְתָּאָה, אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אָמְרוּ: בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה, הוֹאִיל וּמִסְתַּכְּלִין בָּהּ — אֵין קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ אֶלָּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ.

There are those who say a different version of the previous passage. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, the unattributed. However, the Sages said: Nowadays, since people look to the reading of the Megilla and use it to calculate when Passover begins, one may read the Megilla only in its designated time.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֵימָתַי — בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַשָּׁנִים כְּתִיקְנָן וְיִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁרוּיִין עַל אַדְמָתָן, אֲבָל בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה, הוֹאִיל וּמִסְתַּכְּלִין בָּהּ — אֵין קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ אֶלָּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ.

The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: When is one permitted to read the Megilla from the eleventh to the fifteenth of Adar? At a time when the years are established properly and the Jewish people dwell securely in their own land. However, nowadays, since people look to the reading of the Megilla and use it to calculate when Passover begins, one may read the Megilla only in its designated time. According to this version, Rabbi Yehuda’s statement is consistent with the opinion of the Sages, as cited by Rabbi Yoḥanan.

רַב אָשֵׁי קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה,

The Gemara adds: Rav Ashi poses a difficulty based on an apparent contradiction between the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the aforementioned baraita and a ruling cited in a mishna in the name of Rabbi Yehuda,

וּמוֹקֵים לַהּ לְבָרַיְיתָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה.

and he establishes the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, rather than Rabbi Yehuda.

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה ״בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה, הוֹאִיל וּמִסְתַּכְּלִין בָּהּ — אֵין קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ אֶלָּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ״? וּרְמִינְהִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֵימָתַי — מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּכְנָסִין בַּשֵּׁנִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי. אֲבָל מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין נִכְנָסִין בַּשֵּׁנִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי — אֵין קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ אֶלָּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ.

The Gemara explains the apparent contradiction: And did Rabbi Yehuda actually say that nowadays, since people look to the reading of the Megilla and use it to calculate when Passover begins, one may read the Megilla only in its designated time? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (5a): Rabbi Yehuda said: When is one permitted to read the Megilla from the eleventh of Adar? In a place where the villagers generally enter town on Monday and Thursday. However, in a place where they do not generally enter town on Monday and Thursday, one may read the Megilla only in its designated time, the fourteenth of Adar.

מְקוֹם שֶׁנִּכְנָסִין בַּשֵּׁנִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי מִיהָא קָרֵינַן, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה! וּמוֹקֵים לַהּ לְבָרַיְיתָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה.

The mishna indicates that, at least in a place where the villagers enter town on Monday and Thursday, one may read the Megilla from the eleventh of Adar even nowadays. And due to this contradiction, Rav Ashi establishes the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda.

וּמִשּׁוּם דְּקַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מוֹקֵים לָהּ לְבָרַיְיתָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה?!

The Gemara expresses surprise: Because Rav Ashi poses a difficulty due to the apparent contradiction between the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the baraita and the opinion cited in a mishna in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, he establishes the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda? How could he have emended the text just because he had a difficulty that he did not know how to resolve?

רַב אָשֵׁי שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ דְּאִיכָּא דְּתָנֵי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְאִיכָּא דְּתָנֵי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה, וּמִדְּקַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אָמַר: מַאן דְּתָנֵי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה — לָאו דַּוְוקָא, מַאן דְּתָנֵי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה — דַּוְוקָא.

The Gemara explains: Rav Ashi heard that there were those who taught the baraita in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, and there were those who taught it in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda. And since he had a difficulty with the apparent contradiction between one ruling of Rabbi Yehuda and another ruling of Rabbi Yehuda, he said: The one who taught it in the name of Rabbi Yehuda is not precise, whereas the one who taught it in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda is precise, and in this way he eliminated the contradiction.

כְּרַכִּים הַמּוּקָּפִים חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן קוֹרִין בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר וְכוּ׳. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רָבָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״עַל כֵּן הַיְּהוּדִים הַפְּרָזִים הַיּוֹשְׁבִים בְּעָרֵי הַפְּרָזוֹת וְגוֹ׳״. מִדִּפְרָזִים בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר — מוּקָּפִין בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר.

§ We learned in the mishna: Cities that have been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, read the Megilla on the fifteenth of Adar. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, as they are not stated explicitly in the Megilla? Rava said: It is as the verse states: “Therefore the Jews of the villages, who dwell in the unwalled towns, make the fourteenth day of the month of Adar a day of gladness and feasting” (Esther 9:19). From the fact that the unwalled towns celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, it may be derived that the walled cities celebrate Purim on the fifteenth.

וְאֵימָא: פְּרָזִים בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, מוּקָּפִין כְּלָל כְּלָל לָא! וְלָאו יִשְׂרָאֵל נִינְהוּ? וְעוֹד: ״מֵהוֹדּוּ וְעַד כּוּשׁ״ כְּתִיב.

The Gemara challenges this answer: Say that the unwalled towns celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, as indicated in the verse, and the walled cities do not celebrate it at all. The Gemara expresses astonishment: And are they not Jews? And furthermore: It is written that the kingdom of Ahasuerus was “from Hodu until Cush” (Esther 1:1), and the celebration of Purim was accepted in all of the countries of his kingdom (Esther 9:20–23).

וְאֵימָא: פְּרָזִים בְּאַרְבֵּיסַר מוּקָּפִין בְּאַרְבֵּיסַר וּבַחֲמֵיסַר, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״לִהְיוֹת עוֹשִׂים אֵת יוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לְחֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר וְאֵת יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר [בּוֹ] בְּכׇל שָׁנָה״!

Rather, the following challenge may be raised: Say that the unwalled towns celebrate Purim on the fourteenth and the walled cities celebrate it on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth, as it is written: “That they should keep the fourteenth day of the month of Adar and the fifteenth day of the same, in every year” (Esther 9:21). This verse can be understood to mean that there are places where Purim is celebrated on both days.

אִי הֲוָה כְּתִב ״אֵת יוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר וַחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר״ — כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב ״אֵת יוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר וְאֵת יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר״ — אֲתָא ״אֵת״ וּפָסֵיק: הָנֵי בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, וְהָנֵי בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר.

The Gemara rejects this argument: If it had been written in the verse: The fourteenth day and [ve] the fifteenth, it would be as you originally said. However, now that it is written: The fourteenth day and [ve’et] the fifteenth day, the particle et used here to denote the accusative comes and interrupts, indicating that the two days are distinct. Therefore, residents of these locations celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, and residents of those locations celebrate it on the fifteenth.

וְאֵימָא: פְּרָזִים — בְּאַרְבֵּיסַר, מוּקָּפִין — אִי בָּעוּ בְּאַרְבֵּיסַר, אִי בָּעוּ בַּחֲמֵיסַר! אָמַר קְרָא ״בִּזְמַנֵּיהֶם״, זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה לֹא זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה.

The Gemara suggests: Say that residents of unwalled towns celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, as stated in the verse, and with regard to residents of walled cities, if they wish they may celebrate it on the fourteenth, and if they wish they may celebrate it on the fifteenth. The Gemara responds: The verse states: “In their times” (Esther 9:31), indicating that the time when the residents of this place celebrate Purim is not the time when the residents of that place celebrate Purim.

וְאֵימָא בִּתְלֵיסַר! כְּשׁוּשָׁן.

The Gemara raises another challenge: Say that the walled cities should celebrate Purim on the thirteenth of Adar and not on the fifteenth. The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the residents of walled cities, who do not celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, celebrate it as it is celebrated in Shushan, and it is explicitly stated that Purim was celebrated in Shushan on the fifteenth.

אַשְׁכְּחַן עֲשִׂיָּיה, זְכִירָה מְנָלַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהַיָּמִים הָאֵלֶּה נִזְכָּרִים וְנַעֲשִׂים״, אִיתַּקַּשׁ זְכִירָה לַעֲשִׂיָּיה.

The Gemara comments: We found a source for observing the holiday of Purim on the fourteenth of Adar in unwalled towns and on the fifteenth of Adar in walled cities; from where do we derive that remembering the story of Purim through the reading of the Megilla takes place on these days? The Gemara explains that the verse states: “That these days should be remembered and observed” (Esther 9:28), from which it is derived that remembering is compared to observing.

מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אוֹמֵר: כְּרַכִּין הַמּוּקָּפִין חוֹמָה מִימוֹת אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ קוֹרִין בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר.

§ The Gemara notes that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in the Tosefta (1:1) that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: Cities that have been surrounded by a wall since the days of Ahasuerus read the Megilla on the fifteenth. According to the Tosefta, the status of walled cities is determined based upon whether they were walled in the time of Ahasuerus rather than the time of Joshua.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה? כִּי שׁוּשָׁן. מָה שׁוּשָׁן מוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ וְקוֹרִין בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר — אַף כֹּל שֶׁמּוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ קוֹרִין בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa? The Gemara explains that the Megilla is read on the fifteenth in cities that are like Shushan: Just as Shushan is a city that was surrounded by a wall since the days of Ahasuerus, and one reads the Megilla there on the fifteenth, so too every city that was walled since the days of Ahasuerus reads the Megilla on the fifteenth.

וְתַנָּא דִּידַן, מַאי טַעְמָא? יָלֵיף ״פְּרָזִי״ ״פְּרָזִי״. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״עַל כֵּן הַיְּהוּדִים הַפְּרָזִים״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״לְבַד מֵעָרֵי הַפְּרָזִי הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד״. מָה לְהַלָּן מוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן, אַף כָּאן מוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the tanna of our mishna? The Gemara explains: It is derived through a verbal analogy between one instance of the word unwalled and another instance of the word unwalled. It is written here: “Therefore the Jews of the villages, who dwell in the unwalled towns” (Esther 9:19), and it is written there, in Moses’ statement to Joshua before the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael: “All these cities were fortified with high walls, gates and bars; besides unwalled towns, a great many” (Deuteronomy 3:5). Just as there, in Deuteronomy, the reference is to a city that was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun, so too here it is referring to a city that was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun.

בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה לָא אָמַר כְּתַנָּא דִּידַן — דְּלֵית לֵיהּ ״פְּרָזִי״ ״פְּרָזִי״, אֶלָּא תַּנָּא דִּידַן מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה?

The Gemara continues: Granted that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa did not state his explanation in accordance with the opinion of the tanna of our mishna because he did not hold that a verbal analogy can be established between one verse that employs the word unwalled and the other verse that employs the word unwalled. However, what is the reason that the tanna of our mishna did not state his explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa?

מַאי טַעְמָא?! דְּהָא אִית לֵיהּ ״פְּרָזִי״ ״פְּרָזִי״! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֶלָּא שׁוּשָׁן, דְּעָבְדָא כְּמַאן? לָא כִּפְרָזִים וְלָא כְּמוּקָּפִין!

The Gemara expresses astonishment: What is the reason? Isn’t it because he holds that it is derived from the verbal analogy between one usage of the word unwalled and the other usage of the word unwalled? The Gemara explains: This is what he said, i.e., this was the question: According to the tanna of our mishna, in accordance with whom does Shushan observe Purim? Shushan is not like the unwalled towns and not like the walled cities, as residents of Shushan celebrate Purim on the fifteenth, but the city was not surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua.

אָמַר רָבָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ כְּדִי: שָׁאנֵי שׁוּשָׁן — הוֹאִיל וְנַעֲשָׂה בָּהּ נֵס.

Rava said, and some say it unattributed to any particular Sage: Shushan is different since the miracle occurred in it on the fifteenth of Adar, and therefore Purim is celebrated on that day. However, other cities are only considered walled cities and read the Megilla on the fifteenth of Adar if they were walled since the days of Joshua.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְתַנָּא דִּידַן, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה וְעִיר וָעִיר״. ״מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה״ — לְחַלֵּק בֵּין מוּקָּפִין חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן לְמוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the tanna of our mishna, this is the meaning of what is written: “And these days should be remembered and observed throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city” (Esther 9:28). The phrase “every province [medina]” is expressed in the verse using repetition, so that it reads literally: Every province and province, and therefore contains a superfluous usage of the word province, is meant to distinguish between cities that were surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, where the Megilla is read on the fifteenth, and a city that was surrounded by a wall since the days of Ahasuerus, where the Megilla is read on the fourteenth.

״עִיר וְעִיר״ נָמֵי, לְחַלֵּק בֵּין שׁוּשָׁן לִשְׁאָר עֲיָירוֹת. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה, בִּשְׁלָמָא ״מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה״ — לְחַלֵּק בֵּין שׁוּשָׁן לִשְׁאָר עֲיָירוֹת, אֶלָּא ״עִיר וְעִיר״ לְמַאי אֲתָא?

The phrase “every city,” which is similarly expressed through repetition and contains a superfluous usage of the word city, also serves to distinguish between Shushan and other cities, as Purim is celebrated in Shushan on the fifteenth despite the fact that it was not walled since the time of Joshua. However, according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, granted that the phrase “every province” comes to distinguish between Shushan and other cities that were not walled since the days of Ahasuerus; but what does the phrase “every city” come to teach?

אָמַר לְךָ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה: וּלְתַנָּא דִּידַן מִי נִיחָא? כֵּיוָן דְּאִית לֵיהּ ״פְּרָזִי״ ״פְּרָזִי״ — ״מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה״ לְמָה לִי? אֶלָּא קְרָא לִדְרָשָׁה הוּא דַּאֲתָא, וְכִדְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כְּרַךְ, וְכׇל הַסָּמוּךְ לוֹ, וְכׇל הַנִּרְאֶה עִמּוֹ — נִידּוֹן כִּכְרַךְ.

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa could have said to you: According to the tanna of our mishna, does it work out well? Since he holds that it is derived from the verbal analogy between one verse that employs the word unwalled and the other verse that employs the word unwalled, why do I need the phrase “every province”? Rather, the verse comes for a midrashic exposition, and it comes to indicate that the halakha is in accordance with the ruling issued by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A walled city, and all settlements adjacent to it, and all settlements that can be seen with it, i.e., that can be seen from the walled city, are considered like the walled city, and the Megilla is read there on the fifteenth.

עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: כְּמֵחַמָּתָן לִטְבֶרְיָא — מִיל. וְלֵימָא מִיל! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: דְּשִׁיעוּרָא דְמִיל כַּמָּה הָוֵי — כְּמֵחַמָּתָן לִטְבֶרְיָא.

The Gemara asks: Up to what distance is considered adjacent? Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said: The limit is like the distance from the town of Ḥamtan to Tiberias, a mil. The Gemara asks: Let him say simply that the limit is a mil; why did he have to mention these places? The Gemara answers that the formulation of the answer teaches us this: How much distance comprises the measure of a mil? It is like the distance from Ḥamtan to Tiberias.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: מַנְצְפַךְ — צוֹפִים אֲמָרוּם.

§ Having cited a statement of Rabbi Yirmeya, which some attribute to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, the Gemara cites other statements attributed to these Sages. Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said: The Seers, i.e., the prophets, were the ones who said that the letters mem, nun, tzadi, peh, and kaf [mantzepakh], have a different form when they appear at the end of a word.

וְתִסְבְּרָא? וְהָכְתִיב: ״אֵלֶּה הַמִּצְוֹת״, שֶׁאֵין נָבִיא רַשַּׁאי לְחַדֵּשׁ דָּבָר מֵעַתָּה? וְעוֹד, הָאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מֵם וְסָמֶךְ שֶׁבַּלּוּחוֹת

The Gemara asks: And how can you understand it that way? Isn’t it written: “These are the commandments that the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai” (Leviticus 27:34), which indicates that a prophet is not permitted to initiate or change any matter of halakha from now on? Consequently, how could the prophets establish new forms for the letters? And furthermore, didn’t Rav Ḥisda say: The letters mem and samekh in the tablets of the covenant given at Sinai

בְּנֵס הָיוּ עוֹמְדִין!

stood by way of a miracle?

אִין, מִהְוָה הֲווֹ, וְלָא הֲווֹ יָדְעִי הֵי בְּאֶמְצַע תֵּיבָה וְהֵי בְּסוֹף תֵּיבָה, וַאֲתוֹ צוֹפִים וְתַקִּינוּ פְּתוּחִין בְּאֶמְצַע תֵּיבָה וּסְתוּמִין בְּסוֹף תֵּיבָה.

The Gemara answers: Yes, two forms of these letters did exist at that time, but the people did not know which one of them was to be used in the middle of the word and which at the end of the word, and the Seers came and established that the open forms are to used be in the middle of the word and the closed forms at the end of the word.

סוֹף סוֹף ״אֵלֶּה הַמִּצְוֹת״, שֶׁאֵין נָבִיא עָתִיד לְחַדֵּשׁ דָּבָר מֵעַתָּה! אֶלָּא שְׁכָחוּם וְחָזְרוּ וְיִסְּדוּם.

The Gemara asks: Ultimately, however, doesn’t the phrase “these are the commandments” (Leviticus 27:34) indicate that a prophet is not permitted to initiate any matter of halakha from now on? Rather, it may be suggested that the final letters already existed at the time of the giving of the Torah, but over the course of time the people forgot them, and the prophets then came and reestablished them.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: תַּרְגּוּם שֶׁל תּוֹרָה — אוּנְקְלוֹס הַגֵּר אֲמָרוֹ מִפִּי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. תַּרְגּוּם שֶׁל נְבִיאִים — יוֹנָתָן בֶּן עוּזִּיאֵל אֲמָרוֹ מִפִּי חַגַּי זְכַרְיָה וּמַלְאָכִי, וְנִזְדַּעְזְעָה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת פַּרְסָה עַל אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת פַּרְסָה. יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: מִי הוּא זֶה שֶׁגִּילָּה סְתָרַיי לִבְנֵי אָדָם?

§ The Gemara cites another ruling of Rabbi Yirmeya or Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said: The Aramaic translation of the Torah used in the synagogues was composed by Onkelos the convert based on the teachings of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. The Aramaic translation of the Prophets was composed by Yonatan ben Uzziel based on a tradition going back to the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The Gemara relates that when Yonatan ben Uzziel wrote his translation, Eretz Yisrael quaked over an area of four hundred parasangs [parsa] by four hundred parasangs, and a Divine Voice emerged and said: Who is this who has revealed My secrets to mankind?

עָמַד יוֹנָתָן בֶּן עוּזִּיאֵל עַל רַגְלָיו וְאָמַר: אֲנִי הוּא שֶׁגִּלִּיתִי סְתָרֶיךָ לִבְנֵי אָדָם, גָּלוּי וְיָדוּעַ לְפָנֶיךָ שֶׁלֹּא לִכְבוֹדִי עָשִׂיתִי, וְלֹא לִכְבוֹד בֵּית אַבָּא, אֶלָּא לִכְבוֹדְךָ עָשִׂיתִי, שֶׁלֹּא יִרְבּוּ מַחֲלוֹקֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.

Yonatan ben Uzziel stood up on his feet and said: I am the one who has revealed Your secrets to mankind through my translation. However, it is revealed and known to You that I did this not for my own honor, and not for the honor of the house of my father, but rather it was for Your honor that I did this, so that discord not increase among the Jewish people. In the absence of an accepted translation, people will disagree about the meaning of obscure verses, but with a translation, the meaning will be clear.

וְעוֹד בִּיקֵּשׁ לְגַלּוֹת תַּרְגּוּם שֶׁל כְּתוּבִים, יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה לוֹ: דַּיֶּיךָּ! מַאי טַעְמָא — מִשּׁוּם דְּאִית בֵּיהּ קֵץ מָשִׁיחַ.

And Yonatan ben Uzziel also sought to reveal a translation of the Writings, but a Divine Voice emerged and said to him: It is enough for you that you translated the Prophets. The Gemara explains: What is the reason that he was denied permission to translate the Writings? Because it has in it a revelation of the end, when the Messiah will arrive. The end is foretold in a cryptic manner in the book of Daniel, and were the book of Daniel translated, the end would become manifestly revealed to all.

וְתַרְגּוּם שֶׁל תּוֹרָה, אוּנְקְלוֹס הַגֵּר אֲמָרוֹ? וְהָא אָמַר רַב אִיקָא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב חֲנַנְאֵל אָמַר רַב: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקְרְאוּ בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרַת הָאֱלֹהִים מְפוֹרָשׁ וְשׂוֹם שֶׂכֶל וַיָּבִינוּ בַּמִּקְרָא״. ״וַיִּקְרְאוּ בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרַת הָאֱלֹהִים״ — זֶה מִקְרָא; ״מְפוֹרָשׁ״ — זֶה תַּרְגּוּם;

The Gemara asks: Was the translation of the Torah really composed by Onkelos the convert? Didn’t Rav Ika bar Avin say that Rav Ḥananel said that Rav said: What is the meaning of that which is written with respect to the days of Ezra: “And they read in the book, the Torah of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, and they caused them to understand the reading” (Nehemiah 8:8)? The verse should be understood as follows: “And they read in the book, the Torah of God,” this is the scriptural text; “distinctly,” this is the translation, indicating that they immediately translated the text into Aramaic, as was customary during public Torah readings.

״וְשׂוֹם שֶׂכֶל״ — אֵלּוּ הַפְּסוּקִין; ״וַיָּבִינוּ בַּמִּקְרָא״ — אֵלּוּ פִּיסְקֵי טְעָמִים, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ — אֵלּוּ הַמָּסוֹרֹת! — שְׁכָחוּם וְחָזְרוּ וְיִסְּדוּם.

“And they gave the sense,” these are the divisions of the text into separate verses. “And they caused them to understand the reading,” these are the cantillation notes, through which the meaning of the text is further clarified. And some say that these are the Masoretic traditions with regard to the manner in which each word is to be written. This indicates that the Aramaic translation already existed at the beginning of the Second Temple period, well before the time of Onkelos. The Gemara answers: The ancient Aramaic translation was forgotten and then Onkelos came and reestablished it.

מַאי שְׁנָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא דְּלָא אִזְדַּעְזְעָה וְאַדִּנְבִיאֵי אִזְדַּעְזְעָה? דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — מִיפָּרְשָׁא מִלְּתָא, דִּנְבִיאֵי — אִיכָּא מִילֵּי דְּמִיפָּרְשָׁן וְאִיכָּא מִילֵּי דִּמְסַתְּמָן, דִּכְתִיב: ״בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יִגְדַּל הַמִּסְפֵּד בִּירוּשָׁלִַם כְּמִסְפַּד הֲדַדְרִימּוֹן בְּבִקְעַת מְגִידּוֹן״,

The Gemara asks: What is different about the translation of Prophets? Why is it that when Onkelos revealed the translation of the Torah, Eretz Yisrael did not quake, and when he revealed the translation of the Prophets, it quaked? The Gemara explains: The meaning of matters discussed in the Torah is clear, and therefore its Aramaic translation did not reveal the meaning of passages that had not been understood previously. Conversely, in the Prophets, there are matters that are clear and there are matters that are obscure, and the Aramaic translation revealed the meaning of obscure passages. The Gemara cites an example of an obscure verse that is clarified by the Aramaic translation: As it is written: “On that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon” (Zechariah 12:11).

וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אִלְמָלֵא תַּרְגּוּמָא דְּהַאי קְרָא — לָא יָדַעְנָא מַאי קָאָמַר: בְּיוֹמָא הַהוּא יִסְגֵּי מִסְפְּדָא בִּירוּשְׁלֶים כְּמִסְפְּדָא דְּאַחְאָב בַּר עָמְרִי דִּקְטַל יָתֵיהּ הֲדַדְרִימּוֹן בֶּן טַבְרִימּוֹן בְּרָמוֹת גִּלְעָד וּכְמִסְפְּדָא דְּיֹאשִׁיָּה בַּר אָמוֹן דִּקְטַל יָתֵיהּ פַּרְעֹה חֲגִירָא בְּבִקְעַת מְגִידּוֹ.

And with regard to that verse, Rav Yosef said: Were it not for the Aramaic translation of this verse, we would not have known what it is saying, as the Bible does not mention any incident involving Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. The Aramaic translation reads as follows: On that day, the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Ahab, son of Omri, who was slain by Hadadrimmon, son of Tavrimon, in Ramoth-Gilead, and like the mourning for Josiah, son of Amon, who was slain by Pharaoh the lame in the valley of Megiddon. The translation clarifies that the verse is referring to two separate incidents of mourning, and thereby clarifies the meaning of this verse.

״וְרָאִיתִי אֲנִי דָנִיֵּאל לְבַדִּי אֶת הַמַּרְאָה וְהָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ עִמִּי לֹא רָאוּ אֶת הַמַּרְאָה אֲבָל חֲרָדָה גְדוֹלָה נָפְלָה עֲלֵיהֶם וַיִּבְרְחוּ בְּהֵחָבֵא״. מַאן נִינְהוּ אֲנָשִׁים? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: זֶה חַגַּי זְכַרְיָה וּמַלְאָכִי.

§ The Gemara introduces another statement from the same line of tradition. The verse states: “And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, for the men who were with me did not see the vision; but a great trembling fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves” (Daniel 10:7). Who were these men? The term “men” in the Bible indicates important people; who were they? Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said: These are the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

אִינְהוּ עֲדִיפִי מִינֵּיהּ, וְאִיהוּ עֲדִיף מִינַּיְיהוּ. אִינְהוּ עֲדִיפִי מִינֵּיהּ — דְּאִינְהוּ נְבִיאֵי וְאִיהוּ לָאו נָבִיא. אִיהוּ עֲדִיף מִינַּיְיהוּ — דְּאִיהוּ חֲזָא וְאִינְהוּ לָא חֲזוֹ.

The Gemara comments: In certain ways they, the prophets, were greater than him, Daniel, and in certain ways he, Daniel, was greater than them. They were greater than him, as they were prophets and he was not a prophet. Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were sent to convey the word of God to the Jewish people, while Daniel was not sent to reveal his visions to others. In another way, however, he was greater than them, as he saw this vision, and they did not see this vision, indicating that his ability to perceive obscure and cryptic visions was greater than theirs.

וְכִי מֵאַחַר דְּלָא חֲזוֹ, מַאי טַעְמָא אִיבְּעִיתוּ? אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִינְהוּ לָא חֲזוֹ, מַזָּלַיְיהוּ חֲזוֹ.

The Gemara asks: Since they did not see the vision, what is the reason that they were frightened? The Gemara answers: Even though they did not see the vision, their guardian angels saw it, and therefore they sensed that there was something fearful there and they fled.

אָמַר רָבִינָא: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הַאי מַאן דְּמִיבְּעִית, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיהוּ לָא חָזֵי, מַזָּלֵיהּ חָזֵי. מַאי תַּקַּנְתֵּיהּ? לִיקְרֵי קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע. וְאִי קָאֵים בִּמְקוֹם הַטִּנּוֹפֶת — לִינְשׁוֹף מִדּוּכְתֵּיהּ אַרְבַּע גַּרְמִידֵי. וְאִי לָא — לֵימָא הָכִי: ״עִיזָּא דְּבֵי טַבָּחֵי שַׁמִּינָא מִינַּאי״.

Ravina said: Learn from this incident that with regard to one who is frightened for no apparent reason, although he does not see anything menacing, his guardian angel sees it, and therefore he should take steps in order to escape the danger. The Gemara asks: What is his remedy? He should recite Shema, which will afford him protection. And if he is standing in a place of filth, where it is prohibited to recite verses from the Torah, he should distance himself four cubits from his current location in order to escape the danger. And if he is not able to do so, let him say the following incantation: The goat of the slaughterhouse is fatter than I am, and if a calamity must fall upon something, it should fall upon it.

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ ״מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה וְעִיר וָעִיר״ — לִדְרָשָׁה, ״מִשְׁפָּחָה וּמִשְׁפָּחָה״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: לְהָבִיא מִשְׁפְּחוֹת כְּהוּנָּה וּלְוִיָּה, שֶׁמְּבַטְּלִין עֲבוֹדָתָן וּבָאִין לִשְׁמוֹעַ מִקְרָא מְגִילָּה.

§ After this digression, the Gemara returns to the exposition of a verse cited above. Now that you have said that the phrases “every province” and “every city” appear for the purposes of midrashic exposition, for what exposition do the words “every family” appear in that same verse (Esther 9:28)? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: These words come to include the priestly and Levitical families, and indicate that they cancel their service in the Temple and come to hear the reading of the Megilla.

דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כֹּהֲנִים בַּעֲבוֹדָתָן וּלְוִיִּם בְּדוּכָנָן וְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמַעֲמָדָן — כּוּלָּן מְבַטְּלִין עֲבוֹדָתָן וּבָאִין לִשְׁמוֹעַ מִקְרָא מְגִילָּה.

As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The priests at their Temple service, the Levites on their platform in the Temple, where they sung the daily psalm, and the Israelites at their watches, i.e., the group of Israelites, corresponding to the priestly watches, who would come to Jerusalem and gather in other locations as representatives of the entire nation to observe or pray for the success of the Temple service, all cancel their service and come to hear the reading of the Megilla.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: כֹּהֲנִים בַּעֲבוֹדָתָן, וּלְוִיִּם בְּדוּכָנָן, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמַעֲמָדָן — כּוּלָּן מְבַטְּלִין עֲבוֹדָתָן וּבָאִין לִשְׁמוֹעַ מִקְרָא מְגִילָּה. מִכָּאן סָמְכוּ שֶׁל בֵּית רַבִּי שֶׁמְּבַטְּלִין תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה וּבָאִין לִשְׁמוֹעַ מִקְרָא מְגִילָּה, קַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵעֲבוֹדָה: וּמָה עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁהִיא חֲמוּרָה — מְבַטְּלִינַן, תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן.

This is also taught in a baraita: The priests at their service, the Levites on the platform, and the Israelites at their watches, all cancel their service and come to hear the reading of the Megilla. The Sages of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi relied upon the halakha stated here and determined that one cancels his Torah study and comes to hear the reading of the Megilla. They derived this principle by means of an a fortiori inference from the Temple service: Just as one who is engaged in performing service in the Temple, which is very important, cancels his service in order to hear the Megilla, is it not all the more so obvious that one who is engaged in Torah study cancels his study to hear the Megilla?

וַעֲבוֹדָה חֲמוּרָה מִתַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי בִּהְיוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּירִיחוֹ וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ עוֹמֵד לְנֶגְדּוֹ [וְגוֹ׳] וַיִּשְׁתָּחוּ (לְאַפָּיו)״.

The Gemara asks: Is the Temple service more important than Torah study? Isn’t it written: “And it came to pass when Joshua was by Jericho that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man stood over against him with his sword drawn in his hand. And Joshua went over to him and said to him: Are you for us, or for our adversaries? And he said, No, but I am captain of the host of the Lord, I have come now. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and bowed down” (Joshua 5:13–14).

וְהֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: אָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁיִּתֵּן שָׁלוֹם לַחֲבֵירוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה, חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא שֵׁד הוּא! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״כִּי אֲנִי שַׂר צְבָא ה׳״.

The Gemara first seeks to clarify the incident described in the verse. How did Joshua do this, i.e., how could he bow to a figure he did not recognize? Didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: It is prohibited for a person to greet his fellow at night if he does not recognize him, as we are concerned that perhaps it is a demon? How did Joshua know that it was not a demon? The Gemara answers: There it was different, as the visitor said to him: But I am captain of the host of the Lord.

וְדִלְמָא מְשַׁקְּרִי? גְּמִירִי דְּלָא מַפְּקִי שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם לְבַטָּלָה.

The Gemara asks: Perhaps this was a demon and he lied? The Gemara answers: It is learned as a tradition that demons do not utter the name of Heaven for naught, and therefore since the visitor had mentioned the name of God, Joshua was certain that this was indeed an angel.

אָמַר לוֹ: אֶמֶשׁ בִּטַּלְתֶּם תָּמִיד שֶׁל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, וְעַכְשָׁיו בִּטַּלְתֶּם תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה. אָמַר לוֹ: עַל אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן בָּאתָ? אָמַר לוֹ: ״עַתָּה בָאתִי״, מִיָּד: ״וַיָּלֶן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא בְּתוֹךְ הָעֵמֶק״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן:

As for the angel’s mission, the Gemara explains that the angel said to Joshua: Yesterday, i.e., during the afternoon, you neglected the afternoon daily offering due to the impending battle, and now, at night, you have neglected Torah study, and I have come to rebuke you. Joshua said to him: For which of these sins have you come? He said to him: I have come now, indicating that neglecting Torah study is more severe than neglecting to sacrifice the daily offering. Joshua immediately determined to rectify the matter, as the verses states: “And Joshua lodged that night” (Joshua 8:9) “in the midst of the valley [ha’emek]” (Joshua 8:13), and Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלָּן בְּעוּמְקָהּ שֶׁל הֲלָכָה. וְאָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אוּנְיָא: גָּדוֹל תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה יוֹתֵר מֵהַקְרָבַת תְּמִידִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַתָּה בָאתִי״!

This teaches that he spent the night in the depths [be’umeka] of halakha, i.e., that he spent the night studying Torah with the Jewish people. And Rav Shmuel bar Unya said: Torah study is greater than sacrificing the daily offerings, as it is stated: “I have come now” (Joshua 5:14), indicating that the angel came to rebuke Joshua for neglecting Torah study and not for neglecting the daily offering. Consequently, how did the Sages of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi determine that the Temple service is more important than Torah study?

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּרַבִּים, וְהָא דְּיָחִיד.

The Gemara explains that it is not difficult. This statement, with regard to the story of Joshua, is referring to Torah study by the masses, which is greater than the Temple service. That statement of the Sages of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is referring to Torah study by an individual, which is less significant than the Temple service.

וּדְיָחִיד קַל? וְהָתְנַן: נָשִׁים בַּמּוֹעֵד מְעַנּוֹת אֲבָל לֹא מְטַפְּחוֹת, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיוּ סְמוּכוֹת לַמִּטָּה — מְטַפְּחוֹת. בְּרָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים בַּחֲנוּכָּה וּבְפוּרִים, מְעַנּוֹת וּמְטַפְּחוֹת בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה, אֲבָל לֹא מְקוֹנְנוֹת.

The Gemara asks: Is the Torah study of an individual a light matter? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: On the intermediate days of a Festival, women may lament the demise of the deceased in unison, but they may not clap their hands in mourning? Rabbi Yishmael says: Those that are close to the bier may clap. On the New Moon, on Hanukkah, and on Purim, which are not mandated by Torah law, they may both lament and clap their hands in mourning. However, on both groups of days, they may not wail responsively, a form of wailing where one woman wails and the others repeat after her.

וְאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר הוּנָא: אֵין מוֹעֵד בִּפְנֵי תַּלְמִיד חָכָם — כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן חֲנוּכָּה וּפוּרִים.

And Rabba bar Huna said: All these regulations were said with regard to an ordinary person, but there are no restrictions on expressions of mourning on the intermediate days of a Festival in the presence of a deceased Torah scholar. If a Torah scholar dies on the intermediate days of a Festival, the women may lament, clap, and wail responsively as on any other day, and all the more so on Hanukkah and Purim. This indicates that even the Torah study of an individual is of great importance.

כְּבוֹד תּוֹרָה קָאָמְרַתְּ. כְּבוֹד תּוֹרָה דְּיָחִיד — חָמוּר, תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה דְּיָחִיד — קַל.

The Gemara rejects this argument: You speak of the honor that must be shown to the Torah, and indeed, the honor that must be shown to the Torah in the case of an individual Torah scholar is important; but the Torah study of an individual in itself is light and is less significant than the Temple service.

אָמַר רָבָא, פְּשִׁיטָא לִי: עֲבוֹדָה וּמִקְרָא מְגִילָּה — מִקְרָא מְגִילָּה עֲדִיף, מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא. תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה וּמִקְרָא מְגִילָּה — מִקְרָא מְגִילָּה עֲדִיף, מִדְּסָמְכוּ שֶׁל בֵּית רַבִּי.

§ Rava said: It is obvious to me that if one must choose between Temple service and reading the Megilla, reading the Megilla takes precedence, based upon the exposition of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina with regard to the phrase “every family” (Esther 9:28). Similarly, if one must choose between Torah study and reading the Megilla, reading the Megilla takes precedence, based upon the fact that the Sages of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi relied on Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina’s exposition to rule that one interrupts Torah study to hear the reading of the Megilla.

תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה וּמֵת מִצְוָה — מֵת מִצְוָה עֲדִיף, מִדְּתַנְיָא: מְבַטְּלִין תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה לְהוֹצָאַת מֵת, וּלְהַכְנָסַת כַּלָּה. עֲבוֹדָה וּמֵת מִצְוָה — מֵת מִצְוָה עֲדִיף, מִ״וּלְאַחוֹתוֹ״.

Furthermore, it is obvious that if one must choose between Torah study and tending to a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva], the task of burying the met mitzva takes precedence. This is derived from that which is taught in a baraita: One cancels his Torah study to bring out a corpse for burial, and to join a wedding procession and bring in the bride. Similarly, if one must choose between the Temple service and tending to a met mitzva, tending to the met mitzva takes precedence, based upon the halakha derived from the term “or for his sister” (Numbers 6:7).

דְּתַנְיָא: ״וּלְאַחוֹתוֹ״ מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה הוֹלֵךְ לִשְׁחוֹט אֶת פִּסְחוֹ וְלָמוּל אֶת בְּנוֹ, וְשָׁמַע שֶׁמֵּת לוֹ מֵת, יָכוֹל יִטַּמָּא —

As it is taught in a baraita with regard to verses addressing the laws of a nazirite: “All the days that he consecrates himself to the Lord, he shall not come near to a dead body. For his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, he shall not make himself ritually impure for them when they die” (Numbers 6:6–7). What is the meaning when the verse states “or for his sister”? The previous verse, which states that the nazirite may not come near a dead body, already prohibits him from becoming impure through contact with his sister. Therefore, the second verse is understood to be teaching a different halakha: One who was going to slaughter his Paschal lamb or to circumcise his son, and he heard that a relative of his died, one might have thought that he should return and become ritually impure with the impurity imparted by a corpse.

אָמַרְתָּ: ״לֹא יִטַּמָּא״. יָכוֹל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לַאֲחוֹתוֹ, כָּךְ אֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּלְאַחוֹתוֹ״. לַאֲחוֹתוֹ הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ מִיטַּמֵּא, אֲבָל מִיטַּמֵּא לְמֵת מִצְוָה.

You said: He shall not become impure; the death of his relative will not override so significant a mitzva from the Torah. One might have thought: Just as he does not become impure for his sister, so he does not become impure for a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva]. The verse states: “Or for his sister”; he may not become impure for his sister, as someone else can attend to her burial, but he does become impure for a met mitzva.

בָּעֵי רָבָא: מִקְרָא מְגִילָּה וּמֵת מִצְוָה הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ עֲדִיף? מִקְרָא מְגִילָּה עֲדִיף מִשּׁוּם פַּרְסוֹמֵי נִיסָּא, אוֹ דִּלְמָא מֵת מִצְוָה עֲדִיף מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹד הַבְּרִיּוֹת? בָּתַר דְּבַעְיָא הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ: מֵת מִצְוָה עֲדִיף, דְּאָמַר מָר: גָּדוֹל כְּבוֹד הַבְּרִיּוֹת שֶׁדּוֹחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה.

On the basis of these premises, Rava raised a dilemma: If one must choose between reading the Megilla and tending to a met mitzva, which of them takes precedence? Does reading the Megilla take precedence due to the value of publicizing the miracle, or perhaps burying the met mitzva takes precedence due to the value of preserving human dignity? After he raised the dilemma, Rava then resolved it on his own and ruled that attending to a met mitzva takes precedence, as the Master said: Great is human dignity, as it overrides a prohibition in the Torah. Consequently, it certainly overrides the duty to read the Megilla, despite the fact that reading the Megilla publicizes the miracle.

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כְּרַךְ, וְכׇל הַסָּמוּךְ לוֹ, וְכׇל הַנִּרְאֶה עִמּוֹ — נִדּוֹן כִּכְרַךְ. תָּנָא: סָמוּךְ — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה, נִרְאֶה — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ סָמוּךְ.

§ The Gemara examines the matter itself cited in the course of the previous discussion. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A walled city, and all settlements adjacent to it, and all settlements that can be seen with it, i.e., that can be seen from the walled city, are considered like the walled city, and the Megilla is read on the fifteenth. It was taught in the Tosefta: This is the halakha with regard to a settlement adjacent to a walled city, although it cannot be seen from it, and also a place that can be seen from the walled city, although it is not adjacent to it.

בִּשְׁלָמָא נִרְאֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ סָמוּךְ, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ כְּגוֹן דְּיָתְבָה בְּרֹאשׁ הָהָר. אֶלָּא סָמוּךְ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: שֶׁיּוֹשֶׁבֶת בַּנַּחַל.

The Gemara examines the Tosefta: Granted that with regard to a place that can be seen from the walled city, although it is not adjacent to it, you find it where the place is located on the top of a mountain, and therefore it can be seen from the walled city, although it is at some distance from it. However, with regard to a settlement that is adjacent to a walled city although it cannot be seen from it, how can you find these circumstances? Rabbi Yirmeya said: You find it, for example, where the place is located in a valley, and therefore it is possible that it cannot be seen from the walled city, although it is very close to it.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כְּרַךְ שֶׁיָּשַׁב וּלְבַסּוֹף הוּקַּף — נִדּוֹן כִּכְפָר. מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאִישׁ כִּי יִמְכּוֹר בֵּית מוֹשַׁב עִיר חוֹמָה״, שֶׁהוּקַּף וּלְבַסּוֹף יָשַׁב, וְלֹא שֶׁיָּשַׁב וּלְבַסּוֹף הוּקַּף.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A walled city that was initially settled and only later surrounded by a wall is considered a village rather than a walled city. What is the reason? As it is written: “And if a man sells a residential house in a walled city” (Leviticus 25:29). The wording of the verse indicates that it is referring to a place that was first surrounded by a wall and only later settled, and not to a place that was first settled and only later surrounded by a wall.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כְּרַךְ שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ עֲשָׂרָה בַּטְלָנִין — נִדּוֹן כִּכְפָר. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: אֵיזוֹ הִיא עִיר גְּדוֹלָה — כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֲשָׂרָה בַּטְלָנִין. פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן, הֲרֵי זֶה כְּפָר? כְּרַךְ אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִיקַּלְעִי לֵיהּ מֵעָלְמָא.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A walled city that does not have ten idlers, i.e., individuals who do not work and are available to attend to communal needs, is treated as a village. The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us? We already learned in a mishna (5a): What is a large city? Any city in which there are ten idlers; however, if there are fewer than that, it is a village. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, it was necessary for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to teach this halakha with regard to a large city, to indicate that even if idlers happen to come there from elsewhere, since they are not local residents, it is still considered a village.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כְּרַךְ שֶׁחָרַב וּלְבַסּוֹף יָשַׁב נִדּוֹן כִּכְרַךְ. מַאי חָרַב? אִילֵּימָא חָרְבוּ חוֹמוֹתָיו: יָשַׁב — אִין, לֹא יָשַׁב — לָא? וְהָא תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בַּר יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹא חוֹמָה״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עַכְשָׁיו וְהָיָה לוֹ קוֹדֶם לָכֵן.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi also said: A walled city that was destroyed and then later settled is considered a city. The Gemara asks: What is meant by the term destroyed? If we say that the city’s walls were destroyed, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi comes to teach us that if it was settled, yes it is treated as a walled city, but if it was not settled, it is not treated that way, there is a difficulty. Isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer bar Yosei says: The verse states: “Which has [lo] a wall (Leviticus 25:30),” and the word lo is written with an alef, which means no, but in context the word lo is used as though it was written with a vav, meaning that it has a wall. This indicates that even though the city does not have a wall now, as the wall was destroyed, if it had a wall before, it retains its status as a walled city.

אֶלָּא מַאי ״חָרַב״ — שֶׁחָרַב מֵעֲשָׂרָה בַּטְלָנִין.

Rather, what is meant by the term destroyed? That it was destroyed in the sense that it no longer has ten idlers, and therefore it is treated like a village. However, once it has ten idlers again, it is treated like a city.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי:

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:

לוֹד וְאוֹנוֹ וְגֵיא הַחֲרָשִׁים — מוּקָּפוֹת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן הֲווֹ.

The cities Lod, and Ono, and Gei HeḤarashim are cities that have been surrounded by walls since the days of Joshua, son of Nun.

וְהָנֵי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּנַנְהִי? וְהָא אֶלְפַּעַל בְּנַנְהִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״[וּ]בְנֵי אֶלְפַּעַל עֵבֶר וּמִשְׁעָם וָשָׁמֶר הוּא בָּנָה אֶת אוֹנוֹ וְאֶת לוֹד וּבְנוֹתֶיהָ״! וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, אָסָא בְּנַנְהִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּבֶן (אָסָא אֶת עָרֵי הַבְּצוּרוֹת אֲשֶׁר לִיהוּדָה)״.

The Gemara asks: Did Joshua, son of Nun, really build these cities? Didn’t Elpaal build them at a later date, as it is written: “And the sons of Elpaal: Eber, and Misham, and Shemed, who built Ono and Lod, with its hamlets” (I Chronicles 8:12)? The Gemara counters: According to your reasoning, that this verse proves that these cities were built later, you can also say that Asa, king of Judah, built them, as it is written: “And he, Asa, built fortified cities in Judah” (see II Chronicles 14:5). Therefore, it is apparent that these cities were built more than once.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הָנֵי מוּקָּפוֹת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן הֲווֹ. חֲרוּב בִּימֵי פִּילֶגֶשׁ בְּגִבְעָה, וַאֲתָא אֶלְפַּעַל בְּנַנְהִי. הֲדוּר אִינְּפוּל, אֲתָא אָסָא שַׁפְּצִינְהוּ.

Rabbi Elazar said: These cities were surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, and they were destroyed in the days of the concubine in Gibea, as they stood in the tribal territory of Benjamin, and in that war all of the cities of Benjamin were destroyed (see Judges, chapters 19–21). Elpaal then came and built them again. They then fell in the wars between Judah and Israel, and Asa came and restored them.

דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לִיהוּדָה נִבְנֶה אֶת הֶעָרִים הָאֵלֶּה״, מִכְּלָל דְּעָרִים הֲווֹ מֵעִיקָּרָא. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

The Gemara comments: The language of the verse is also precise according to this explanation, as it is written with regard to Asa: “And he said to Judah: Let us build these cities” (II Chronicles 14:6), which proves by inference that they had already been cities at the outset, and that he did not build new cities. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that it is so.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת בְּמִקְרָא מְגִילָּה, שֶׁאַף הֵן הָיוּ בְּאוֹתוֹ הַנֵּס. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: פּוּרִים שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת, שׁוֹאֲלִין וְדוֹרְשִׁין בְּעִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁל יוֹם.

§ And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi also said: Women are obligated in the reading of the Megilla, as they too were significant partners in that miracle. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi also said: When Purim occurs on Shabbat, one asks questions and expounds upon the subject of the day.

מַאי אִרְיָא פּוּרִים? אֲפִילּוּ יוֹם טוֹב נָמֵי! דְּתַנְיָא: מֹשֶׁה תִּיקֵּן לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיְּהוּ שׁוֹאֲלִין וְדוֹרְשִׁין בְּעִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁל יוֹם: הִלְכוֹת פֶּסַח בַּפֶּסַח, הִלְכוֹת עֲצֶרֶת בָּעֲצֶרֶת, וְהִלְכוֹת חַג בֶּחָג!

The Gemara raises a question with regard to the last halakha: Why was it necessary to specify Purim? The same principle applies also to the Festivals, as it is taught in a baraita: Moses enacted for the Jewish people that they should ask questions about and expound upon the subject of the day: They should occupy themselves with the halakhot of Passover on Passover, with the halakhot of Shavuot on Shavuot, and with the halakhot of the festival of Sukkot on the festival of Sukkot.

פּוּרִים אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: נִגְזוֹר מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבָּה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to mention Purim, lest you say that when Purim falls on Shabbat we should decree that it is prohibited to expound upon the halakhot of the day due to the concern of Rabba, who said that the reason the Megilla is not read on a Purim that falls on Shabbat is due to a concern that one carry the Megilla in the public domain. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi therefore teaches us that expounding the halakhot of the day is not prohibited as a preventive measure lest one read the Megilla on Shabbat.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: חַיָּיב אָדָם לִקְרוֹת אֶת הַמְּגִילָּה בַּלַּיְלָה וְלִשְׁנוֹתָהּ בַּיּוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֱלֹהַי אֶקְרָא יוֹמָם וְלֹא תַעֲנֶה וְלַיְלָה וְלֹא דוּמִיָּה לִי״.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi further said with regard to Purim: A person is obligated to read the Megilla at night and then to repeat it [lishnota] during the day, as it is stated: “O my God, I call by day but You do not answer; and at night, and there is no surcease for me” (Psalms 22:3), which alludes to reading the Megilla both by day and by night.

סְבוּר מִינָּה לְמִקְרְיַיהּ בְּלֵילְיָא וּלְמִיתְנֵא מַתְנִיתִין דִּידַהּ בִּימָמָא. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לְדִידִי מִיפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, כְּגוֹן דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: אֶעֱבוֹר פָּרַשְׁתָּא דָּא וְאֶתְנְיַיהּ.

Some of the students who heard this statement understood from it that one is obligated to read the Megilla at night and to study its relevant tractate of Mishna by day, as the term lishnota can be understood to mean studying Mishna. Rabbi Yirmeya said to them: It was explained to me personally by Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba himself that the term lishnota here has a different connotation, for example, as people say: I will conclude this section and repeat it, i.e., I will review my studies. Similarly, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement means that one must repeat the reading of the Megilla by day after reading it at night.

אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ אָמַר עוּלָּא בִּירָאָה: חַיָּיב אָדָם לִקְרוֹת אֶת הַמְּגִילָּה בַּלַּיְלָה וְלִשְׁנוֹתָהּ בַּיּוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְמַעַן יְזַמֶּרְךָ כָבוֹד וְלֹא יִדּוֹם ה׳ אֱלֹהַי לְעוֹלָם אוֹדֶךָּ״.

The Gemara notes that this ruling was also stated by another amora, as Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Ulla Bira’a said: A person is obligated to read the Megilla at night and then repeat it during the day, as it is stated: “So that my glory may sing praise to You and not be silent; O Lord, my God, I will give thanks to You forever” (Psalms 30:13). The dual formulation of singing praise and not being silent alludes to reading the Megilla both by night and by day.

אֶלָּא שֶׁהַכְּפָרִים מַקְדִּימִין לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה. אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: חֲכָמִים הֵקֵילּוּ עַל הַכְּפָרִים לִהְיוֹת מַקְדִּימִין לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּסַפְּקוּ מַיִם וּמָזוֹן לַאֲחֵיהֶם שֶׁבַּכְּרַכִּין.

§ We learned in the mishna that residents of unwalled towns read the Megilla on the fourteenth of Adar; however, residents of villages may advance their reading to the day of assembly, the Monday or Thursday preceding Purim. Rabbi Ḥanina said: The Sages were lenient with the villages and allowed them to advance their reading of the Megilla to the day of assembly, so that they could be free to provide water and food to their brethren in the cities on the day of Purim. If everyone would be busy reading the Megilla on the fourteenth, the residents of the cities would not have enough to eat.

לְמֵימְרָא דְּתַקַּנְתָּא דִכְרַכִּין הָוֵי? וְהָתְנַן: חָל לִהְיוֹת בַּשֵּׁנִי — כְּפָרִים וַעֲיָירוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת קוֹרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם. וְאִם אִיתָא, לַיקְדְּמוּ לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה! הָווּ לְהוּ עֲשָׂרָה, וַעֲשָׂרָה לָא תַּקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן.

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that this ordinance is for the benefit of the cities? Didn’t we learn in the mishna that if the fourteenth occurred on a Monday, the residents of villages and large towns read it on that very day? If it is so, that the ordinance allowing the villagers to sometimes advance their reading of the Megilla is for the benefit of the cities, let the villagers advance their reading to the previous day of assembly even when the fourteenth occurs on a Monday. The Gemara responds: That would mean that Megilla reading for them would take place on the tenth of Adar, and the Sages did not establish the tenth of Adar as a day that is fit to read the Megilla.

תָּא שְׁמַע: חָל לִהְיוֹת בַּחֲמִישִׁי — כְּפָרִים וַעֲיָירוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת קוֹרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם, וְאִם אִיתָא, לַיקְדְּמוּ לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה דְּאַחַד עָשָׂר הוּא! מִיּוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה לָא דָּחֵינַן.

The Gemara continues: Come and hear a proof from a different statement of the mishna: If the fourteenth occurs on a Thursday, the villages and large towns read it on that day, the fourteenth, and the walled cities read it on the next day, the fifteenth. If it is so, that the ordinance is for the benefit of the cities, let the villagers advance their reading of the Megilla to the previous day of assembly, i.e., the previous Monday, as it is the eleventh of Adar. The Gemara responds: We do not defer the reading of the Megilla from one day of assembly to another day of assembly.

תָּא שְׁמַע, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֵימָתַי — בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנִּכְנָסִים בַּשֵּׁנִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי, אֲבָל מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין נִכְנָסִים בַּשֵּׁנִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי — אֵין קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ אֶלָּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ תַּקַּנְתָּא דִכְרַכִּין הִיא — מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין נִכְנָסִים בַּשֵּׁנִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי מַפְסְדִי לְהוּ לִכְרַכִּין?

The Gemara continues: Come and hear that which was taught in the following mishna (5a): Rabbi Yehuda said: When is the Megilla read from the eleventh of Adar and onward? In a place where the villagers generally enter town on Monday and Thursday. However, in a place where they do not generally enter town on Monday and Thursday, one may read the Megilla only in its designated time, the fourteenth of Adar. The Gemara infers: If it enters your mind to say that the ordinance is for the benefit of the cities, would it be reasonable to suggest that because the villagers do not enter town on Monday and Thursday the residents of the cities should lose out and not be provided with food and water?

לָא תֵּימָא כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּסַפְּקוּ מַיִם וּמָזוֹן, אֶלָּא אֵימָא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּסַפְּקִים מַיִם וּמָזוֹן לַאֲחֵיהֶם שֶׁבַּכְּרַכִּין.

The Gemara accepts this argument: Do not say that the Sages allowed the villages to advance their reading of the Megilla to the day of assembly so that they can be free to provide water and food to their brethren in the cities on the day of Purim. Rather, say that the Sages were lenient with them because the villages supply water and food to their brethren in the cities. This ordinance was established for the benefit of the villagers so that they should not have to make an extra trip to the cities to hear the reading of the Megilla. However, in a place where the villages do not go to the cities, advancing their reading of the Megilla to the day of assembly will not benefit them, and therefore they must read on the fourteenth.

כֵּיצַד? חָל לִהְיוֹת בַּשֵּׁנִי בַּשַּׁבָּת — כְּפָרִים וַעֲיָירוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת קוֹרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם וְכוּ׳. מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא דְּנָקֵט סִידּוּרָא דְיַרְחָא, וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא דְּנָקֵט סִידּוּרָא דְיוֹמֵי?

§ We learned in the mishna: How so? If the fourteenth of Adar occurs on Monday, the villages and large towns read it on that day. The mishna continues to explain the days on which the Megilla is read. The Gemara asks: What is different about the first clause of the mishna, which employs the order of the dates of the month, i.e., the eleventh of Adar, and the latter clause, which employs the order of the days of the week, i.e., Monday?

אַיְּידֵי דְּמִיתְהַפְכִי לֵיהּ נָקֵט סִידּוּרָא דְיוֹמֵי.

The Gemara answers: Since the days of the week would be reversed if the latter clause was organized according to the dates of the month, as the mishna would first have to mention a case where the fourteenth occurs on a Sunday, then a case where it occurs on a Wednesday or Shabbat, and then a case where it occurs on a Friday or Tuesday, the mishna employed the order of the days of the week in order to avoid confusion.

חָל לִהְיוֹת בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְכוּ׳. מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי? אִי רַבִּי, אִי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

§ We learned in the mishna: If the fourteenth occurs on Shabbat eve, Friday, the villages advance their reading to the day of assembly, i.e., Thursday, and the large towns and walled cities read it on Friday, the fourteenth of Adar. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It can be either Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi or Rabbi Yosei.

מַאי רַבִּי? דְּתַנְיָא: חָל לִהְיוֹת בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — כְּפָרִים וַעֲיָירוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת מַקְדִּימִין לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה, וּמוּקָּפִין חוֹמָה קוֹרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אוֹמֵר אֲנִי: לֹא יִדָּחוּ עֲיָירוֹת מִמְּקוֹמָן, אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ קוֹרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם.

The Gemara explains: What is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? As it is taught in a baraita: If the fourteenth occurs on Shabbat eve, villages and large towns advance their reading to the day of assembly, i.e., Thursday, and walled cities read it on the day of Purim, Friday. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees and says: I say that the readings in the large towns should not be deferred from their usual date, i.e., the fourteenth of Adar. Rather, both these, the large towns and those, the walled cities, read the Megilla on the day of Purim.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא? דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּכׇל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה״. מָה כׇּל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה עֲיָירוֹת קוֹדְמוֹת לַמּוּקָּפִין, אַף כָּאן עֲיָירוֹת קוֹדְמוֹת לַמּוּקָּפִין.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason of the first tanna? The Gemara explains that it is as it is written: “To keep these two days, according to their writing and according to their time, in every year” (Esther 9:27), which indicates that Purim must be celebrated every year in similar fashion. Just as in every other year the large towns precede the walled cities by one day, so too here the large towns precede the walled cities by one day. Consequently, since the walled cities cannot read the Megilla on Shabbat and they are required to advance the reading to Friday, the large towns must also advance their reading a day to Thursday.

וְאֵימָא: ״בְּכׇל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה״, מָה כׇּל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה אֵין נִדְחִין עֲיָירוֹת מִמְּקוֹמָן — אַף כָּאן לֹא יִדָּחוּ עֲיָירוֹת מִמְּקוֹמָן! שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר.

The Gemara raises an objection: Say that the words “in every year” indicate that just as in every other year the Megilla readings in the large towns are not deferred from their usual date and they read the Megilla on the fourteenth, so too here the Megilla readings in the large towns should not be deferred from their usual date and they too should read on the fourteenth. The Gemara answers: Here it is different, as it is not possible for the large towns to fulfill all of the conditions at the same time, i.e., to read on the fourteenth and to read a day before the walled cities.

וְרַבִּי, מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ? ״בְּכׇל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה״, מָה כׇּל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה אֵין עֲיָירוֹת נִדְחִין מִמְּקוֹמָן — אַף כָּאן לֹא יִדָּחוּ עֲיָירוֹת מִמְּקוֹמָן.

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, what is his reason? The Gemara explains that it is also based upon the words “in every year”; just as in every other year the readings in the large towns are not deferred from their usual date and they read on the fourteenth, so too here, the readings in the large towns are not deferred from their usual date, but rather they read on the fourteenth.

וְאֵימָא: ״בְּכׇל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה״, מָה כׇּל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה עֲיָירוֹת קוֹדְמוֹת לַמּוּקָּפִין — אַף כָּאן נָמֵי עֲיָירוֹת קוֹדְמוֹת לַמּוּקָּפִין! שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר.

The Gemara raises an objection: Say that the words “in every year” indicate that just as every year the large towns precede the walled cities by one day, and read on the fourteenth, so too here the large towns precede the walled cities by one day, and read on the thirteenth. The Gemara answers: Here it is different, as it is not possible to fulfill all of the conditions at the same time, i.e., to read on the fourteenth and to read a day before the walled cities.

מַאי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי? דְּתַנְיָא: חָל לִהְיוֹת בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — מוּקָּפִין וּכְפָרִים מַקְדִּימִין לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה, וַעֲיָירוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת קוֹרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוּקָּפִין קוֹדְמִין לַעֲיָירוֹת, אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ קוֹרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם.

The Gemara asks: What is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? As it is taught in a baraita: If the fourteenth occurs on Shabbat eve, the walled cities and villages advance their reading of the Megilla to the day of assembly, and the large towns read it on the day of Purim itself. Rabbi Yosei says: The walled cities never precede the large towns; rather, both these, the large towns, and those, the walled cities, read on that day, i.e., Friday, the fourteenth of Adar.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא? דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּכׇל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה״, מָה כׇּל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה עֲיָירוֹת בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, וּזְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה לֹא זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה — אַף כָּאן עֲיָירוֹת בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, וּזְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה לֹא זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason of the first tanna? As it is written: “In every year”; just as in every other year the large towns read the Megilla on the fourteenth, and the time for this type of settlement to read the Megilla is not the time for that type of settlement to read the Megilla, as the large towns and walled cities never read the Megilla on the same day, so too here, the large towns read the Megilla on the fourteenth, and the time for this type of settlement to read the Megilla is not the time for that type of settlement to read the Megilla. Therefore, the walled cities must advance their reading of the Megilla by two days to the day of assembly, Thursday.

וְאֵימָא: ״בְּכׇל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה״, מָה כׇּל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה אֵין מוּקָּפִין קוֹדְמִין לָעֲיָירוֹת, אַף כָּאן אֵין מוּקָּפִין קוֹדְמִין לָעֲיָירוֹת! שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר.

The Gemara raises an objection: Say that the words “in every year” indicate that just as in every other year the walled cities do not precede the large towns, so too here, the walled cities do not precede the large towns. The Gemara answers: Here it is different, as it is not possible to fulfill all of the conditions at the same time, i.e., that the large towns should read on the fourteenth, the large towns and the walled cities should read on different days, and the walled cities should not precede the large towns.

מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי? ״בְּכׇל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה״, מָה כׇּל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה אֵין מוּקָּפִין קוֹדְמִין לָעֲיָירוֹת — אַף כָּאן אֵין מוּקָּפִין קוֹדְמִין לָעֲיָירוֹת.

What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei? It is based upon the words “in every year”; just as in every other year the walled cities do not precede the large towns, so too here, the walled cities do not precede the large towns.

וְאֵימָא: ״בְּכׇל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה״, מָה כׇּל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה לֹא זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה — אַף כָּאן זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה לֹא זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה! שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Say that the words “in every year” indicate that just as in every other year, the time for this type of settlement to read the Megilla is not the time for that type of settlement to read the Megilla, so too here, the time for this type of settlement to read the Megilla is not the time for that type of settlement to read the Megilla. Therefore, since the large towns read on the fourteenth, the walled cities read on the thirteenth. The Gemara answers: Here it is different, as it is not possible to fulfill all the conditions. It is clear from these baraitot that the tanna of the mishna can either be Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi or Rabbi Yosei, but not either of two anonymous tanna’im.

וְסָבַר רַבִּי עֲיָירוֹת לָא דָּחִינַן לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה? וְהָתַנְיָא: חָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת — כְּפָרִים מַקְדִּימִין לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה, וַעֲיָירוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת קוֹרִין בָּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, וּמוּקָּפוֹת חוֹמָה לְמָחָר. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אוֹמֵר אֲנִי: הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחוּ עֲיָירוֹת מִמְּקוֹמָן — יִדָּחוּ לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה.

The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi really hold that one does not defer the reading of the Megilla in large towns to the day of assembly? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: If the fourteenth occurs on Shabbat, the villages advance their reading of the Megilla to the day of assembly, the large towns read it on Shabbat eve, and the walled cities read it the next day, i.e., on Sunday. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that since the readings in the large towns were already deferred from their usual date, i.e., the fourteenth, they are deferred to the day of assembly, i.e., to Thursday. Consequently, even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agrees that the reading in the large towns can be shifted to the day of assembly. Why doesn’t he also hold that large towns read the Megilla on the day of assembly when the fourteenth occurs on a Friday?

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא? הָתָם זְמַנָּם שַׁבָּת הִיא, וְהוֹאִיל דְּנִדְחוּ — יִדָּחוּ. וְהָכָא, זְמַנָּם עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת!

The Gemara responds: How can these cases be compared? There, in the second baraita, the designated time for them to read the Megilla is Shabbat, but the Megilla is not read on Shabbat, and therefore they must read it on a different day. Therefore, since the readings in the large towns have been deferred, they are deferred an additional day, and take place on Thursday, the day of assembly, at the same time as the readings in the villages. Here, their designated time is Shabbat eve, and there is no reason to move the reading from that day.

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: פּוּרִים שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת — הַכֹּל נִדְחִין לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה. הַכֹּל נִדְחִין סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! וְהָא אִיכָּא מוּקָּפִין דְּעָבְדִי לִמְחַר! אֶלָּא: כׇּל הַנִּדְחֶה יִדָּחֶה לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה. כְּמַאן — כְּרַבִּי.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabbi Ḥelbo said that Rav Huna said: When Purim occurs on Shabbat, the reading of the Megilla in all places is deferred to the day of assembly? The Gemara corrects the wording of Rav Huna’s statement: Can it enter your mind to say that the reading of the Megilla in all places is deferred to the day of assembly? Aren’t there walled cities that perform this ceremony the next day, i.e., on Sunday? Rather, Rav Huna’s statement should say as follows: All readings that are deferred are deferred to the day of assembly. In accordance with whose opinion was this stated? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִיהָא מְגִילָּה בְּשַׁבָּת לָא קָרִינַן. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבָּה: הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בִּקְרִיאַת מְגִילָּה (וּבִתְקִיעַת שׁוֹפָר), וְאֵין הַכֹּל בְּקִיאִין בְּמִקְרָא מְגִילָּה. גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִטְּלֶנָּה בְּיָדוֹ וְיֵלֵךְ אֵצֶל בָּקִי לִלְמוֹד, וְיַעֲבִירֶנָּה אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים.

In any case, it is apparent from the mishna and the baraitot that everyone agrees that one does not read the Megilla on Shabbat. What is the reason for this? Rabba said: Everyone is obligated to participate in reading the Megilla on Purim and blowing the shofar on Rosh HaShana, and not everyone is proficient in reading the Megilla. Therefore, the Sages issued a rabbinic decree that the Megilla is not read on Shabbat, lest one take the Megilla in his hand and go to an expert to learn how to read it or to hear the expert read it, and, due to his preoccupation, he will carry it four cubits in the public domain, and thereby desecrate Shabbat.

וְהַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְשׁוֹפָר. וְהַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְלוּלָב.

The Gemara comments: And this same concern for the sanctity of Shabbat is the reason that the Sages decreed that the shofar is not blown when Rosh HaShana occurs on Shabbat. And this same concern is the reason that the Sages decreed that one may not take the lulav on Shabbat.

רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעֵינֵיהֶן שֶׁל עֲנִיִּים נְשׂוּאוֹת בְּמִקְרָא מְגִילָּה. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ כְּפָרִים מַקְדִּימִין לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה — גּוֹבִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם, וּמְחַלְּקִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם.

Rav Yosef said that there is another reason the Megilla is not read on Shabbat: Because the eyes of the poor are raised to the reading of the Megilla. The poor await the day on which the Megilla is read, because on that day gifts are distributed to the poor. If the Megilla is read on Shabbat, it will not be possible to distribute gifts to the poor, who will be deeply disappointed. The Gemara notes that this is also taught in a baraita: Even though the Sages said that the villages advance their reading of the Megilla to the day of assembly, they also collect the gifts for the poor on that day, and they distribute them to the poor on that day.

אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ? אַדְּרַבָּה, מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרוּ הוּא! אֶלָּא: הוֹאִיל וְאָמְרוּ שֶׁכְּפָרִים מַקְדִּימִין לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה — גּוֹבִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם, וּמְחַלְּקִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעֵינֵיהֶם שֶׁל עֲנִיִּים נְשׂוּאוֹת בְּמִקְרָא מְגִילָּה. אֲבָל

The Gemara is troubled by the wording of this baraita. Does the baraita read: Even though the Sages said? On the contrary, it is because they said that the villages advance their reading to the day of assembly that the gifts must be collected and distributed to the poor on that very day. Rather, the baraita should read as follows: Since the Sages said that the villages advance their reading of the Megilla to the day of assembly, they collect the gifts for the poor on that day and they distribute them on that day, because the eyes of the poor are raised to the reading of the Megilla, and they should not be disappointed. However,

שִׂמְחָה, אֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ.

the rejoicing that takes place on Purim is practiced only in its designated time, the fourteenth of Adar.

אָמַר רַב: מְגִילָּה בִּזְמַנָּהּ — קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ אֲפִילּוּ בְּיָחִיד, שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ — בַּעֲשָׂרָה. רַב אַסִּי אָמַר: בֵּין בִּזְמַנָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ — בַּעֲשָׂרָה. הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא, וְחַשׁ לֵיהּ רַב לְהָא דְּרַב אַסִּי.

§ Rav said: One may read the Megilla in its proper time, i.e., on the fourteenth of Adar, even privately. However, when it is read not at its proper time, e.g., when the villages advance their reading to the day of assembly, it must be read with a quorum of ten, because the enactment allowing the Megilla to be read before its proper time was only made for a community. Rav Asi disagreed and said: Both at its proper time and not at its proper time, the Megilla must be read with a quorum of ten. The Gemara relates that there was an incident where Rav had to read the Megilla on Purim, and he was concerned for this opinion of Rav Asi and gathered ten men even though he was reading the Megilla in its proper time, on the fourteenth of Adar.

וּמִי אָמַר רַב הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁילַת מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: פּוּרִים שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת — עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת זְמַנָּם. עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת זְמַנָּם?! וְהָא שַׁבָּת זְמַנָּם הוּא! אֶלָּא לָאו הָכִי קָאָמַר: שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּם כִּזְמַנָּם. מָה זְמַנָּם — אֲפִילּוּ בְּיָחִיד, אַף שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַנָּם — אֲפִילּוּ בְּיָחִיד?

The Gemara asks: And did Rav actually say this, that when the Megilla is read not at its proper time, it can only be read with a quorum of ten? Didn’t Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, say in the name of Rav: If Purim occurs on Shabbat, Shabbat eve is the proper time for reading the Megilla? The Gemara expresses surprise with regard to the wording of Rav’s statement: Is Shabbat eve the proper time for reading the Megilla? Isn’t Shabbat itself its proper time? Rather, is it not true that this is what he said, i.e., that this is the way his statement should be understood: Reading the Megilla not at its proper time is like reading it at its proper time; just as at its proper time, it can be read even privately, so too, not at its proper time, it can be read even privately.

לָא, לְעִנְיַן מִקְרָא מְגִילָּה בַּעֲשָׂרָה. אֶלָּא מַאי ״עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת זְמַנָּם״ — לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי, דְּאָמַר: הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחוּ עֲיָירוֹת מִמְּקוֹמָן — יִדָּחוּ לְיוֹם הַכְּנִיסָה, הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת זְמַנָּם הוּא.

The Gemara rejects this argument: Rav’s statement was not made with regard to reading the Megilla with a quorum of ten. Rather, what is the meaning of Rav’s statement that Shabbat eve is the proper time? It was meant to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: Since the readings in the large towns were already deferred from their usual date and the Megilla was not read on the fourteenth, they are deferred to the day of assembly. This statement of Rav teaches us that Shabbat eve is the proper time for these towns to read the Megilla, as stated in the mishna.

מַתְנִי׳ אִי זוֹ הִיא עִיר גְּדוֹלָה — כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ עֲשָׂרָה בַּטְלָנִין. פָּחוֹת מִכָּאן — הֲרֵי זֶה כְּפָר.

MISHNA: What is considered a large city, where the Megilla is read on the fourteenth of Adar? Any city in which there are ten idlers. However, if there are fewer than that, it is considered a village, even if it has many inhabitants.

בְּאֵלּוּ אָמְרוּ מַקְדִּימִין וְלֹא מְאַחֲרִין. אֲבָל זְמַן עֲצֵי כֹּהֲנִים, וְתִשְׁעָה בְּאָב, חֲגִיגָה, וְהַקְהֵל — מְאַחֲרִין וְלֹא מַקְדִּימִין.

It was with regard to these times for reading the Megilla that the Sages said that one advances the reading of the Megilla before the fourteenth of Adar and one does not postpone the reading to after its proper time. However, with regard to the time when families of priests donate wood for the fire on the altar, which were times those families would treat as Festivals; as well as the fast of the Ninth of Av; the Festival peace-offering that was brought on the Festivals; and the commandment of assembly [hakhel] of the entire Jewish people in the Temple courtyard on Sukkot in the year following the Sabbatical year to hear the king read the book of Deuteronomy; one postpones their observance until after Shabbat and does not advance their observance to before Shabbat.

אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ מַקְדִּימִין וְלֹא מְאַחֲרִין — מוּתָּרִין בְּהֶסְפֵּד וּבְתַעֲנִית, וּמַתָּנוֹת לָאֶבְיוֹנִים. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֵימָתַי? מְקוֹם שֶׁנִּכְנָסִין בְּשֵׁנִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי. אֲבָל מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין נִכְנָסִין לֹא בַּשֵּׁנִי וְלֹא בַּחֲמִישִׁי — אֵין קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ אֶלָּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ.

The mishna continues: Even though the Sages said that one advances the time for reading the Megilla and one does not postpone the reading, one is permitted to eulogize and fast on these days, as they are not actually Purim; nevertheless, gifts for the poor are distributed on this day. Rabbi Yehuda said: When is the Megilla read on the day of assembly, before the fourteenth of Adar? In a place where the villagers generally enter town on Monday and Thursday. However, in a place where they do not generally enter town on Monday and Thursday, one may read the Megilla only in its designated time, the fourteenth of Adar.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: עֲשָׂרָה בַּטְלָנִין שֶׁבְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת.

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that a large city is one that has ten idlers. It was taught in a baraita: The ten idlers that are mentioned here are ten idlers that are in the synagogue, i.e., men who do not have professional responsibilities other than to sit in the synagogue and attend to communal religious needs. The presence of ten such men establishes a location as a prominent city.

בְּאֵלּוּ, אָמְרוּ מַקְדִּימִין וְלֹא מְאַחֲרִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְלֹא יַעֲבוֹר״.

We learned in the mishna: It was with regard to these times for reading the Megilla that the Sages said that one advances the reading of the Megilla and one does not postpone it. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: The verse states: “The Jews ordained, and took upon them, and upon their seed, and upon all who joined themselves to them, and it shall not pass, that they should keep these two days” (Esther 9:27), which indicates that the designated time must not pass without the reading of the Megilla.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין מוֹנִין יָמִים לַשָּׁנִים — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְחׇדְשֵׁי הַשָּׁנָה״ — חֳדָשִׁים אַתָּה מוֹנֶה לַשָּׁנִים, וְאִי אַתָּה מוֹנֶה יָמִים לַשָּׁנִים.

Having mentioned a teaching of Rabbi Abba in the name of Shmuel, the Gemara cites another of his statements: And Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: From where is it derived that one does not count days to make up years, i.e., a year is considered to be comprised of either twelve or thirteen lunar months, and not 365 days? As it is stated: “Of the months of the year” (Exodus 12:2), which indicates that you count months to make up years, but you do not count days to make up years.

וְרַבָּנַן דְּקֵיסָרִי מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמְרוּ: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין מְחַשְּׁבִין שָׁעוֹת לֶחֳדָשִׁים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַד חֹדֶשׁ יָמִים״. יָמִים אַתָּה מְחַשֵּׁב לֶחֳדָשִׁים, וְאִי אַתָּה מְחַשֵּׁב שָׁעוֹת לֶחֳדָשִׁים.

The Gemara adds: And the Sages of Caesarea said in the name of Rabbi Abba: From where is it derived that one does not calculate hours to reckon the months? A lunar cycle takes approximately twenty-nine and a half days, but a calendar month is considered to be twenty-nine or thirty full days and not precisely a lunar cycle. As it is stated: “Until a month of days” (Numbers 11:20), which indicates that you calculate days to reckon the months, but you do not calculate hours to reckon the months.

אֲבָל זְמַן עֲצֵי כֹהֲנִים וְתִשְׁעָה בְּאָב וַחֲגִיגָה וְהַקְהֵל — מְאַחֲרִין וְלֹא מַקְדִּימִין. תִּשְׁעָה בְּאָב — אַקְדּוֹמֵי פּוּרְעָנוּת לָא מַקְדְּמִי. חֲגִיגָה וְהַקְהֵל — מִשּׁוּם דְּאַכַּתִּי לָא מְטָא זְמַן חִיּוּבַיְיהוּ.

§ We learned in the mishna: However, with regard to the time when families of priests donate wood for the fire on the altar, the fast of the Ninth of Av, the Festival peace-offering, and the commandment of assembly [hakhel], one postpones their observance until after Shabbat and does not advance their observance to before Shabbat. The Gemara explains the reason for this halakha with respect to each item mentioned in the mishna. The fast of the Ninth of Av is not advanced because one does not advance calamity; since the Ninth of Av is a tragic time, its observance is postponed as long as possible. The Festival peace-offering and the commandment of assembly [hakhel] are not advanced because the time of their obligation has not yet arrived, and it is impossible to fulfill mitzvot before the designated time has arrived.

תָּנָא: חֲגִיגָה וְכׇל זְמַן חֲגִיגָה מְאַחֲרִין. בִּשְׁלָמָא חֲגִיגָה, דְּאִי מִיקְּלַע בְּשַׁבְּתָא מְאַחֲרִינַן לַהּ לְבָתַר שַׁבְּתָא. אֶלָּא זְמַן חֲגִיגָה מַאי הִיא?

It was taught in a baraita: One postpones the Festival peace-offering and the entire time period of the Festival peace-offering. The Gemara attempts to clarify this statement: Granted that when the baraita says that the Festival peace-offering is postponed, it means that if a Festival occurs on Shabbat, when the Festival peace-offering cannot be sacrificed, one postpones it until after Shabbat and sacrifices the offering on the intermediate days of the Festival. However, what is the meaning of the phrase: The time period of the Festival peace-offering?

אָמַר רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: חֲגִיגָה בְּשַׁבָּת, וְעוֹלַת רְאִיָּיה אֲפִילּוּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב, דִּזְמַן חֲגִיגָה — מְאַחֲרִין.

Rav Oshaya said: This is what the baraita is saying: One postpones the Festival peace-offering if the Festival occurs on Shabbat, and one postpones the burnt-offering of appearance even due to the Festival itself. Despite the fact that a Festival day is the time for sacrificing a Festival peace-offering, the burnt-offering of appearance may not be sacrificed until after the Festival day.

מַנִּי — בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הִיא, דִּתְנַן, [בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים]: מְבִיאִין שְׁלָמִים בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְאֵין סוֹמְכִין עֲלֵיהֶן,

The Gemara adds: Whose opinion is reflected in the mishna according to Rav Oshaya’s explanation? It is the opinion of Beit Shammai, as we learned in a mishna (Beitza 19a) that Beit Shammai say: One may bring peace-offerings on a Festival day to be sacrificed in the Temple. Most portions of a peace-offering are eaten by the priests and the individual who brought the offering. Consequently, its slaughter is considered food preparation, which is permitted on a Festival day. And one may not place his hands on the head of the offering, as that includes leaning with all one’s might upon the animal, which is prohibited on a Festival.

אֲבָל לֹא עוֹלוֹת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מְבִיאִין שְׁלָמִים וְעוֹלוֹת וְסוֹמְכִין עֲלֵיהֶן.

However, burnt-offerings may not be brought at all on the Festival. Since they are not eaten, their slaughter is not considered food preparation, and it therefore constitutes a prohibited labor on the Festival. Beit Hillel disagree and say: One may bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings on a Festival day, and one may even place his hands on them.

רָבָא אָמַר: חֲגִיגָה, כׇּל זְמַן חֲגִיגָה — מְאַחֲרִין, טְפֵי — לָא. דִּתְנַן: מִי שֶׁלֹּא חָג בְּיוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חַג — חוֹגֵג וְהוֹלֵךְ אֶת כָּל הָרֶגֶל כּוּלּוֹ, וְיוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁל חַג. עָבַר הָרֶגֶל וְלֹא חָג — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ.

Rava said that the baraita should be understood as follows: One postpones the Festival peace-offering for the entire time period of the Festival peace-offering, i.e., for the entire duration of the Festival. However, it may not be postponed for longer than this. As we learned in a mishna (Ḥagiga 9a): One who did not offer the Festival peace-offering on the first Festival day of the festival of Sukkot may offer the Festival peace-offering for the duration of the entire pilgrimage Festival, including the intermediate days and the last day of the Festival. If the pilgrimage Festival has passed and he did not yet bring the Festival peace-offering, he is not obligated to pay restitution for it. The obligation is no longer in force, and he therefore is not liable to bring another offering as compensation.

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: חֲגִיגָה וְכׇל זְמַן חֲגִיגָה — מְאַחֲרִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ עֲצֶרֶת דְּחַד יוֹמָא — מְאַחֲרִין, דִּתְנַן: מוֹדִים שֶׁאִם חָל עֲצֶרֶת לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת — שֶׁיּוֹם טְבוֹחַ אַחַר הַשַּׁבָּת.

Rav Ashi said that the baraita should be understood as follows: The Festival peace-offering may be postponed for the entire time period of a Festival peace-offering. This indicates that even if Shavuot, which is one day, occurs on Shabbat, one postpones the Festival peace-offering and offers it on one of the six days after Shavuot. As we learned in a mishna (Ḥagiga 17a): Beit Hillel concede that if Shavuot occurs on Shabbat, the day of slaughter is after Shabbat. Since the Festival peace-offering and the burnt-offering of appearance cannot be sacrificed on Shabbat, they are slaughtered after Shabbat. This indicates that the Festival peace-offering may be slaughtered after the Festival day of Shavuot, as is the case on the other Festivals.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: רַבִּי נָטַע נְטִיעָה בְּפוּרִים,

Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did several unusual things: He planted a sapling on Purim, and was not concerned about performing labor and thereby possibly denigrating the day.

וְרָחַץ בִּקְרוֹנָהּ שֶׁל צִפּוֹרִי בְּשִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר בְּתַמּוּז, וּבִקֵּשׁ לַעֲקוֹר תִּשְׁעָה בְּאָב — וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ.

And he bathed at the time when the wagons [kerona] were traveling through Tzippori, i.e., on the market day, when the public would know about it, on the seventeenth of Tammuz, to show that bathing is permitted on that day. And he sought to abolish the fast of the Ninth of Av. And with respect to the Ninth of Av, the Sages did not agree with him.

אָמַר לְפָנָיו רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא: רַבִּי, לֹא כָּךְ הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה. אֶלָּא תִּשְׁעָה בְּאָב שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת הֲוָה, וּדְחִינוּהוּ לְאַחַר הַשַּׁבָּת. וְאָמַר רַבִּי: הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחָה — יִדָּחֶה, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ חֲכָמִים. קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ: ״טוֹבִים הַשְּׁנַיִם מִן הָאֶחָד״.

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said to Rabbi Elazar: My teacher, the incident did not occur in this fashion. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi never sought to abolish the fast of the Ninth of Av. Rather, it was a year when the Ninth of Av occurred on Shabbat, and they postponed it until after Shabbat. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said about that case: Since it has already been deferred from its usual time, let it be altogether deferred this year. And the Rabbis did not agree with him. Rabbi Elazar read the verse about Rabbi Abba bar Zavda: “Two are better than one” (Ecclesiastes 4:9), meaning, it is good that you were here to provide an accurate report about that incident.

וְרַבִּי הֵיכִי נָטַע נְטִיעָה בְּפוּרִים? וְהָתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: ״שִׂמְחָה וּמִשְׁתֶּה וְיוֹם טוֹב״, ״שִׂמְחָה״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֲסוּרִים בְּהֶסְפֵּד, ״מִשְׁתֶּה״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאָסוּר בְּתַעֲנִית, ״וְיוֹם טוֹב״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאָסוּר בַּעֲשִׂיַּית מְלָאכָה! אֶלָּא: רַבִּי, בַּר אַרְבֵּיסַר הֲוָה, וְכִי נְטַע — בַּחֲמֵיסַר נְטַע.

The Gemara asks: And how could Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi plant a sapling on Purim? Didn’t Rav Yosef teach with regard to the verse: “Therefore the Jews of the villages, who dwell in the unwalled towns, make the fourteenth day of the month of Adar a day of gladness and feasting, and a good day [yom tov]” (Esther 9:19), that the term “gladness” teaches that it is prohibited to eulogize on Purim; “feasting” teaches that it is prohibited to fast; and the term “good day” [yom tov] teaches that it is prohibited to perform labor, just as on a Festival, which is also referred to as a yom tov? Rather, what happened was as follows: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was in a place that observed Purim on the fourteenth, and when he planted the sapling, he planted it on the fifteenth.

אִינִי? וְהָא רַבִּי בִּטְבֶרְיָא הֲוָה, וּטְבֶרְיָא מוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן הֲוַאי! אֶלָּא, רַבִּי בַּר חֲמֵיסָר הֲוָה, וְכִי נְטַע — בְּאַרְבֵּיסַר הֲוָה.

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Wasn’t Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in Tiberias, and Tiberias was surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun. Consequently, he was obligated to observe Purim on the fifteenth. Rather, say just the opposite: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi lived in a place that observed Purim on the fifteenth, and when he planted the sapling, he planted it on the fourteenth.

וּמִי פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ דִּטְבֶרְיָא מוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן? וְהָא חִזְקִיָּה קָרֵי בִּטְבֶרְיָא בְּאַרְבֵּיסַר וּבַחֲמֵיסַר? מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי מוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן הִיא אִי לָא. לְחִזְקִיָּה מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ, לְרַבִּי פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ.

The Gemara asks: Was it obvious to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that the city of Tiberias was surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun? Didn’t Hezekiah read the Megilla in Tiberias both on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth of Adar, because he was uncertain if it had been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, or not? The Gemara answers: Hezekiah was indeed uncertain about the matter, whereas it was obvious to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that Tiberias had been surrounded by a wall in the time of Joshua.

וְכִי פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ, מִי שְׁרֵי? וְהָכְתִיב בִּמְגִילַּת תַּעֲנִית: אֵת יוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר וְאֵת יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹמֵי פּוּרַיָּא אִינּוּן, דְּלָא לְמִסְפַּד בְּהוֹן,

The Gemara asks further: And when it was obvious to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that the Megilla should be read in Tiberias on the fifteenth, was it permitted to plant there on the fourteenth? Isn’t it written in Megillat Ta’anit that the fourteenth day and the fifteenth day of Adar are the days of Purim, and one is not permitted to eulogize on them?

וְאָמַר רָבָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָא, אֶלָּא לֶאֱסוֹר אֶת שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה וְאֶת שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה? הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּהֶסְפֵּד וּבְתַעֲנִית, אֲבָל מְלָאכָה — יוֹם אֶחָד וְתוּ לָא.

And Rava said: This statement is necessary only to prohibit those who observe Purim on this day to eulogize on that day, and those who observe Purim on that day to eulogize on this day. Since the two days are mentioned in the Bible, it was only necessary to mention them in Megillat Ta’anit in order to indicate that the prohibition against eulogizing applies to both days. Presumably, the same should apply to the prohibition against performing labor. Consequently, how could Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi plant a sapling on the fourteenth of Adar? The Gemara answers: That applies only to eulogies and fasting. However, labor is prohibited for only one day, either the fourteenth or the fifteenth, and no more.

אִינִי? וְהָא רַב חַזְיֵיהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה קָא שָׁדֵי כִּיתָּנָא בְּפוּרַיָּא, וְלַטְיֵיהּ וְלָא צְמַח כִּיתָּנֵיהּ! הָתָם, בַּר יוֹמָא הֲוָה.

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rav see a certain man planting flax on Purim, and cursed him, and the man’s flax never grew. The Gemara answers: There, the man was obligated to observe Purim on that day that he planted the flax. Therefore, it was certainly prohibited to perform labor.

רַבָּה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בְּיוֹמֵיהּ — הֶסְפֵּד וְתַעֲנִית קַבִּילוּ עֲלַיְיהוּ, מְלָאכָה לָא קַבִּילוּ עֲלַיְיהוּ.

Rabba, son of Rava, said a different answer to the question: Even if you say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi planted the sapling on his own day of Purim, i.e., on the day that the Megilla was read in his location, it was still permitted to plant the sapling. This is because the Jewish people accepted upon themselves the prohibitions against eulogizing and fasting on Purim, but they did not accept upon themselves the prohibition against performing labor.

דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא כְּתִיב: ״שִׂמְחָה וּמִשְׁתֶּה וְיוֹם טוֹב״, וּלְבַסּוֹף כְּתִיב: ״לַעֲשׂוֹת אוֹתָם יְמֵי מִשְׁתֶּה וְשִׂמְחָה״, וְאִילּוּ ״יוֹם טוֹב״ לָא כְּתִיב.

This can be proven from the fact that initially, when Mordecai and Esther proposed the celebration of Purim, it is written: “A day of gladness and feasting and a good day [yom tov]” (Esther 9:19), and at the end, when the celebration of Purim was accepted by the Jewish people, it is written: “That they should make them days of feasting and gladness” (Esther 9:22), whereas the term good day [yom tov], which alludes to a day when it is prohibited to perform labor, is not written. The people never accepted upon themselves the prohibition against performing labor on Purim as if it were a Festival, and therefore the prohibition never took effect.

וְאֶלָּא רַב מַאי טַעְמָא לַטְיֵיהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא? דְּבָרִים הַמּוּתָּרִין וַאֲחֵרִים נָהֲגוּ בָּהֶן אִיסּוּר הֲוָה. וּבְאַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי לָא נְהוּג.

The Gemara asks: If labor is permitted on Purim, what is the reason that Rav cursed that man who planted the flax? The Gemara answers: It was a case of matters that are permitted by halakha, but others were accustomed to treat them as a prohibition, in which case one may not permit these actions in their presence, lest they come to treat other prohibitions lightly. In the place where that man planted his flax, it was customary to abstain from labor on Purim. However, in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s place, it was not the custom to abstain from labor on Purim, and therefore it was permitted for him to plant the sapling even in public.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם נְהוּג — וְרַבִּי נְטִיעָה שֶׁל שִׂמְחָה נָטַע. כְּדִתְנַן: עָבְרוּ אֵלּוּ וְלֹא נַעֲנוּ — מְמַעֲטִין בְּמַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן, בְּבִנְיָן וּבִנְטִיעָה, בְּאֵירוּסִין וּבְנִישּׂוּאִין.

And if you wish, say an alternative answer: Actually, it was the custom to abstain from labor on Purim in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s place, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi engaged in a joyful act of planting, for pleasure rather than for financial benefit. As we learned in a mishna with regard to public fasts: If these fasts for rain have passed and the community’s prayers have still not been answered, and the drought continues, one decreases his business activities, as well as construction, planting, betrothals, and marriages.

וְתָנָא עֲלַהּ: בִּנְיָן — בִּנְיָן שֶׁל שִׂמְחָה, נְטִיעָה — נְטִיעָה שֶׁל שִׂמְחָה. אֵיזֶהוּ בִּנְיָן שֶׁל שִׂמְחָה? זֶה הַבּוֹנֶה בֵּית חַתְנוּת לִבְנוֹ. אֵיזוֹ הִיא נְטִיעָה שֶׁל שִׂמְחָה? זֶה הַנּוֹטֵעַ אַבְוָרַנְקֵי שֶׁל מְלָכִים.

And it was taught in a baraita about this mishna: When the Sages said that construction must be decreased on public fasts, they were not referring to the construction of homes for people who have nowhere to live, but to joyful construction. Similarly, when they said that planting must be decreased, they were not referring to planting food crops, but to joyful planting. What is meant by joyful construction? This is referring to one who builds a wedding chamber for his son. It was customary to build a special house where the wedding would take place, and at times the couple would also live there. What is meant by joyful planting? This is referring to one who plants trees for shade and pleasure such as one might find in a royal garden [avurneki]. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi engaged in joyful planting on Purim, in keeping with the joyous nature of the day.

גּוּפָא: חִזְקִיָּה קָרֵי בִּטְבֶרְיָא בְּאַרְבֵּיסַר וּבַחֲמֵיסַר, מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי מוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן הִיא אִי לָא. וּמִי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ מִלְּתָא דִטְבֶרְיָא? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְעָרֵי מִבְצָר הַצִּדִּים צֵר וְחַמַּת רַקַּת וְכִנָּרֶת״, וְקַיְימָא לַן רַקַּת זוֹ טְבֶרְיָא! הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דִּמְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ, מִשּׁוּם דְּחַד גִּיסָא שׁוּרָא דְיַמָּא הֲוָת.

§ The Gemara examines the matter itself cited in the previous discussion. Hezekiah read the Megilla in Tiberias both on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth of Adar, because he was uncertain if it had been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, or not. The Gemara asks: Was he really uncertain about the matter of Tiberias? Isn’t it written: “And the fortified cities were Ziddim-zer, and Hammath, Rakkath, and Chinnereth” (Joshua 19:35), and we maintain that Rakkath is Tiberias? The Gemara answers: This is the reason that he was uncertain: Although Tiberias was surrounded by a wall in the time of Joshua, Hezekiah was uncertain about the halakha due to the fact that on one side, there was a wall of the sea, i.e., there was no physical wall, but the city was protected due to the fact that it adjoined the sea.

אִי הָכִי, אַמַּאי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ? וַדַּאי לָאו חוֹמָה הִיא! דְּתַנְיָא: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ חוֹמָה״ — וְלֹא שׁוּר אִיגַּר. ״סָבִיב״ — פְּרָט לִטְבֶרְיָא שֶׁיַּמָּהּ חוֹמָתָהּ.

The Gemara asks: If so, why was he uncertain? The sea is certainly not a wall. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the sale of houses in walled cities, the phrase: “Which has a wall” (Leviticus 25:30), indicates that the city has a bona fide wall and not merely a wall of roofs. If a city is completely encircled by attached houses but there is no separate wall, it is not considered a walled city. The next verse, which is referring to cities that have no wall “round about them” (Leviticus 25:31), excludes Tiberias from being considered a walled city, as the sea is its wall on one side and it is not fully encircled by a physical wall. Consequently, Tiberias is not considered a walled city.

לְעִנְיַן בָּתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה לָא מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ. כִּי קָא מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ לְעִנְיַן מִקְרָא מְגִילָּה, מַאי פְּרָזִים וּמַאי מוּקָּפִין דִּכְתִיבִי גַּבֵּי מִקְרָא מְגִילָּה? מִשּׁוּם דְּהָנֵי מִיגַּלּוּ וְהָנֵי לָא מִיגַּלּוּ — וְהָא נָמֵי מִיגַּלְּיָא, אוֹ דִּלְמָא: מִשּׁוּם דְּהָנֵי מִיגְּנוּ וְהָנֵי לָא מִיגְּנוּ — וְהָא נָמֵי מִיגַּנְיָא. מִשּׁוּם הָכִי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ.

The Gemara answers: With regard to the sale of houses of walled cities, Hezekiah was not uncertain. Where he was uncertain was with regard to the reading of the Megilla: What are the unwalled towns and what are the walled cities that are written with regard to the reading of the Megilla? Is the difference between them due to the fact that these unwalled towns are exposed, whereas those walled cities are not exposed? If so, since Tiberias is also exposed, as it is not entirely surrounded by a wall, it should be considered unwalled. Or perhaps the difference is due to the fact that these walled cities are protected, whereas those unwalled towns are not protected, and Tiberias is also protected by the sea and should be treated as a walled city. It was due to that reason that Hezekiah was uncertain when to read the Megilla.

רַב אַסִּי קָרֵי מְגִילָּה בְּהוּצָל בְּאַרְבֵּיסַר וּבַחֲמֵיסַר. מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי מוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן הִיא, אִי לָא. אִיכָּא דְּאָמַר, אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: הַאי הוּצָל דְּבֵית בִּנְיָמִין, מוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא.

The Gemara relates that Rav Asi read the Megilla in the city of Huzal in Babylonia on both the fourteenth and the fifteenth of Adar, because he was uncertain if it had been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, or not. Huzal was an ancient city, and it was possible that it had been surrounded by a wall in the time of Joshua. Some say a different version of this report, according to which there was no uncertainty. Rav Asi said: This city of Huzal of the house of Benjamin was walled since the days of Joshua, son of Nun.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כִּי הֲוֵינָא טַלְיָא אָמֵינָא מִלְּתָא דִּשְׁאֵילְנָא לְסָבַיָּיא

Incidental to the previous discussion concerning Tiberias, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: When I was a child I said something that I later asked the Elders about,

וְאִישְׁתְּכַח כְּווֹתִי. חַמַּת זוֹ טְבֶרְיָא, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ חַמַּת? עַל שׁוּם חַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָא. רַקַּת זוֹ צִיפּוֹרִי, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ רַקַּת? מִשּׁוּם דְּמִידַּלְיָיא כְּרַקְתָּא דְנַהְרָא. כִּינֶּרֶת זוֹ גִּינּוֹסַר, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ כִּינֶּרֶת? דִּמְתִיקִי פֵּירָא כְּקָלָא דְכִינָּרֵי.

and it was found in accordance with my opinion. I said that Hammath is Tiberias. And why was it called Hammath? On account of the hot springs of [ḥammei] Tiberias that are located there. And I said that Rakkath is Tzippori. And why was it called Rakkath? Because it is raised above the surrounding areas like the bank [rakta] of a river. And I said that Chinnereth is Ginosar. And why was it called Chinnereth? Because its fruit are sweet like the sound of a harp [kinnor].

אָמַר רָבָא: מִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר רַקַּת לָאו טְבֶרְיָא הִיא? וְהָא כִּי שָׁכֵיב אִינִישׁ הָכָא, הָתָם סָפְדִי לֵיהּ הָכִי: ״גָּדוֹל הוּא בְּשֵׁשַׁךְ, וְשֵׁם לוֹ בְּרַקַּת״. וְכִי מַסְּקִי אֲרוֹנָא לְהָתָם, סָפְדִי לֵיהּ הָכִי: אוֹהֲבֵי שְׂרִידִים יוֹשְׁבֵי רַקַּת, צְאוּ וְקַבְּלוּ הֲרוּגֵי עוֹמֶק.

Rava said: Is there anyone who says that Rakkath is not Tiberias? Isn’t it true that when a great man dies here, in Babylonia, they lament his demise there, in Tiberias, as follows: Great was he in Sheshakh, i.e., Babylonia (see Jeremiah 25:26), and he had a name in Rakkath? Furthermore, when they bring up the casket of an important person to there, to Tiberias, they lament his demise as follows: You lovers of the remnants of the Jewish people, residents of Rakkath, go out and receive the dead from the deep, i.e., the low-lying lands of Babylonia.

כִּי נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא, פְּתַח עֲלֵיהּ הַהוּא סַפְדָנָא: אֶרֶץ שִׁנְעָר הָרָה וְיָלְדָה, אֶרֶץ צְבִי גִּידְּלָה שַׁעֲשׁוּעֶיהָ. אוֹי נָא לָהּ, אָמְרָה רַקַּת, כִּי אִבְּדָה כְּלִי חֶמְדָּתָהּ.

Similarly, the Gemara relates that when Rabbi Zeira died, a certain eulogizer opened his eulogy for him with these words: The land of Shinar, i.e., Babylonia, Rabbi Zeira’s birthplace, conceived and bore him; the land of the deer, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, where Rabbi Zeira lived as an adult and rose to prominence, raised her delights. Woe unto her, said Rakkath, for she has lost her precious instrument. It is apparent from these examples that Rakkath is Tiberias.

אֶלָּא אָמַר (רַבָּה): חַמַּת זוֹ חַמֵּי גְרָר, רַקַּת זוֹ טְבֶרְיָא, כִּינֶּרֶת זוֹ גִּינּוֹסַר. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ רַקַּת? שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ רֵיקָנִין שֶׁבָּהּ מְלֵאִין מִצְוֹת כְּרִמּוֹן. רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר: רַקַּת שְׁמָהּ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ טְבֶרְיָא? שֶׁיּוֹשֶׁבֶת בְּטַבּוּרָהּ שֶׁל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. (רָבָא) אָמַר: רַקַּת שְׁמָהּ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ טְבֶרְיָא? שֶׁטּוֹבָה רְאִיָּיתָהּ.

Rather, Rabba said: Hammath is the hot springs of Gerar that are adjacent to Tiberias; Rakkath is Tiberias; and Chinnereth is Ginosar. And why was Tiberias called Rakkath? Because even the empty ones [reikanin] of Tiberias are as full of mitzvot as a pomegranate is full of seeds. Rabbi Yirmeya said: In fact, Rakkath is its real name; and why was it called Tiberias? Because it sits in the very center [tabbur] of Eretz Yisrael. Rava said: Rakkath is its real name, and why was it called Tiberias? Because its appearance is good [tova re’iyyata].

אָמַר זְעֵירָא: קִטְרוֹן זוֹ צִיפּוֹרִי. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ צִיפּוֹרִי? שֶׁיּוֹשֶׁבֶת בְּרֹאשׁ הָהָר כְּצִפּוֹר.

§ While continuing to identify places that are mentioned in the Bible, Zeira said: The city of Kitron that is mentioned in the Bible is the city of Tzippori. And why was it called Tzippori? Because it sits on top of a mountain like a bird [tzippor].

וְקִטְרוֹן, צִיפּוֹרִי הִיא? וְהָא קִטְרוֹן בְּחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל זְבוּלוּן הֲוַאי, דִּכְתִיב: ״זְבוּלוּן לֹא הוֹרִישׁ אֶת יוֹשְׁבֵי קִטְרוֹן וְאֶת יוֹשְׁבֵי נַהֲלוֹל״, וּזְבוּלוּן מִתְרַעֵם עַל מִדּוֹתָיו הֲוָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זְבוּלוּן עַם חֵרֵף נַפְשׁוֹ לָמוּת״, מַה טַּעַם? מִשּׁוּם דְּ״נַפְתָּלִי עַל מְרוֹמֵי שָׂדֶה״.

The Gemara asks: Is Kitron really Tzippori? Wasn’t Kitron in the tribal territory of Zebulun, as it is written: “Neither did Zebulun drive out the inhabitants of Kitron, nor the inhabitants of Nahalol” (Judges 1:30)? And the tribe of Zebulun was resentful of its portion, as it is stated: “Zebulun was a people that jeopardized their lives to the death” (Judges 5:18). What is the reason for their resentfulness? Because “Naphtali was on the high places of the field” (Judges 5:18).

אָמַר זְבוּלוּן לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, לְאַחַיי נָתַתָּ לָהֶם שָׂדוֹת וּכְרָמִים, וְלִי נָתַתָּ הָרִים וְגִבְעוֹת! לְאַחַיי נָתַתָּ לָהֶם אֲרָצוֹת, וְלִי נָתַתָּ יַמִּים וּנְהָרוֹת! אָמַר לוֹ: כּוּלָּן צְרִיכִין לָךְ עַל יְדֵי חִלָּזוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״[עַמִּים הַר יִקְרָאוּ] וּשְׂפוּנֵי טְמוּנֵי חוֹל״.

The verse should be interpreted as follows: Zebulun said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe! To my brothers, the tribes whose territory is adjacent to mine, You gave fields and vineyards, whereas to me You gave mountains and hills; to my brothers You gave lands, whereas to me You gave seas and rivers. God said back to him: Nevertheless, all will need you due to the ḥilazon, the small sea creature residing in your territory that is the source of the dye used in the ritual fringes [tzitzit]. As it is stated in Moses’ blessing to Zebulun: “They shall call the people to the mountain: There they shall sacrifice offerings of righteousness; for they shall suck of the abundance of the seas, and of the hidden treasures of the sand” (Deuteronomy 33:19).

תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: ״שְׂפוּנֵי״ — זֶה חִלָּזוֹן, ״טְמוּנֵי״ — זוֹ טָרִית, ״חוֹל״ — זוֹ זְכוּכִית לְבָנָה. אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם מִי מוֹדִיעֵנִי? אָמַר לוֹ: ״שָׁם יִזְבְּחוּ זִבְחֵי צֶדֶק״, סִימָן זֶה יְהֵא לְךָ: כׇּל הַנּוֹטֵל מִמְּךָ בְּלֹא דָּמִים — אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל בִּפְרַקְמַטְיָא שֶׁלּוֹ כְּלוּם.

Rav Yosef teaches about this: “Treasures”; this is referring to the ḥilazon, which is found in the waters of Zebulun. “Hidden”; this is referring to the tarit, a type of sardine, which is also found in Zebulun’s coastal waters. “Sand”; this is referring to the sand from which white glass is made. Zebulun said to Him: All of these resources are indeed found in my territory, but Master of the Universe, who will inform me if others take them without permission? He said to the tribe of Zebulun: “There they shall sacrifice offerings of righteousness.” This shall be a sign for you that anyone who takes these items from you without making payment will not prosper at all in his business.

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ קִטְרוֹן זוֹ צִיפּוֹרִי, אַמַּאי מִתְרַעֵם עַל מִדּוֹתָיו? וְהָא הָוְיָא צִיפּוֹרִי מִילְּתָא דַּעֲדִיפָא טוּבָא! וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּלֵית בַּהּ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ, וְהָאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: לְדִידִי חֲזֵי לִי זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ דְּצִיפּוֹרִי, וְהָוְיָא שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר מִיל עַל שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר מִיל!

It is clear from the exposition of the verse in Judges that the territory of Zebulun did not contain fields and vineyards. And if it enters your mind to say that Kitron is Tzippori, why was Zebulun resentful of his portion? Wasn’t Tzippori in his territory, which was land that was vastly superior with regard to its produce? And if you would say that Zebulun’s portion did not have quality land flowing with milk and honey, didn’t Reish Lakish say: I myself have seen the land flowing with milk and honey around Tzippori, and it was sixteen mil by sixteen mil?

וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּלָא נְפִישָׁא דִּידֵיהּ כְּדַאֲחוּהּ, וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְדִידִי חֲזֵי לִי זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ דְּכׇל אַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְהָוְיָא כְּמִבֵּי כוּבֵּי עַד אַקְרָא דְתוּלְבַּקְנֵי, עֶשְׂרִין וְתַרְתֵּין פַּרְסֵי אוּרְכָּא, וּפוּתְיָא שִׁיתָּא פַּרְסֵי!

And if you would say that the part of his territory that flowed with milk and honey was not as vast as that of his brothers, the other tribes, didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I myself have seen the land flowing with milk and honey over all of Eretz Yisrael. And the size of the fertile land was like the distance from Bei Kovei to the fortress of Tulbakni, a total of twenty-two parasangs [parsa] in length and six parasangs in width. A parasang is four mil; consequently, the area flowing with milk and honey around Tzippori was four by four parasangs, which is more than the fair share of one tribe among twelve.

אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, שָׂדוֹת וּכְרָמִים עֲדִיפָא לֵיהּ. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנַפְתָּלִי עַל מְרוֹמֵי שָׂדֶה״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

The Gemara answers: Even so, fields and vineyards were preferable to Zebulun. The fertile land in Zebulun’s territory is in a mountainous region, which makes it more difficult to cultivate. The Gemara comments: The language of the verse is also precise according to this explanation, as it is written: “And Naphtali was on the high places of the field,” which indicates that Zebulun’s complaint was due to the fact that Naphtali had fields. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that this is so.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: ״וְעֶקְרוֹן תֵּעָקֵר״ — זוֹ קֵסָרִי בַּת אֱדוֹם, שֶׁהִיא יוֹשֶׁבֶת בֵּין הַחוֹלוֹת, וְהִיא הָיְתָה יָתֵד תְּקוּעָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בִּימֵי יְווֹנִים. וּכְשֶׁגָּבְרָה מַלְכוּת בֵּית חַשְׁמוֹנַאי וְנִצְּחוּם, הָיוּ קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ ״אַחִידַת מִגְדַּל שִׁיר״.

§ The Gemara continues its discussion with regard to identifying places mentioned in the Bible. Rabbi Abbahu said: “And Ekron shall be uprooted” (Zephaniah 2:4). This is an allusion to Caesarea, daughter of Edom, which is situated among the sands. Caesarea was primarily populated by Greeks and Romans, and it served as the seat of Roman rule when the Romans, who are identified with Edom in Jewish literature, ruled Eretz Yisrael. And it was a spike stuck in the side of the Jewish people already in the days of the Greeks, as it was an obstacle to the spread of Jewish settlement. When the Hasmonean monarchy prevailed and triumphed over them, they called it: The captured tower of Shir.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וַהֲסִירוֹתִי דָמָיו מִפִּיו וְשִׁקּוּצָיו מִבֵּין שִׁינָּיו וְנִשְׁאַר גַּם הוּא לֵאלֹהֵינוּ״. ״וַהֲסִירוֹתִי דָּמָיו מִפִּיו״ — זֶה בֵּית בָּמַיָּא שֶׁלָּהֶן. ״וְשִׁקּוּצָיו מִבֵּין שִׁינָּיו״ — זֶה בֵּית גַּלְיָא שֶׁלָּהֶן.

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And I will take away his blood out of his mouth, and his detestable things from between his teeth, and he also shall be a remnant for our God; and he shall be as a chief in Judah, and Ekron as a Jebusite” (Zechariah 9:7)? The verse should be understood as follows: “And I will take away his blood out of his mouth”; this is referring to their house of altars, where they sacrifice offerings. “And his detestable things from between his teeth”; this is referring to their house of piles, where they heap their ritual stones.

״וְנִשְׁאַר גַּם הוּא לֵאלֹהֵינוּ״ — אֵלּוּ בָּתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת וּבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת שֶׁבֶּאֱדוֹם. ״וְהָיָה כְּאַלּוּף בִּיהוּדָה וְעֶקְרוֹן כִּיבוּסִי״ — אֵלּוּ תֵּרַאטְרָיוֹת וְקִרְקְסָיוֹת שֶׁבֶּאֱדוֹם, שֶׁעֲתִידִין שָׂרֵי יְהוּדָה לְלַמֵּד בָּהֶן תּוֹרָה בָּרַבִּים.

“And he also shall be a remnant for our God,” these words are referring to the synagogues and study halls in Edom. “And he shall be as a chief [aluf] in Judah, and Ekron as a Jebusite,” these words are referring to the theaters [tere’atrayot] and the circuses [kirkesayot] in Edom where the officers of Judah are destined to teach Torah in public.

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: לֶשֶׁם זוֹ פַּמְיָיס, ״עֶקְרוֹן תֵּעָקֵר״ — זוֹ קֵסָרִי בַּת אֱדוֹם, שֶׁהִיא הָיְתָה מֶטְרוֹפּוֹלִין שֶׁל מְלָכִים. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: דִּמְרַבִּי בָּהּ מַלְכֵי, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: דְּמוֹקְמִי מִינָּה מַלְכֵי.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: “And the children of Dan went up and fought against Leshem” (Joshua 19:47); this is referring to the city that was known in the Talmudic period as Pamyas. “Ekron shall be uprooted” (Zephaniah 2:4); this is referring to Caesarea, the daughter of Edom, which was a metropolis [metropolin], i.e., a capital city, of kings. There are those who say this means that kings were raised there, and there are those who say it means that kings were appointed from there, meaning the kings of Edom were appointed from among the residents of this city.

קֵסָרִי וִירוּשָׁלַיִם, אִם יֹאמַר לְךָ אָדָם: חָרְבוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן — אַל תַּאֲמֵן. יָשְׁבוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן — אַל תַּאֲמֵן. חָרְבָה קֵסָרִי וְיָשְׁבָה יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, חָרְבָה יְרוּשָׁלַיִם וְיָשְׁבָה קֵסָרִי — תַּאֲמֵן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִמָּלְאָה הָחֳרָבָה״. אִם מְלֵיאָה זוֹ — חֲרֵבָה זוֹ, אִם מְלֵיאָה זוֹ — חֲרֵבָה זוֹ.

The Sages said that the fortunes of Caesarea, which represents Rome, and Jerusalem are diametric opposites. If, therefore, someone says to you that both cities are destroyed, do not believe him. Similarly, if he says to you that they are both settled in tranquility, do not believe him. If, however, he says to you that Caesarea is destroyed and Jerusalem is settled, or that Jerusalem is destroyed and Caesarea is settled, believe him. As it is stated: “Because Tyre has said against Jerusalem: Aha, the gates of the people have been broken; she is turned to me; I shall be filled with her that is laid waste” (Ezekiel 26:2), and Tyre, like Caesarea, represents Rome. Consequently, the verse indicates that if this city is filled, that one is laid waste, and if that city is filled, this one is laid waste. The two cities cannot coexist.

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״וּלְאוֹם מִלְאוֹם יֶאֱמָץ״.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The same idea may be derived from here, a verse dealing with Jacob and Esau: “And the one people shall be stronger than the other people” (Genesis 25:23), teaching that when one nation rises, the other necessarily falls.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״יוּחַן רָשָׁע בַּל לָמַד צֶדֶק״. אָמַר יִצְחָק לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, יוּחַן עֵשָׂו. אָמַר לוֹ: רָשָׁע הוּא! אָמַר לוֹ: ״בַּל לָמַד צֶדֶק״. אָמַר לוֹ: ״בְּאֶרֶץ נְכוֹחוֹת יְעַוֵּל״. אָמַר לוֹ: אִם כֵּן, ״בַּל יִרְאֶה גֵּאוּת ה׳״.

§ Having mentioned Edom, the Gemara cites what Rabbi Yitzḥak said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Let favor be shown to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness he will deal wrongfully, and will not behold the majesty of the Lord” (Isaiah 26:10)? Isaac said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, let favor be shown to Esau, my beloved son. God said to him: Esau is wicked. Isaac said to God: “Yet will he not learn righteousness,” i.e., is there no one who can find merit in him? God said to him: “In the land of uprightness he will deal wrongfully,” meaning that he is destined to destroy Eretz Yisrael. Isaac said to God: If it is so that he is that wicked, “he will not behold the majesty of the Lord.”

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״אַל תִּתֵּן ה׳ מַאֲוַיֵּי רָשָׁע זְמָמוֹ אַל תָּפֵק יָרוּמוּ סֶלָה״ — אָמַר יַעֲקֹב לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, אַל תִּתֵּן לְעֵשָׂו הָרָשָׁע תַּאֲוַת לִבּוֹ. ״זְמָמוֹ אַל תָּפֵק״ — זוֹ

And Rabbi Yitzḥak also said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Grant not, O Lord, the desires of the wicked; further not his evil device, so that they not exalt themselves. Selah” (Psalms 140:9)? Jacob said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, grant not to the wicked Esau the desires of his heart, as he wishes to destroy us. Further not his evil device [zemamo]; do not remove the muzzle [zamam] that constrains him and prevents him from breaking out and gathering further strength. This is a reference to

גֶּרְמַמְיָא שֶׁל אֱדוֹם, שֶׁאִלְמָלֵי הֵן יוֹצְאִין, מַחֲרִיבִין כָּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ.

Germamya of Edom, i.e., Germany, which is near the land of Edom, i.e., Rome. As, if the Germans would go forth, they would destroy the entire world.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: תְּלָת מְאָה קְטִירֵי תָגָא אִיכָּא בְּגֶרְמַמְיָא שֶׁל אֱדוֹם, וּתְלָת מְאָה וְשִׁיתִּין וְחַמְשָׁה מַרְזְבָּנֵי אִיכָּא בְּרוֹמִי, וּבְכׇל יוֹמָא נָפְקִי הָנֵי לְאַפֵּי הָנֵי וּמִקְּטִיל חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ, וּמִיטַּרְדִי לְאוֹקֹמֵי מַלְכָּא.

And Rabbi Ḥama Bar Ḥanina said: There are three hundred young princes with crowns tied to their heads in Germamya of Edom, and there are three hundred and sixty-five chieftains [marzavnei] in Rome. Every day these go out to battle against those, and one of them is killed, and they are preoccupied with appointing a new king in his place. Since neither side is united, neither side is able to achieve a decisive victory. It is these wars between Rome and the Germanic tribes that act as a muzzle upon Esau-Edom-Rome and prevent it from becoming too strong.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, אִם יֹאמַר לְךָ אָדָם: יָגַעְתִּי וְלֹא מָצָאתִי — אַל תַּאֲמֵן. לֹא יָגַעְתִּי וּמָצָאתִי — אַל תַּאֲמֵן. יָגַעְתִּי וּמָצָאתִי — תַּאֲמֵן.

§ Rabbi Yitzḥak said in the style of a previous passage: If a person says to you: I have labored and not found success, do not believe him. Similarly, if he says to you: I have not labored but nevertheless I have found success, do not believe him. If, however, he says to you: I have labored and I have found success, believe him.

הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה, אֲבָל בְּמַשָּׂא וּמַתָּן — סִיַּיעְתָּא הוּא מִן שְׁמַיָּא. וּלְדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לְחַדּוֹדֵי, אֲבָל לְאוֹקֹמֵי גִּירְסָא — סִיַּיעְתָּא מִן שְׁמַיָּא הִיא.

The Gemara comments: This applies only to matters of Torah, as success with respect to Torah study is in accordance with the toil and effort invested. But with regard to success in business, it all depends upon assistance from Heaven, as there is no correlation between success and effort. And even with regard to matters of Torah, we said this only with regard to sharpening one’s understanding of Torah, as the more one labors, the deeper the understanding of the material he achieves. However, to preserve what one has learned, it is dependent upon assistance from Heaven. Not everyone achieves this, even with much effort.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אִם רָאִיתָ רָשָׁע שֶׁהַשָּׁעָה מְשַׂחֶקֶת לוֹ — אַל תִּתְגָּרֶה בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַל תִּתְחַר בַּמְּרֵעִים״. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁדְּרָכָיו מַצְלִיחִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יָחִילוּ דְּרָכָיו בְּכׇל עֵת״. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁזּוֹכֶה בַּדִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מָרוֹם מִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ מִנֶּגְדּוֹ״. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁרוֹאֶה בְּשׂוֹנְאָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּל צוֹרְרָיו יָפִיחַ בָּהֶם״.

And Rabbi Yitzḥak also said: If you see a wicked man whom the hour is smiling upon, i.e., who is enjoying good fortune, do not provoke him, as it is stated: “Contend not with evildoers” (Psalms 37:1). And not only that, but if you provoke him, his undertakings will be successful, as it is stated: “His ways prosper at all times” (Psalms 10:5). And not only that, but even if he is brought to court, he emerges victorious in judgment, as it is stated: “Your judgments are far above him” (Psalms 10:5), as though the trial is far removed from him and does not affect him. And not only that, but he will see his enemies fall, as it is stated: “As for all his enemies, he hisses at them” (Psalms 10:5).

אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: מוּתָּר לְהִתְגָּרוֹת בָּרְשָׁעִים בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עוֹזְבֵי תוֹרָה יְהַלְלוּ רָשָׁע וְשׁוֹמְרֵי תוֹרָה יִתְגָּרוּ בָם״, וְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי דּוֹסְתַּאי בַּר מָתוּן אָמַר: מוּתָּר לְהִתְגָּרוֹת בָּרְשָׁעִים בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, וְאִם לְחָשְׁךָ אָדָם לוֹמַר ״אַל תִּתְחַר בַּמְּרֵעִים וְאַל תְּקַנֵּא בְּעוֹשֵׂי עַוְלָה״ — מִי שֶׁלִּבּוֹ נוֹקְפוֹ אוֹמֵר כֵּן.

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is permitted to provoke the wicked in this world, as it is stated: “They that forsake the Torah praise the wicked; but they who keep the Torah contend with them” (Proverbs 28:4)? And furthermore, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Dostai bar Matun said: It is permitted to provoke the wicked in this world, and if a person whispers to you to say that this is not so, relying on the verse: “Contend not with evildoers, nor be envious against the workers of iniquity” (Psalms 37:1), know that only one whose heart strikes him with pangs of conscience over sins that he committed says this.

אֶלָּא: ״אַל תִּתְחַר בַּמְּרֵעִים״ — לִהְיוֹת כַּמְּרֵעִים, ״וְאַל תְּקַנֵּא בְּעוֹשֵׂי עַוְלָה״ — לִהְיוֹת כְּעוֹשֵׂי עַוְלָה. וְאוֹמֵר: ״אַל יְקַנֵּא לִבְּךָ בַּחַטָּאִים וְגוֹ׳!

Rather, the true meaning of that verse is: “Contend not with evildoers,” to be like the evildoers; “nor be envious against the workers of iniquity,” to be like the workers of iniquity. And it says elsewhere: “Let not your heart envy sinners, but be in the fear of the Lord all the day” (Proverbs 23:17). In this context, to be envious of sinners means to desire to be like them. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Dostai indicate that one is permitted to provoke the wicked, against the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak.

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּמִילֵּי דִידֵיהּ, הָא בְּמִילֵּי דִשְׁמַיָּא.

The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, as it can be understood that this, Rabbi Yitzḥak’s statement that one may not provoke the wicked, is referring to his personal matters, while that, the statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Dostai that it is permitted to provoke them, is referring to matters of Heaven, i.e., religious matters.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא בְּמִילֵּי דִידֵיהּ. וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּצַדִּיק גָּמוּר, הָא בְּצַדִּיק שֶׁאֵינוֹ גָּמוּר. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״לָמָּה תַבִּיט בּוֹגְדִים תַּחֲרִישׁ בְּבַלַּע רָשָׁע צַדִּיק מִמֶּנּוּ״, צַדִּיק מִמֶּנּוּ — בּוֹלֵעַ, צַדִּיק גָּמוּר — אֵינוֹ בּוֹלֵעַ.

And if you wish, say: Both this statement and that statement are stated with regard to his own affairs, and still it is not difficult. This statement, that it is permitted to provoke the wicked, applies to a completely righteous individual; that statement, that one may not provoke them, applies to an individual who is not completely righteous. As Rav Huna said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Why do you look upon them that deal treacherously, and remain silent when the wicked devours the man that is more righteous than he” (Habakkuk 1:13)? This verse indicates that the wicked devours one who is more righteous than he; however, he does not devour one who is completely righteous.

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: שָׁעָה מְשַׂחֶקֶת לוֹ שָׁאנֵי.

And if you wish, say instead: When the hour is smiling upon him, i.e., when the wicked individual is enjoying good fortune, it is different. He is receiving divine assistance, and even the completely righteous should not provoke him.

אָמַר עוּלָּא: אִיטַלְיָא שֶׁל יָוָן, זֶה כְּרַךְ גָּדוֹל שֶׁל רוֹמִי. וְהָוְיָא תְּלָת מְאָה פַּרְסָה עַל תְּלָת מְאָה פַּרְסָה. וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ שְׁלוֹשׁ מֵאוֹת שִׁשִּׁים וַחֲמִשָּׁה שְׁווֹקִים, כְּמִנְיַן יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה. וְקָטָן שֶׁבְּכוּלָּם שֶׁל מוֹכְרֵי עוֹפוֹת, וְהָוְיָא שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר מִיל עַל שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר מִיל. וּמֶלֶךְ סוֹעֵד בְּכׇל יוֹם בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן.

§ Having mentioned Rome, the Gemara cites what Ulla said. Greek Italy, i.e., southern Italy, is the great city of Rome, and it is three hundred parasang [parsa] by three hundred parasang. It has three hundred and sixty-five markets, corresponding to the number of days in the solar year, and the smallest of them all is the market of poultry sellers, which is sixteen mil by sixteen mil. And the king, i.e., the Roman emperor, dines every day in one of them.

וְהַדָּר בָּהּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹלָד בָּהּ — נוֹטֵל פְּרָס מִבֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ. וְהַנּוֹלָד בָּהּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ דָּר בָּהּ — נוֹטֵל פְּרָס מִבֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ. וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים בֵּי בָנֵי יֵשׁ בּוֹ, וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת חַלּוֹנוֹת מַעֲלִין עָשָׁן חוּץ לַחוֹמָה. צִדּוֹ אֶחָד יָם וְצִדּוֹ אֶחָד הָרִים וּגְבָעוֹת, צִדּוֹ אֶחָד מְחִיצָה שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל וְצִדּוֹ אֶחָד חוֹלְסִית וּמְצוּלָה.

And one who resides in the city, even if he was not born there, receives an allowance for his living expenses from the king’s palace. And one who was born there, even if he does not reside there, also receives an allowance from the king’s palace. And there are three thousand bathhouses in the city, and five hundred apertures that let the smoke from the bathhouses out beyond the walls in a way that doesn’t blacken the walls themselves. One side of the city is bordered by the sea, one side by mountains and hills, one side by a barrier of iron and one side by gravel [ḥulsit] and swamp.

מַתְנִי׳ קָרְאוּ אֶת הַמְּגִילָּה בַּאֲדָר הָרִאשׁוֹן וְנִתְעַבְּרָה הַשָּׁנָה — קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ בַּאֲדָר שֵׁנִי. אֵין בֵּין אֲדָר הָרִאשׁוֹן לַאֲדָר הַשֵּׁנִי אֶלָּא קְרִיאַת הַמְּגִילָּה וּמַתָּנוֹת לָאֶבְיוֹנִים.

MISHNA: If the people read the Megilla during the first Adar and subsequently the year was then intercalated by the court and now the following month will be the second Adar, one reads the Megilla again during the second Adar. The Sages formulated a principle: The difference between the first Adar and the second Adar with regard to the mitzvot that are performed during those months is only that the reading of the Megilla and distributing gifts to the poor are performed in the second Adar and not in the first Adar.

גְּמָ׳ הָא לְעִנְיַן סֵדֶר פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת, זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין.

GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of the sequence of Torah portions read each year on two Shabbatot before Purim, the portions of Shekalim and Zakhor, and on two Shabbatot after Purim, Para and HaḤodesh, this, the first Adar, and that, the second Adar are equal, in that reading them during the first Adar exempts one from reading them in the second Adar.

מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין? לָא תַּנָּא קַמָּא, וְלָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, וְלָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. דְּתַנְיָא: קָרְאוּ אֶת הַמְּגִילָּה בַּאֲדָר הָרִאשׁוֹן וְנִתְעַבְּרָה הַשָּׁנָה — קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ בַּאֲדָר הַשֵּׁנִי, שֶׁכׇּל מִצְוֹת שֶׁנּוֹהֲגוֹת בַּשֵּׁנִי נוֹהֲגוֹת בָּרִאשׁוֹן, חוּץ מִמִּקְרָא מְגִילָּה.

The Gemara asks: If so, whose opinion is taught in the mishna? It is neither the opinion of the anonymous first tanna of the following baraita, nor that of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, nor that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a baraita: If they read the Megilla during the first Adar and the year was then intercalated, they read it during the second Adar, as all mitzvot that are practiced during the second Adar are practiced in the first Adar, except for the reading of the Megilla.

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵין קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ בַּאֲדָר הַשֵּׁנִי, שֶׁכׇּל מִצְוֹת שֶׁנּוֹהֲגוֹת בַּשֵּׁנִי נוֹהֲגוֹת בָּרִאשׁוֹן.

Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: They do not read it again during the second Adar, as all mitzvot that are practiced during the second Adar are practiced during the first Adar. Once the Megilla was read during the first Adar, one need not read it again during the second Adar.

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אַף קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ בַּאֲדָר הַשֵּׁנִי, שֶׁכׇּל מִצְוֹת שֶׁנּוֹהֲגוֹת בַּשֵּׁנִי אֵין נוֹהֲגוֹת בָּרִאשׁוֹן. וְשָׁוִין בְּהֶסְפֵּד וּבְתַעֲנִית שֶׁאֲסוּרִין בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Yosei: They even read it again during the second Adar, as all mitzvot that are practiced during the second Adar are not practiced during the first Adar. And they all agree with regard to eulogy and with regard to fasting that they are prohibited on the fourteenth and the fifteenth days of this month of the first Adar and on that month of the second Adar.

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: סֵדֶר פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר לְכַתְּחִילָּה בַּשֵּׁנִי, וְאִי עֲבוּד בָּרִאשׁוֹן — עֲבוּד. בַּר מִמִּקְרָא מְגִילָּה, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּקָרוּ בָּרִאשׁוֹן — קָרוּ בַּשֵּׁנִי.

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is identical to that of the first tanna. What novel element does he introduce? Rav Pappa said: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the sequence of four Torah portions, as the first tanna maintains: They should read those portions during the second Adar, ab initio. However, if they did so during the first Adar, they did so; and they fulfilled their obligation and need not read them again during the second Adar, except for the reading of the Megilla, as even though they already read it during the first Adar, they read it again during the second Adar.

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: אֲפִילּוּ מִקְרָא מְגִילָּה לְכַתְּחִילָּה בָּרִאשׁוֹן. וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: אֲפִילּוּ סֵדֶר פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת, אִי קָרוּ בָּרִאשׁוֹן קָרוּ בַּשֵּׁנִי.

And Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, maintains that even the reading of the Megilla may be performed during the first Adar, ab initio, and they need not read it again during the second Adar. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains: Even with regard to the sequence of four Torah portions, if they read them during the first Adar, they read them again during the second Adar.

מַנִּי? אִי תַּנָּא קַמָּא — קַשְׁיָא מַתָּנוֹת, אִי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי — קַשְׁיָא נָמֵי מִקְרָא מְגִילָּה, אִי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל — קַשְׁיָא סֵדֶר פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת!

Returning to the original question, according to whose opinion is the mishna taught? If it is the opinion of the first tanna, the halakha of gifts to the poor is difficult. The first tanna does not mention these gifts, indicating that he maintains that if gifts were distributed during the first Adar one need not distribute gifts to the poor during the second Adar. And if the mishna was taught according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, the reading of the Megilla is also difficult. And if it is the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the sequence of Torah portions is difficult.

לְעוֹלָם תַּנָּא קַמָּא, וּתְנָא מִקְרָא מְגִילָּה וְהוּא הַדִּין מַתָּנוֹת לָאֶבְיוֹנִים, דְּהָא בְּהָא תַּלְיָא.

The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is according to the opinion of the first tanna, and he taught the halakha with regard to the reading of the Megilla, and the same is true with regard to gifts to the poor, as this mitzva is dependent upon that one. The Gemara already explained that the gifts to the poor are distributed on the day that the Megilla is read.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הִיא, וּמַתְנִיתִין חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: אֵין בֵּין אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁבַּאֲדָר הָרִאשׁוֹן לְאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁבַּאֲדָר הַשֵּׁנִי אֶלָּא מִקְרָא מְגִילָּה וּמַתָּנוֹת. הָא לְעִנְיַן הֶסְפֵּד וְתַעֲנִית — זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין, וְאִילּוּ סֵדֶר פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת לָא מַיְירֵי.

And if you wish, say instead: Actually, the mishna is according to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and the mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: The difference between the fourteenth day of the first Adar and the fourteenth day of the second Adar is only with regard to the reading of the Megilla and distributing gifts to the poor. The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of eulogy and fasting, this, the first Adar, and that, the second Adar are equal, while about the sequence of Torah portions, the mishna does not speak at all. The mishna limits its discussion to the halakhot of Purim.

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הִלְכְתָא כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said it in the name of Rabbi Yosei.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ: ״בְּכׇל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה״, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר: ״בְּכׇל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה״, מָה כׇּל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה — אֲדָר הַסָּמוּךְ לִשְׁבָט, אַף כָּאן — אֲדָר הַסָּמוּךְ לִשְׁבָט.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And both of them, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, interpreted the same verse differently, leading them to their conclusions. It is written: “To enjoin upon them that they should keep the fourteenth day of the month of Adar and the fifteenth day of the same, in each and every year” (Esther 9:21). Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, maintains: “In each and every year” teaches that Purim must be celebrated the same way each year, even if it is intercalated: Just as each and every year Purim is celebrated during Adar that is adjacent to Shevat, so too here in an intercalated year Purim is celebrated during Adar that is adjacent to Shevat.

וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: ״בְּכׇל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה״, מָה כָּל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה — אֲדָר הַסָּמוּךְ לְנִיסָן, אַף כָּאן — אֲדָר הַסָּמוּךְ לְנִיסָן.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains: “In each and every year” teaches that just as each and every year Purim is celebrated in Adar that is adjacent to Nisan, so too here, in an intercalated year, Purim is celebrated during Adar that is adjacent to Nisan.

בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִסְתַּבֵּר טַעְמָא, דְּאֵין מַעֲבִירִין עַל הַמִּצְוֹת. אֶלָּא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מַאי טַעְמָא?

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, the reason for his opinion is logical, based on the principle that one does not forego performance of the mitzvot; rather, when presented with the opportunity to perform a mitzva, one should do so immediately. However, with regard to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, what is the reason for his opinion?

אָמַר רַבִּי טָבִי: טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, מִסְמָךְ גְּאוּלָּה לִגְאוּלָּה עָדִיף.

Rabbi Tavi said: The reason for the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is that juxtaposing the celebration of one redemption, Purim, to the celebration of another redemption, Passover, is preferable.

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מֵהָכָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״לְקַיֵּים אֵת אִגֶּרֶת הַפּוּרִים הַזֹּאת הַשֵּׁנִית״.

Rabbi Elazar said: The reason for the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is derived from here, as it is written: “To confirm this second letter of Purim” (Esther 9:29), indicating that there are circumstances where the Megilla is read a second time (Jerusalem Talmud), i.e., when the year was intercalated after the Megilla was read in the first Adar.

וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב

The Gemara comments: And it was necessary to write

״הַשֵּׁנִית״ וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב ״בְּכׇל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה״. דְּאִי מִ״בְּכׇל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא כִּי קוּשְׁיַן, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן ״הַשֵּׁנִית״. וְאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן ״הַשֵּׁנִית״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא בַּתְּחִילָּה בָּרִאשׁוֹן וּבַשֵּׁנִי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן ״בְּכׇל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה״.

the term: The second, and it was also necessary to write the phrase: In each and every year; proof from one of the verses would have been insufficient. As, if I had derived the halakha only from the phrase: In each and every year, I would have said my conclusion according to our question raised earlier: Why not celebrate Purim in the Adar adjacent to Shevat? Therefore, it teaches us using the term: The second. And had it taught us only the term: The second, I would have said that Purim must be celebrated both in the first Adar and in the second Adar, ab initio. Therefore, it teaches us: In each and every year, indicating that even in an intercalated year, just as in an ordinary year, Purim is to be celebrated only once.

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַאי ״הַשֵּׁנִית״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה: בַּתְּחִילָּה קְבָעוּהָ בְּשׁוּשַׁן, וּלְבַסּוֹף בְּכׇל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ.

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, what does he do with this term: The second? Since he holds that the Megilla is read in the first Adar, what does he derive from the verse? The Gemara answers: He requires the term to derive that statement of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, as Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said: Initially, they established the observance of Purim in the city of Shushan alone, and ultimately they established it throughout the world, according to the second letter of Purim.

אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה: שָׁלְחָה לָהֶם אֶסְתֵּר לַחֲכָמִים: קִבְעוּנִי לְדוֹרוֹת! שָׁלְחוּ לָהּ: קִנְאָה אַתְּ מְעוֹרֶרֶת עָלֵינוּ לְבֵין הָאוּמּוֹת. שָׁלְחָה לָהֶם: כְּבָר כְּתוּבָה אֲנִי עַל דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים לְמַלְכֵי מָדַי וּפָרָס.

Apropos the statement of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda with regard to the establishment of the holiday of Purim, the Gemara cites a related statement. Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said: Esther sent to the Sages: Establish me for future generations. Esther requested that the observance of Purim and the reading of the Megilla be instituted as an ordinance for all generations. They sent to her: You will thereby arouse the wrath of the nations upon us, as the Megilla recounts the victory of the Jews over the gentiles, and it is best not to publicize that victory. She sent back to them: I am already written in the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia, and so the Megilla will not publicize anything that is not already known worldwide.

רַב וְרַב חֲנִינָא וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַב חֲבִיבָא מַתְנוּ. בְּכוּלֵּיהּ סֵדֶר מוֹעֵד כָּל כִּי הַאי זוּגָא חַלּוֹפֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּמְעַיֵּיל רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן. שָׁלְחָה לָהֶם אֶסְתֵּר לַחֲכָמִים: כִּתְבוּנִי לְדוֹרוֹת. שָׁלְחוּ לָהּ: ״הֲלֹא כָתַבְתִּי לְךָ שָׁלִישִׁים״, שִׁלֵּישִׁים וְלֹא רִבֵּעִים,

It was related that Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rav Ḥaviva taught the statement cited below. The Gemara comments: Throughout the order of Moed, wherever this latter pair of Sages is mentioned, exchange Rabbi Yoḥanan and insert Rabbi Yonatan in his place. They said: Esther sent to the Sages: Write me for future generations and canonize my book as part of the Bible. They sent to her that it is written: “Have I not written for you three times” (Proverbs 22:20), indicating that Israel’s battle with Amalek is to be mentioned three times in the Bible and not four times? Since it is already mentioned three times (Exodus 17:8–16; Deuteronomy 25:17–19; I Samuel 15), there is no need to add a fourth source.

עַד שֶׁמָּצְאוּ לוֹ מִקְרָא כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: ״כְּתֹב זֹאת זִכָּרוֹן בַּסֵּפֶר״. ״כְּתֹב זֹאת״ — מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב כָּאן וּבְמִשְׁנֵה תוֹרָה. ״זִכָּרוֹן״ — מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּנְּבִיאִים, ״בַּסֵּפֶר״ — מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּמְּגִלָּה.

The Sages did not accede to Esther’s request until they found a verse written in the Torah: “Write this for a memorial in the book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: That I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under the heavens” (Exodus 17:14). The Sages interpreted the verse: “Write this,” that which is written in the Torah here in Exodus, and in Deuteronomy; “a memorial,” that which is written in the Prophets, i.e., in I Samuel, on this matter; “in the book,” that which is written in the Megilla. The Megilla is the third mention of Amalek and not the fourth, as both mentions in the Torah pertaining to Amalek are considered one; therefore, Esther would be the third, not the fourth source.

כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״כְּתֹב זֹאת״ — מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב כָּאן, ״זִכָּרוֹן״ — מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בְּמִשְׁנֵה תוֹרָה, ״בַּסֵּפֶר״ — מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּנְּבִיאִים. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַמּוֹדָעִי אוֹמֵר: ״כְּתֹב זֹאת״ — מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב כָּאן וּבְמִשְׁנֵה תוֹרָה, ״זִכָּרוֹן״ — מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּנְּבִיאִים, ״בְּסֵפֶר״ — מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בִּמְגִילָּה.

The Gemara comments: This matter is parallel to a dispute between the tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: “Write this,” that which is written here, in the book of Exodus; “a memorial,” that which is written in Deuteronomy; “in the book,” that which is written in the Prophets; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i disagrees and says: “Write this,” that which is written in the Torah here in Exodus, and in Deuteronomy; “a memorial,” that which is written in the Prophets on this matter; “in the book,” that which is written in the Megilla. Here too, the tanna’im disagreed whether or not the book of Esther has the same force and sanctity as that of the canonized books of the Bible.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֶסְתֵּר אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה אֶת הַיָּדַיִם.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The book of Esther does not render the hands ritually impure. Although the Sages issued a decree that sacred scrolls render hands ritually impure, the book of Esther was not accorded the sanctity of sacred scrolls.

לְמֵימְרָא דְּסָבַר שְׁמוּאֵל אֶסְתֵּר לָאו בְּרוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ נֶאֶמְרָה? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֶסְתֵּר בְּרוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ נֶאֶמְרָה! נֶאֶמְרָה לִקְרוֹת, וְלֹא נֶאֶמְרָה לִיכְתּוֹב.

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Shmuel maintains that the book of Esther was not stated with the inspiration of the Divine Spirit? But didn’t Shmuel himself say elsewhere that the book of Esther was stated with the inspiration of the Divine Spirit? The Gemara answers: It was stated with the Divine Spirit that it is to be read in public; however, it was not stated that it is to be written. Therefore, the text was not accorded the sanctity of sacred scrolls.

מֵיתִיבִי, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: קֹהֶלֶת אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם, וּמַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם, וּמַחְלוֹקֶת בְּקֹהֶלֶת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: קֹהֶלֶת מִקּוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל, אֲבָל רוּת וְשִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים וְאֶסְתֵּר מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַיָּדַיִם! הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. Rabbi Meir says: The book of Ecclesiastes does not render the hands ritually impure, as it was not accorded the sanctity of sacred scrolls; however, there is a dispute with regard to whether or not the Song of Songs renders the hands impure. Rabbi Yosei says: The Song of Songs renders the hands ritually impure, but there is a dispute with regard to the book of Ecclesiastes. Rabbi Shimon says: The ruling with regard to Ecclesiastes is among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and among the stringencies of Beit Hillel, as according to Beit Hillel it renders the hands impure and according to Beit Shammai it does not. However, everyone agrees that the books of Ruth, and the Song of Songs, and Esther render the hands ritually impure, contrary to the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: It was Shmuel who stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua cited earlier that the book of Esther was not accorded the sanctity of sacred scrolls.

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: קֹהֶלֶת אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחׇכְמָתוֹ שֶׁל שְׁלֹמֹה הִיא. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: וְכִי זוֹ בִּלְבַד אָמַר? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״וַיְדַבֵּר שְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים מָשָׁל״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״אַל תּוֹסְףְּ עַל דְּבָרָיו״.

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: The book of Ecclesiastes does not render the hands ritually impure because it is the wisdom of Solomon, and not divinely inspired. They said to him: It was certainly divinely inspired and that is the reason that the book of Ecclesiastes was added to the canon; as was it this alone that Solomon said? Wasn’t it already stated: “And he spoke three thousand proverbs, and his poems were a thousand and five” (I Kings 5:12)? Solomon spoke many proverbs, but only a portion of them were canonized in the Bible. Apparently, what is unique about those in Ecclesiastes is that they were divinely inspired. And it says: “Add you not unto his words” (Proverbs 30:6).

מַאי ״וְאוֹמֵר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא: מֵימָר טוּבָא אֲמַר, דְּאִי בָּעֵי — אִיכְּתִיב, וּדְאִי בָּעֵי — לָא אִיכְּתִיב. תָּא שְׁמַע: ״אַל תּוֹסְףְּ עַל דְּבָרָיו״.

The Gemara asks: What is added by the proof introduced with the phrase: And it says? Why wasn’t the first proof sufficient? The Gemara answers: And if you would say that in terms of what he said, he said a great deal, with regard to which, if he so desired, it was written, and if he so desired, it was not written; then that is why not all of his statements were preserved. Therefore, come and hear: Add you not unto his words. Apparently, the reason that it is prohibited to add to the proverbs is that the book of Ecclesiastes was divinely inspired.

תַּנְיָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֶסְתֵּר בְּרוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ נֶאֶמְרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר הָמָן בְּלִבּוֹ״. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֶסְתֵּר בְּרוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ נֶאֶמְרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַתְּהִי אֶסְתֵּר נֹשֵׂאת חֵן בְּעֵינֵי כׇּל רוֹאֶיהָ״.

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: The book of Esther was said with the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, as it is stated: “And Haman thought in his heart” (Esther 6:6). If the book of Esther was not divinely inspired, how was it known what Haman thought in his heart? Rabbi Akiva says: The book of Esther was said with the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, as it is stated: “And Esther obtained favor in the sight of all those who looked upon her” (Esther 2:15); this could have been known only through divine inspiration.

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֶסְתֵּר בְּרוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ נֶאֶמְרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּוָּדַע הַדָּבָר לְמׇרְדֳּכַי״. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹרְמַסְקִית אוֹמֵר: אֶסְתֵּר בְּרוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ נֶאֶמְרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבַבִּזָּה לֹא שָׁלְחוּ אֶת יָדָם״.

Rabbi Meir says: The book of Esther was said with the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, as it is stated with regard to the conspiracy of Bigtan and Teresh against Ahasuerus: “And the thing became known to Mordecai” (Esther 2:22). This too could have been known only through divine inspiration. Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit says: The book of Esther was said with the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, as it is stated: “But they did not lay their hands on the plunder” (Esther 9:15). The only way that could have been stated with certainty is through divine inspiration.

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אִי הֲוַאי הָתָם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא מִלְּתָא דַּעֲדִיפָא מִכּוּלְּהוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״קִיְּמוּ וְקִבְּלוּ״ — קִיְּמוּ לְמַעְלָה מַה שֶּׁקִּיבְּלוּ לְמַטָּה.

Shmuel said: Had I been there among the tanna’im, I would have stated a matter that is superior to them all, as it is stated: “They confirmed, and took upon themselves” (Esther 9:27), which was interpreted to mean: They confirmed above in heaven what they took upon themselves below on earth. Clearly, it is only through divine inspiration that this could have been ascertained.

אָמַר רָבָא: לְכוּלְּהוּ אִית לְהוּ פִּירְכָא, לְבַר מִדִּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּלֵית לֵיהּ פִּירְכָא: דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — סְבָרָא הוּא דְּלָא הֲוָה אִינִישׁ דַּחֲשִׁיב לְמַלְכָּא כְּווֹתֵיהּ, וְהַאי כִּי קָא מַפֵּישׁ טוּבָא וְאָמַר — אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ קָאָמַר.

Rava said: There is a refutation for all of these proofs, except for the proof cited by Shmuel, for which there is no refutation. The Gemara elaborates. That which Rabbi Eliezer said with regard to knowledge of what Haman was thinking in his heart can be refuted, as it is based on logical reasoning to conclude that this was his thinking. There was no other person as important to the king as he was; and the fact is that when he elaborated extensively and said: “Let the royal apparel be brought” (Esther 6:8), he said it with himself in mind.

דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא — דִּלְמָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד נִדְמְתָה לוֹ כְּאוּמָּתוֹ.

That which Rabbi Akiva said with regard to the knowledge that Esther found favor in the eyes of all, perhaps it can be understood and refuted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said: This teaches that she appeared to each and every one as one of his nation, and they expressed that sentiment aloud.

וְהָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר — דִּלְמָא כְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, דְּאָמַר: בִּגְתָן וָתֶרֶשׁ שְׁנֵי טַרְשִׂיִּים הָיוּ.

And that which Rabbi Meir said, i.e., that the divine inspiration of the book of Esther is clear from the fact that Mordecai exposed the conspiracy against Ahasuerus, perhaps this can be explained and refuted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, who said: Bigtan and Teresh were both members of the Tarsi people and conversed in their own language. Mordecai, who was a member of the Sanhedrin and therefore fluent in many languages, understood what they were saying.

וְהָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹרְמַסְקִית — דִּלְמָא פְּרִיסְתָּקֵי שַׁדּוּר. דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, וַדַּאי לֵית לֵיהּ פִּירְכָא. אָמַר רָבִינָא: הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: טָבָא חֲדָא פִּלְפַּלְתָּא חֲרִיפְתָּא מִמְּלֵי צַנֵּי קָרֵי.

And that which Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit said with regard to the knowledge that no spoils were taken, perhaps this can be explained and refuted by the fact that they dispatched messengers who informed them of the situation. However, with regard to Shmuel’s proof from the fact that they confirmed above what they took upon themselves below, there is certainly no refutation. Ravina said: This explains the folk saying that people say: One sharp pepper is better than a basketful of pumpkins, as the quality of the pepper’s taste is more significant than the quantity of the pumpkins.

רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״וִימֵי הַפּוּרִים הָאֵלֶּה לֹא יַעַבְרוּ מִתּוֹךְ הַיְּהוּדִים״. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר מֵהָכָא: ״וְזִכְרָם לֹא יָסוּף מִזַּרְעָם״.

Rav Yosef said: Proof that the book of Esther was divinely inspired may be cited from here: “And these days of Purim shall not cease from among the Jews” (Esther 9:28), an assertion that could have been made only with divine inspiration. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Proof may be cited from here, at the end of that verse: “Nor the memorial of them perish from their seed” (Esther 9:28).

וּמַתָּנוֹת לָאֶבְיוֹנִים. תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: ״וּמִשְׁלוֹחַ מָנוֹת אִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ״ — שְׁתֵּי מָנוֹת לְאִישׁ אֶחָד. ״וּמַתָּנוֹת לָאֶבְיוֹנִים״ — שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת לִשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם.

The mishna mentions: And gifts distributed to the poor. Rav Yosef taught a baraita that the verse states: “And of sending portions one to another” (Esther 9:22), indicating two portions to one person. The verse continues: “And gifts to the poor” (Esther 9:22), indicating two gifts to two people.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה שַׁדַּר לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אַטְמָא דְּעִיגְלָא תִּלְתָּא וְגַרְבָּא דְחַמְרָא, שְׁלַח לֵיהּ:

The Gemara relates that, on Purim, Rabbi Yehuda Nesia sent to Rabbi Oshaya the leg of a third-born calf and a jug of wine. Rabbi Oshaya sent him a message of gratitude:

קִיַּימְתָּ בָּנוּ רַבֵּינוּ, ״וּמִשְׁלוֹחַ מָנוֹת אִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ וּמַתָּנוֹת לָאֶבְיוֹנִים״.

You have fulfilled two mitzvot through us, our teacher: The mitzva of: “And sending portions one to another,” and the mitzva of: “And gifts to the poor,” as Rabbi Oshaya was poor and this was a substantial gift.

רַבָּה שַׁדַּר לֵיהּ לְמָרֵי בַּר מָר בְּיַד אַבָּיֵי מְלֵא טַסְקָא דְקַשְׁבָּא וּמְלֵי כָּסָא קִמְחָא דַאֲבִשׁוּנָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הַשְׁתָּא אָמַר מָרִי: אִי חַקְלָאָה מַלְכָּא לֶיהֱוֵי — דִּיקּוּלָא מִצַּוְּארֵיהּ לָא נָחֵית.

The Gemara relates that Rabba sent Purim portions from the house of the Exilarch to Marei bar Mar in the hands of Abaye, who was his nephew and student. The Purim portions consisted of a sack [taska] full of dates [kashva] and a cupful of roasted flour [kimḥa de’avshuna]. Abaye said to him: Now, Mari will say the popular expression: Even if a farmer becomes the king, the basket does not descend from his neck. Rabba was named the head of the yeshiva in Pumbedita, and nevertheless, he continued to send very plain gifts, because he was impoverished.

הֲדַר שַׁדַּר לֵיהּ אִיהוּ מְלֵא טַסְקָא דְזַנְגְּבִילָא וּמְלֵא כָּסָא דְּפִלְפְּלָתָא אֲרִיכָתָא. אֲמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַשְׁתָּא אָמַר מָר: אֲנָא שַׁדַּרִי לֵיהּ חוּלְיָא, וְאִיהוּ שַׁדַּר לִי חוּרְפָּא.

Marei bar Mar sent back to him a sack full of ginger and a cupful of long peppers [pilpalta arikha], a much more expensive gift. Abaye said to him: The master, Rabba, will now say: I sent him sweet items and he sent me pungent ones.

אֲמַר אַבָּיֵי: כִּי נְפַקִי מִבֵּי מָר, הֲוָה שָׂבַעְנָא. כִּי מְטַאי לְהָתָם, קָרִיבוּ לִי שִׁיתִּין צָעֵי דְּשִׁיתִּין מִינֵי קְדֵירָה, וַאֲכַלִי בְּהוּ שִׁיתִּין פְּלוּגֵי. וּבִישּׁוּלָא בָּתְרָיְיתָא הֲווֹ קָרוּ לֵיהּ צְלִי קֵדָר, וּבְעַאי לְמִיכַּס צָעָא אַבָּתְרֵהּ.

In describing that same incident, Abaye said: When I left the house of the master, Rabba, to go to Marei bar Mar, I was already satiated. However, when I arrived there at Marei bar Mar’s house, they served me sixty plates of sixty kinds of cooked dishes, and I ate sixty portions from each of them. The last dish was called pot roast, and I was still so hungry that I wanted to chew the plate afterward.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: כָּפֵין עַנְיָא וְלָא יָדַע. אִי נָמֵי: רַוְוחָא לִבְסִימָא שְׁכִיחַ.

And in continuation Abaye said: This explains the folk saying that people say: The poor man is hungry and does not know it, as Abaye was unaware how hungry he had been in his master’s house. Alternatively, there is another appropriate, popular expression: Room in the stomach for sweets can always be found.

אַבָּיֵי בַּר אָבִין וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר אָבִין מְחַלְּפִי סְעוֹדְתַּיְיהוּ לַהֲדָדֵי.

The Gemara relates that Abaye bar Avin and Rabbi Ḥanina bar Avin would exchange their meals with each other to fulfill their obligation of sending portions on Purim.

אָמַר רָבָא: מִיחַיַּיב אִינִישׁ לְבַסּוֹמֵי בְּפוּרַיָּא עַד דְּלָא יָדַע בֵּין אָרוּר הָמָן לְבָרוּךְ מָרְדֳּכַי.

Rava said: A person is obligated to become intoxicated with wine on Purim until he is so intoxicated that he does not know how to distinguish between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordecai.

רַבָּה וְרַבִּי זֵירָא עֲבַדוּ סְעוּדַת פּוּרִים בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי. אִיבַּסּוּם. קָם רַבָּה שַׁחְטֵיהּ לְרַבִּי זֵירָא. לְמָחָר, בָּעֵי רַחֲמֵי וְאַחֲיֵיהּ. לְשָׁנָה, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נֵיתֵי מָר וְנַעֲבֵיד סְעוּדַת פּוּרִים בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא בְּכֹל שַׁעְתָּא וְשַׁעְתָּא מִתְרְחִישׁ נִיסָּא.

The Gemara relates that Rabba and Rabbi Zeira prepared a Purim feast with each other, and they became intoxicated to the point that Rabba arose and slaughtered Rabbi Zeira. The next day, when he became sober and realized what he had done, Rabba asked God for mercy, and revived him. The next year, Rabba said to Rabbi Zeira: Let the Master come and let us prepare the Purim feast with each other. He said to him: Miracles do not happen each and every hour, and I do not want to undergo that experience again.

אָמַר רָבָא: סְעוּדַת פּוּרִים שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ בַּלַּיְלָה — לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא — ״יְמֵי מִשְׁתֶּה וְשִׂמְחָה״, כְּתִיב: רַב אָשֵׁי הֲוָה יָתֵיב קַמֵּיהּ (דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא), נְגַהּ וְלָא אֲתוֹ רַבָּנַן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אֲתוֹ רַבָּנַן? דִּלְמָא טְרִידִי בִּסְעוּדַת פּוּרִים. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלָא הֲוָה אֶפְשָׁר לְמֵיכְלַהּ בְּאוּרְתָּא? אָמַר לֵיהּ: לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ לְמָר הָא דְּאָמַר רָבָא: סְעוּדַת פּוּרִים שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ בַּלַּיְלָה לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ? אָמַר לֵיהּ: (אָמַר רָבָא הָכִי?) [אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין]. תְּנָא מִינֵּיהּ אַרְבְּעִין זִימְנִין וְדָמֵי לֵיהּ כְּמַאן דְּמַנַּח בְּכִיסֵיהּ.

Rava said: A Purim feast that one ate at night did not fulfill his obligation. What is the reason? “Days of feasting and gladness” (Esther 9:22) is written, i.e., days and not nights. The Gemara relates: Rav Ashi was sitting before Rav Kahana his teacher on Purim, and it grew dark and the Sages who usually came to study with him did not come. Rav Ashi said to him: What is the reason that the Sages did not come today? Rav Kahana answered: Perhaps they are preoccupied with the Purim feast. Rav Ashi said to him: Wasn’t it possible for them to eat the feast at night on Purim, instead of being derelict in their Torah study on Purim day? Rav Kahana said to him: Didn’t the master learn that which Rava said: A Purim feast that one ate at night did not fulfill his obligation? Rav Ashi said to him: Did Rava say that? Rav Kahana said to him: Yes. Rav Ashi then learned it from him forty times until he remembered it so well that it seemed to him as if it were placed in his purse.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵין בֵּין יוֹם טוֹב לַשַּׁבָּת אֶלָּא אוֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ בִּלְבָד.

MISHNA: The previous mishna concluded with the formula: The difference between…is only, thereby distinguishing between the halakhot in two different cases. The following mishnayot employ the same formula and distinguish between the halakhot in cases unrelated to Purim and the Megilla. The first is: The difference between Festivals and Shabbat with regard to the labor prohibited on those days is only in preparing food alone. It is permitted to cook and bake in order to prepare food on Festivals; however, on Shabbat it is prohibited.

גְּמָ׳ הָא לְעִנְיַן מַכְשִׁירֵי אוֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ — זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין.

GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of actions that facilitate preparation of food, e.g., sharpening a knife for slaughter, this, Shabbat, and that, Festivals, are equal, in that actions that facilitate preparation of food are prohibited.

מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין בֵּין יוֹם טוֹב לַשַּׁבָּת אֶלָּא אוֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר אַף מַכְשִׁירֵי אוֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ.

The Gemara comments: If so, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: The difference between Festivals and Shabbat is only preparing food. Rabbi Yehuda permits even actions that facilitate preparation of food on Festivals.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא״ — וְלֹא מַכְשִׁירָיו, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה (אָמַר): ״לָכֶם״ — לָכֶם לְכׇל צוֹרְכֵיכֶם.

The Gemara elaborates. What is the reason for the opinion of the first tanna? It is as the verse states: “Except that which every person must eat, only that may be done for you” (Exodus 12:16). “That” is permitted, and not actions that facilitate it. And Rabbi Yehuda says: “For you” means for you, for all your needs.

וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב ״לָכֶם״? לָכֶם וְלֹא לְגוֹיִם, לָכֶם וְלֹא לִכְלָבִים.

The Gemara asks: And for the other, first, tanna too, isn’t it written: “For you”? The Gemara answers: He infers: For you, and not for gentiles; for you, and not for dogs. It is forbidden to perform labors for the sake of gentiles, or for animals, even if it is to feed them.

וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָא כְּתִיב ״הוּא״? כְּתִיב ״הוּא״ וּכְתִיב ״לָכֶם״. כָּאן בְּמַכְשִׁירִין שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹתָן מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב, כָּאן בְּמַכְשִׁירִין שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹתָן מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב.

The Gemara asks further: And for the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, too, isn’t it written: “That,” which is a restrictive term that limits the application of a particular halakha? The Gemara answers: It is written: “That,” which is restrictive, and it is written: “For you,” which is inclusive. Rabbi Yehuda resolves the conflict between the two: Here, the word: “That,” is referring to actions that facilitate, in which it is possible to perform them on the Festival eve but which are prohibited on the Festival; there, the phrase: “For you,” is referring to actions that facilitate, in which it is impossible to perform them on the Festival eve and which are permitted even on the Festival.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵין בֵּין שַׁבָּת לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, אֶלָּא שֶׁזֶּה — זְדוֹנוֹ בִּידֵי אָדָם, וְזֶה — זְדוֹנוֹ בְּכָרֵת.

MISHNA: The difference between Shabbat and Yom Kippur with regard to the labor prohibited on those days is only that in this case, i.e., Shabbat, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of Man, as he is stoned by a court based on the testimony of witnesses who forewarned the transgressor; and in that case, i.e., Yom Kippur, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of God, with karet.

גְּמָ׳ הָא לְעִנְיַן תַּשְׁלוּמִין — זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין.

GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of payment of damages, both this, Shabbat, and that, Yom Kippur, are equal in that one is exempt in both cases. If one performs an action on Shabbat that entails both a prohibited labor and damage to another’s property, since his transgression is punishable by death, he is exempt from paying damages. Apparently, according to the mishna, the same halakha applies to Yom Kippur.

מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין? רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא בֶּן הַקָּנָה הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה אֶת יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים כַּשַּׁבָּת לְתַשְׁלוּמִין, מָה שַׁבָּת — מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ וּפָטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין, אַף יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים — מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ וּפָטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין.

The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion is the mishna taught? The Gemara answers: It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana would render Yom Kippur like Shabbat with regard to payment of damages. Just as in the case of one who intentionally desecrates Shabbat he is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment of damages caused while desecrating Shabbat, so too, in the case of one who intentionally desecrates Yom Kippur, he is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment of damages caused while desecrating Yom Kippur.

תְּנַן הָתָם: כׇּל חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת שֶׁלָּקוּ — נִפְטְרוּ מִידֵי כְּרִיתָתָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנִקְלָה אָחִיךָ לְעֵינֶיךָ״, כֵּיוָן שֶׁלָּקָה — הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאָחִיךָ. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חֲלוּקִין עָלָיו חֲבֵירָיו עַל רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

We learned there in a mishna (Makkot 23a): All those liable to receive karet who were flogged in court were exempted from their karet, which is imposed by heaven. Most transgressors are liable to receive karet for violating prohibitions that are punishable by flogging. If they are flogged, they are exempt from karet, as it is stated with regard to one liable to receive lashes: “Then your brother shall be dishonored before you” (Deuteronomy 25:3), indicating that once he was flogged he is like your brother, and his sins have been pardoned; this is the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him on this issue.

אָמַר רָבָא: אָמְרִי בֵּי רַב, תְּנֵינָא: אֵין בֵּין יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לַשַּׁבָּת אֶלָּא שֶׁזֶּה — זְדוֹנוֹ בִּידֵי אָדָם, וְזֶה — זְדוֹנוֹ בְּהִיכָּרֵת. וְאִם אִיתָא — אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בִּידֵי אָדָם הִיא!

Rava said that the Sages of the school of Rav said: We learned: The difference between Yom Kippur and Shabbat is only that in this case, Shabbat, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of Man; and in that case, Yom Kippur, its intentional desecration is punishable with karet. And if the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel is so, in both this case, Shabbat, and that case, Yom Kippur, the punishment is at the hand of Man.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי יִצְחָק הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מַלְקוֹת בְּחַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת לֵיכָּא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת בַּכְּלָל הָיוּ, וְלָמָּה יָצָאת כָּרֵת בַּאֲחוֹתוֹ — לְדוּנָהּ בְּכָרֵת וְלֹא בְּמַלְקוֹת.

Rav Naḥman said: There is no proof from here that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him, as in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, who said: There are no lashes in cases of those liable to receive karet, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: All those liable to receive karet in cases of incest were included in the principle: “For whoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the persons that commit them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29). And why was karet administered to one’s sister excluded from this verse and mentioned independently (Leviticus 20:17)? It is to sentence her to the punishment of karet and not to the punishment of lashes. This serves as a paradigm; wherever one is liable to receive karet, there are no lashes.

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, זֶה — עִיקַּר זְדוֹנוֹ בִּידֵי אָדָם, וְזֶה — עִיקָּר זְדוֹנוֹ בְּהִיכָּרֵת.

Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that the mishna is according to the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yitzḥak and hold that there are lashes even in cases where there is liability for karet, there is no proof that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him. The mishna can be understood as follows: In this case, Shabbat, the primary punishment for its intentional desecration is at the hand of Man; and in that case, Yom Kippur, the primary punishment for its intentional desecration is with karet. If, however, he was flogged, he is exempt from karet.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵין בֵּין הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָאָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לַמּוּדָּר מִמֶּנּוּ מַאֲכָל, אֶלָּא דְּרִיסַת הָרֶגֶל וְכֵלִים שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין בָּהֶן אוֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ.

MISHNA: The difference between one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow and one for whom benefit from another’s food is forbidden by vow is only with regard to stepping foot on his property, and with regard to borrowing utensils from him that one does not use in the preparation of food, but for other purposes; as those two benefits are prohibited to the former, but permitted to the latter.

גְּמָ׳ הָא לְעִנְיַן כֵּלִים שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בָּהֶן אוֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ — זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין.

GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of utensils that one uses in preparation of food, both this, one who vowed that any benefit is forbidden, and that, one who vowed that benefit from food is forbidden, are equal. It is prohibited for both to derive benefit from utensils used in the preparation of food.

דְּרִיסַת הָרֶגֶל? הָא לָא קָפְדִי אִינָשֵׁי! אֲמַר רָבָא: הָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּאָמַר: וִיתּוּר אָסוּר בְּמוּדַּר הֲנָאָה.

The mishna stated that for one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow, stepping foot on the latter’s property is prohibited. The Gemara asks: What benefit is that? Aren’t people not particular about other people treading on their property? Rava said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who said: Overlooking is prohibited in the case of one for whom benefit is forbidden by vow. For one for whom benefit from another is forbidden by vow, benefit is forbidden even in matters with regard to which one is typically not particular and overlooks others’ use of his property, e.g., stepping foot on it.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵין בֵּין נְדָרִים לִנְדָבוֹת, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַנְּדָרִים חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן, וּנְדָבוֹת אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן.

MISHNA: The difference between animals consecrated to the Temple as vow offerings and animals consecrated as gift offerings is only that in the case of vow offerings, if they died or were lost before being sacrificed on the altar, one is obligated in the responsibility to replace them, and in the case of gift offerings, if they died or were lost, one is not obligated in the responsibility to replace them.

גְּמָ׳ הָא לְעִנְיַן ״בַּל תְּאַחֵר״ — זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין.

GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of the prohibition: Do not be slack to pay one’s pledges, both this, a vow offering, and that, a gift offering, are equal. If one delayed bringing either a vow offering or a gift offering, he violates the prohibition.

תְּנַן הָתָם: אֵי זֶהוּ נֶדֶר? הָאוֹמֵר: ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה״. אֵיזוֹ הִיא נְדָבָה? הָאוֹמֵר: ״הֲרֵי זוֹ עוֹלָה״, וּמָה בֵּין נְדָרִים לִנְדָבוֹת? נְדָרִים, מֵתוּ אוֹ נִגְנְבוּ אוֹ אָבְדוּ — חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן, נְדָבוֹת, מֵתוּ אוֹ נִגְנְבוּ אוֹ אָבְדוּ — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן.

We learned in a mishna there: Which is the case of a vow offering? It is one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt-offering. Which is the case of a gift offering? It is one who says: This animal is a burnt-offering. And what is the difference between a vow offering and a gift offering? With regard to vow offerings, if the animals died or were stolen or were lost, the one who vowed is obligated in the responsibility to replace them, as he undertook to bring a burnt-offering and he is not absolved of his obligation until he brings the offering. With regard to gift offerings, however, if the animals died or were stolen or were lost, the one who vowed is not obligated in the responsibility to replace them.

מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְנִרְצָה לוֹ לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו״, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֶת שֶׁעָלָיו — חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ עָלָיו — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to a burnt-offering, that the verse states: “And it shall be accepted for him to make atonement upon him” (Leviticus 1:4). Rabbi Shimon says: That which is incumbent upon him, i.e., which he accepted as a personal obligation, he bears responsibility to replace it if it died or was stolen; however, that which is not incumbent upon him, i.e., that which he did not accept as a personal obligation but which he designated as an offering, he does not bear responsibility to replace it.

מַאי מַשְׁמַע? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״ — כְּמַאן דִּטְעִין אַכַּתְפֵּיהּ דָּמֵי.

The Gemara asks: From where may that conclusion be inferred from the verse? Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: Since he said it is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt-offering, he is considered as one who bears it upon his shoulders. The expression: Upon me, indicates an assumption of responsibility to bring an offering.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵין בֵּין זָב הָרוֹאֶה שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת לָרוֹאֶה שָׁלֹשׁ אֶלָּא קׇרְבָּן.

MISHNA: The difference between a zav who experiences two emissions of a pus-like discharge from his penis and one who experiences three emissions is only that the zav who experienced three emissions is obligated to bring an offering after he recovers, in order to complete his purification process.

גְּמָ׳ הָא לְעִנְיַן מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב וּסְפִירַת שִׁבְעָה — זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין.

GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of transmitting ritual impurity to a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting, and similarly with regard to the counting of seven days clean of emissions so that he may immerse in a ritual bath as part of the purification process, both this, i.e., one who experienced two emissions, and that, one who experienced three emissions, are equal.

מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: רַבִּי סִימַאי אוֹמֵר: מָנָה הַכָּתוּב שְׁתַּיִם, וּקְרָאוֹ ״טָמֵא״. שָׁלֹשׁ, וּקְרָאוֹ ״טָמֵא״. הָא כֵּיצַד? שְׁתַּיִם לַטּוּמְאָה וְשָׁלֹשׁ לַקׇּרְבָּן.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita that Rabbi Simai says: The verse enumerated two emissions: “When any man has an emission out of his flesh, due to his emission he is impure” (Leviticus 15:2), and it called the zav impure. Another verse enumerated three emissions: “And this shall be his impurity in his emission: Whether his flesh runs with his emission, or his flesh be stopped from his emission, it is his impurity” (Leviticus 15:3), and it too called him impure. How so? If he is impure after two emissions, for what purpose does the Torah mention three? It is to teach: Two emissions to establish impurity and three to render him liable to bring an offering.

וְאֵימַר: שְׁתַּיִם לְטוּמְאָה וְלֹא לְקׇרְבָּן, שָׁלֹשׁ לְקׇרְבָּן וְלֹא לְטוּמְאָה! אָמְרַתְּ: עַד שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ רָאָה שְׁתַּיִם.

The Gemara raises an alternative. And say instead: Two emissions to establish impurity but not to render him liable to bring an offering; three emissions to render him liable to bring an offering, but not to establish impurity. The Gemara rejects this: That is impossible, as you can say that until he experienced three emissions, he already experienced two, and therefore he is impure in the case of three emissions as well.

וְאֵימַר: שְׁתַּיִם לְקׇרְבָּן וְלֹא לְטוּמְאָה, שָׁלֹשׁ אַף לְטוּמְאָה! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן לִפְנֵי ה׳ מִזּוֹבוֹ״, מִקְצָת זָבִין מְבִיאִין קׇרְבָּן וּמִקְצָת זָבִין אֵין מְבִיאִין קׇרְבָּן. הָא כֵּיצַד? רָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ — מֵבִיא, שְׁתַּיִם — אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא.

The Gemara raises a different alternative. And say instead: Two emissions to render him liable to bring an offering, but not to establish impurity; three emissions to establish impurity as well. The Gemara answers that this suggestion cannot enter your mind, as it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: “And the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord from his emission” (Leviticus 15:15). The preposition “from” that precedes the words “his emissions” indicates that some with the status of a zav bring an offering and some with the status of a zav do not bring an offering. How so? If he experienced three emissions, he brings an offering; if he experienced two emissions, he does not bring an offering.

אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא: רָאָה שְׁתַּיִם — מֵבִיא, רָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ — אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא, אָמְרַתְּ: עַד שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ רָאָה שְׁתַּיִם.

The baraita suggests: Or perhaps, it means nothing other than that if one experienced two emissions, he brings an offering; if he experienced three emissions, he does not bring an offering. The baraita rejects this: That is impossible, as you can say that until he experienced three emissions, he already experienced two, and therefore he is obligated to bring an offering in the case of three emissions as well.

וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ דְּרַבִּי סִימַאי וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ ״מִזּוֹבוֹ״, דְּאִי מִדְּרַבִּי סִימַאי — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא כִּי קוּשְׁיַין, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן ״מִזּוֹבוֹ״. וְאִי ״מִזּוֹבוֹ״ — לָא יָדַעְנָא כַּמָּה רְאִיּוֹת, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן דְּרַבִּי סִימַאי.

The Gemara comments: It was necessary to cite the proof of Rabbi Simai based on the number of mentions of the word emissions in the two verses, and it was necessary to cite the proof from the words: From his emission. As if the difference between two and three emissions was derived from the statement of Rabbi Simai, I would have said in accordance with our question: Perhaps one who experiences two emissions brings an offering, and one who experiences three emissions is impure and brings an offering. Therefore, it teaches us: From his emission. And if the difference between two and three emissions was derived from the term: From his emission, I would not have known how many emissions render him liable to bring an offering, only that some with the status of a zav are not required to bring an offering. Therefore, it teaches us the proof cited by Rabbi Simai.

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ ״מִזּוֹבוֹ״ לִדְרָשָׁא, ״וְכִי יִטְהַר הַזָּב מִזּוֹבוֹ״ מַאי דָּרְשַׁתְּ בֵּיהּ?

The Gemara asks: And now that you said that the term: From his emission, is exclusionary and comes for derivation, what do you derive from the verse: “And when the zav is cleansed from his emission” (Leviticus 15:13)?

הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״וְכִי יִטְהַר הַזָּב״ — לִכְשֶׁיִּפְסוֹק מִזּוֹבוֹ, [״מִזּוֹבוֹ״ —] וְלֹא מִזּוֹבוֹ וְנִגְעוֹ. ״מִזּוֹבוֹ וְסָפַר״ — לִימֵּד עַל זָב בַּעַל שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת שֶׁטָּעוּן סְפִירַת שִׁבְעָה.

The Gemara answers: That verse is needed to derive that which was taught in a baraita. It is written: “And when the zav is cleansed from his emission, then he shall count to himself seven days for his purification” (Leviticus 15:13), when his emissions cease. The baraita infers from the term: From his emission, that he needs to be cleansed only from his emission, but not from his emission and his leprosy. If one was both a zav and also had leprosy, he need not wait until he is asymptomatic of his leprosy before counting seven clean days. Rather, he counts seven clean days, and after the leprosy symptoms cease, he immerses for both impurities. “From his emission, then he shall count”: This teaches concerning a zav who experienced two emissions, that he too requires a count of seven clean days.

וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא, אִם מְטַמֵּא מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב לֹא יְהֵא טָעוּן סְפִירַת שִׁבְעָה?

The baraita continues: But in order to derive that halakha, the verse is unnecessary, as isn’t it only logical? If a zav who experienced two emissions renders a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting ritually impure and all strictures of a zav apply to him, wouldn’t he require a count of seven clean days to become purified?

שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁמְּטַמְּאָה מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב, וְאֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה סְפִירַת שִׁבְעָה.

A woman who observes a clean day for one day or two days that she experiences a discharge will prove that this is not the case. This refers to a woman who experienced one or two days of bleeding not during her menstrual period and is required to wait one day without any further discharge of blood before immersion in a ritual bath. This is significant because she renders a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting ritually impure, and nevertheless she does not require a count of seven clean days to become purified.

וְאַף אַתָּה אַל תִּתְמַהּ עַל זֶה, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב לֹא יְהֵא טָעוּן סְפִירַת שִׁבְעָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִזּוֹבוֹ וְסָפַר״, מִקְצָת זוֹבוֹ וְסָפַר — לִימֵּד עַל זָב בַּעַל שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת שֶׁטָּעוּן סְפִירַת שִׁבְעָה.

And you too should not then be surprised that this zav, although he renders a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting ritually impure, he does not require a count of seven clean days to become purified. Therefore, the verse states: “From his emission, then he shall count,” meaning that even a partial zav is obligated in the mitzva of: Then he shall count. This teaches concerning a zav who experienced two emissions, that he too requires a count of seven clean days.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: מַאי שְׁנָא הַאי ״מִזּוֹבוֹ״ דִּמְרַבֵּי בֵּיהּ זָב בַּעַל שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת, וּמַאי שְׁנָא הַאי ״מִזּוֹבוֹ״ דִּמְמַעֵט בֵּיהּ זָב בַּעַל שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת?

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: What is different about this verse that states: “From his emission,” which is interpreted to include a zav who experienced two emissions in the obligation to count seven clean days; and what is different about that verse that states: “From his emission,” which is interpreted to exclude a zav who experienced two emissions from the obligation to bring an offering? Why is the identical term interpreted once as inclusionary and once as exclusionary?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ הַאי לְמַעוֹטֵי הוּא דַּאֲתָא — לִישְׁתּוֹק קְרָא מִינֵּיהּ, וְכִי תֵּימָא: אָתְיָא מִדִּינָא, שׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם תּוֹכִיחַ.

Abaye said to him: If it enters your mind to say that this instance of the term: “From his emission,” comes to exclude a zav who experienced two emissions from the obligation to count seven clean days, let the verse remain silent and omit the term, as there would have been no basis to include a zav who experienced two emissions in that halakha. And if you would say that this can be inferred logically, a woman who observes a day for a day will prove that there is no correlation between ritual impurity transmitted to a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting, and the obligation to count seven clean days.

וְכִי תֵּימָא: הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ ״מִזּוֹבוֹ״ וְלֹא מִנִּגְעוֹ, אִם כֵּן לִיכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״וְכִי יִטְהַר הַזָּב״ וְלִישְׁתּוֹק. ״מִזּוֹבוֹ״ לְמָה לִי? לִימֵּד עַל זָב בַּעַל שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת שֶׁטָּעוּן סְפִירַת שִׁבְעָה.

And if you would say that this term: From his emission, is needed to derive a different inclusion, i.e., that he counts seven days when he is clean from his emission and not from his leprosy and therefore it was necessary to write this term, that is not so. As if it were so, then let the verse write: “And when the zav is cleansed” and let the verse remain silent and omit the term, and it would have been clear that even one afflicted with leprosy counts seven clean days once he is cleansed from his emission. Why then do I need the term: From his emission? Rather, it must be understood as an inclusionary term that teaches concerning a zav who experienced two emissions, that he too requires a count of seven clean days.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵין בֵּין מְצוֹרָע מוּסְגָּר לִמְצוֹרָע מוּחְלָט אֶלָּא פְּרִיעָה וּפְרִימָה.

MISHNA: The difference between a quarantined leper, i.e., one examined by a priest who found his symptoms to be inconclusive, and who must therefore remain in isolation for a period of up to two weeks waiting to see if conclusive symptoms develop; and a confirmed leper, i.e., one whose symptoms were conclusive and the priest declared him an absolute leper, is only with regard to letting the hair on one’s head grow wild and rending one’s garments. A confirmed leper is obligated to let the hair on his head grow wild and rend his garments; a quarantined leper is not.

אֵין בֵּין טָהוֹר מִתּוֹךְ הֶסְגֵּר לְטָהוֹר מִתּוֹךְ הֶחְלֵט אֶלָּא תִּגְלַחַת וְצִפֳּרִים.

The difference between a leper purified from quarantine, whose symptoms never became conclusive, and a leper purified from a state of confirmed leprosy is only with regard to shaving the hair on all his body and bringing birds as a purification offering, which are obligations incumbent only upon the confirmed leper.

גְּמָ׳ הָא לְעִנְיַן שִׁילּוּחַ [וְטוּמְאָה] — זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין.

GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of expulsion, from all three camps in the encampment of the Israelites in the desert and from the walled cities in Eretz Yisrael, and the ritual impurity of a leper: Both this, the quarantined leper, and that, the confirmed leper, are equal.

מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנֵי רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא: ״וְטִהֲרוֹ הַכֹּהֵן מִסְפַּחַת הִיא וְכִבֶּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָהֵר״, טָהוֹר מִפְּרִיעָה וּפְרִימָה דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak taught in a baraita before Rav Huna. It is written with regard to a leper who was purified from quarantine: “The priest shall pronounce him clean: It is but a scab, and he shall wash his clothes and be purified [vetaher]” (Leviticus 13:6). The word vetaher is not in the future tense, which would indicate that from that point he is purified; it is rather in the present tense, indicating that at the outset, even before the priest’s pronouncement, he was pure in the sense that he was exempt from the initial obligation of letting the hair on his head grow wild and rending his garments, as those obligations are incumbent exclusively upon the confirmed leper.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי זָב דִּכְתִיב ״וְכִבֶּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָהֵר״, הָתָם מַאי ״וְטָהֵר״ מֵעִיקָּרָא אִיכָּא?

Rava said to him: However, if that is so, i.e., that vetaher means that one is somewhat pure at the outset, then with regard to a zav, as it is written: “And he shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and he shall be clean [vetaher]” (Leviticus 15:13), there, what sense of: And he shall be clean, at the outset is there in that case? Up until that point, the zav was ritually impure in every sense.

אֶלָּא: טָהוֹר הַשְׁתָּא מִלְּטַמֵּא כְּלִי חֶרֶס בְּהֶיסֵּט, אַף עַל גַּב דַּהֲדַר חָזֵי — לָא מְטַמֵּא לְמַפְרֵעַ.

Rather, vetaher means that he is now pure from rendering earthenware vessels impure through movement. There is a halakha that a zav renders a vessel impure if he causes it to be moved, even though he did not come into direct contact with it, even if the opening of the vessel is smaller than a fingerbreadth. The verse teaches that once the zav is purified through counting and immersion, he no longer renders vessels impure in that manner. The novelty here is that even if he then experiences another emission, he does not render the vessels impure retroactively. This emission is unrelated to the previous emissions. Therefore, upon experiencing the emission, the zav is not retroactively considered to have been ritually impure the entire time, even after immersion. Rather, since he counted seven clean days and immersed, the legal status of this latest emission is that of a new emission.

הָכָא נָמֵי טָהוֹר [הַשְׁתָּא מִלְּטַמֵּא בְּבִיאָה לְמַפְרֵעַ].

Here too, with regard to the leper, vetaher means that the quarantined leper is now pure from retroactively rendering the contents of a house impure by his entrance into the house. If someone with inconclusive symptoms of leprosy was quarantined and then declared ritually pure, and subsequently conclusive symptoms of leprosy developed, he is not considered to have been a leper from the time of the original quarantine, in which case the contents of any house he entered from that point would be rendered impure retroactively. Rather, once he was purified, he was absolutely pure. These subsequent conclusive symptoms are unrelated to the previous inconclusive symptoms. Therefore, the proof adduced by Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak is no proof.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, מֵהָכָא: ״וְהַצָּרוּעַ אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ הַנֶּגַע״, מִי שֶׁצָּרַעְתּוֹ תְּלוּיָה בְּגוּפוֹ — יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאֵין צָרַעְתּוֹ תְּלוּיָה בְּגוּפוֹ אֶלָּא בְּיָמִים.

Rather, Rava said that the halakha that a quarantined leper is exempt from the obligation to let his hair grow and to rend his clothing is derived from here. It is written: “And the leper in whom [bo] the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall grow wild” (Leviticus 13:45), indicating that only one whose leprosy is dependent on the state of his body, in whom the plague is, is obligated to let his hair grow wild and to rend his garments. This excludes that leper whose leprosy is not dependent solely on the state of his body, but rather on the passage of days, as he is obligated to wait seven days.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה ״כָּל יְמֵי אֲשֶׁר הַנֶּגַע בּוֹ יִטְמָא״, מִי שֶׁצָּרַעְתּוֹ תְּלוּיָה בְּגוּפוֹ — הוּא דְּטָעוּן שִׁילּוּחַ, וְשֶׁאֵין צָרַעְתּוֹ תְּלוּיָה בְּגוּפוֹ — אֵין טָעוּן שִׁילּוּחַ,

Abaye said to him: However, if that is so, then also with regard to the verse: “All the days during which the plague shall be in him [bo] he shall be impure” (Leviticus 13:46), say one whose leprosy is dependent on the state of his body requires expulsion from the camp, and one whose leprosy is not dependent solely on the state of his body, but rather on the passage of days, does not require expulsion.

וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָא קָתָנֵי: אֵין בֵּין מְצוֹרָע מוּסְגָּר לִמְצוֹרָע מוּחְלָט אֶלָּא פְּרִיעָה וּפְרִימָה, הָא לְעִנְיַן שִׁילּוּחַ וּלְטַמּוֹיֵי בְּבִיאָה — זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין!

And if you would say: Indeed that is so, but isn’t it taught in the mishna: The difference between a quarantined leper and a confirmed leper is only with regard to letting the hair on one’s head grow wild and rending one’s garments? And it is inferred that with regard to the matter of expulsion and the capacity of a leper to render impure the contents of a house by entry into the house, both this, the quarantined leper, and that, the confirmed leper, are equal.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״יְמֵי״ ״כׇּל יְמֵי״ — לְרַבּוֹת מְצוֹרָע מוּסְגָּר לְשִׁילּוּחַ.

Rava said to him: There is a different source for the obligation to expel the quarantined leper from the camp. The verse could have stated: The days during which the plague shall be upon him. Instead the verse states: All the days, to include a quarantined leper in the obligation of expulsion from the camp, like a confirmed leper.

אִי הָכִי, תִּגְלַחַת וְצִפֳּרִים מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? דְּקָתָנֵי: אֵין בֵּין טָהוֹר מִתּוֹךְ הֶסְגֵּר לַטָּהוֹר מִתּוֹךְ הֶחְלֵט — אֶלָּא תִּגְלַחַת וְצִפֳּרִים!

The Gemara asks: If that is so, what is the reason that a quarantined leper is not obligated in shaving the hair on all his body and bringing birds as a purification offering as part of his purification process? As it teaches in the mishna: The difference between a leper purified from quarantine, whose symptoms never became conclusive, and a leper purified from a state of confirmed leprosy, is only with regard to shaving the hair on all his body and bringing birds as a purification offering.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְיָצָא הַכֹּהֵן אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְהִנֵּה נִרְפָּא נֶגַע הַצָּרַעַת״, מִי שֶׁצָּרַעְתּוֹ תְּלוּיָה בִּרְפוּאוֹת. יָצָא זֶה שֶׁאֵין צָרַעְתּוֹ תְּלוּיָה בִּרְפוּאוֹת אֶלָּא בְּיָמִים.

Abaye said that the verse states: “And the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall look, and behold, if the plague of leprosy is healed in the leper” (Leviticus 14:3), then the purification process that includes shaving and bringing birds commences. This indicates that these halakhot apply to a confirmed leper whose leprosy is dependent on healing, to exclude that leper whose leprosy is not dependent solely on healing but rather on the passage of days. Even if his symptoms are healed, he is pure only at the conclusion of the seven days of quarantine.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵין בֵּין סְפָרִים לִתְפִלִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַסְּפָרִים נִכְתָּבִין בְּכׇל לָשׁוֹן, וּתְפִלִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת אֵינָן נִכְתָּבוֹת אֶלָּא אַשּׁוּרִית.

MISHNA: The difference between Torah scrolls, and phylacteries and mezuzot, in terms of the manner in which they are written, is only that Torah scrolls are written in any language, whereas phylacteries and mezuzot are written only in Ashurit, i.e., in Hebrew and using the Hebrew script.

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף בִּסְפָרִים לֹא הִתִּירוּ שֶׁיִּכָּתְבוּ אֶלָּא יְווֹנִית.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even with regard to Torah scrolls, the Sages permitted them to be written only in Greek. Torah scrolls written in any other language do not have the sanctity of a Torah scroll.

גְּמָ׳ הָא לְתוֹפְרָן בְּגִידִין וּלְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם — זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין.

GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of stitching the sheets of parchment with sinews, and with regard to rendering the hands of one who touches them impure, both this, Torah scrolls, and that, phylacteries and mezuzot, are equal. The Sages issued a decree rendering the hands of one who touches sacred scrolls impure with second-degree ritual impurity.

וּסְפָרִים נִכְתָּבִין בְּכׇל לָשׁוֹן וְכוּ׳. וּרְמִינְהוּ: מִקְרָא שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ תַּרְגּוּם, וְתַרְגּוּם שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ מִקְרָא, וּכְתָב עִבְרִי — אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם עַד שֶׁיִּכְתְּבֶנּוּ בִּכְתָב אַשּׁוּרִית, עַל הַסֵּפֶר, וּבִדְיוֹ.

The mishna stated: Torah scrolls are written in any language. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: A Torah scroll containing a Hebrew verse in the Bible that one wrote in Aramaic translation, or a verse written in Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible, or that was written in the ancient Hebrew script and not in Ashurit, renders the hands impure only if one writes it in Ashurit script, on a parchment scroll, and in ink. Apparently, contrary to the mishna, a scroll written in a language other than Hebrew is not sacred.

אָמַר רָבָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא

Rava said: This is not difficult.

כָּאן בְּגּוֹפָן שֶׁלָּנוּ, כָּאן בְּגּוֹפָן שֶׁלָּהֶן.

Here, the mishna is referring to Torah scrolls written in another language in our script, i.e., in Hebrew letters. There, the baraita is referring to Torah scrolls written in another language in their script, in the letters of another alphabet.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתָּא לְהַהִיא? בְּגּוֹפָן שֶׁלָּהֶן, מַאי אִירְיָא מִקְרָא שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ תַּרְגּוּם וְתַרְגּוּם שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ מִקְרָא? אֲפִילּוּ מִקְרָא שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ מִקְרָא וְתַרְגּוּם שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ תַּרְגּוּם נָמֵי. דְּהָא קָתָנֵי: עַד שֶׁיִּכְתְּבֶנּוּ אַשּׁוּרִית עַל הַסֵּפֶר בִּדְיוֹ!

Abaye said to Rava: How did you establish that baraita, i.e., that it is referring to Torah scrolls written in another language in their script? If it is so, why did the baraita specifically teach that the legal status of a Hebrew verse in the Bible that one wrote in Aramaic translation, or a verse written in Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible, is not that of sacred writings? The legal status of even a Hebrew verse in the Bible that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible and a verse written in Aramaic translation that one wrote in Aramaic translation are also not that of sacred writings, as it is taught at the end of the baraita: A Torah scroll renders the hands impure only if one writes it in Ashurit script, on a parchment scroll, and in ink.

אֶלָּא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבָּנַן, הָא רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

Rather, the matter must be explained differently. This is not difficult. This ruling in the mishna is according to the Rabbis, who permit writing Torah scrolls in any language, and that ruling in the baraita is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

אִי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הָא אִיכָּא יְוָנִית! אֶלָּא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בִּסְפָרִים, כָּאן בִּתְפִלִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת.

The Gemara asks: If the baraita is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, in addition to Ashurit, isn’t there Greek in which the Torah may also be written? Rather, say this is not difficult. Here, the mishna is referring to Torah scrolls, which may be written in any language; there, the baraita is referring to phylacteries and mezuzot, which may be written only in Hebrew, using Hebrew script.

תְּפִלִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת מַאי טַעְמָא? מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ: ״וְהָיוּ״ — בַּהֲוָיָיתָן יְהוּ, מַאי תַּרְגּוּם שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ מִקְרָא אִיכָּא? בִּשְׁלָמָא תּוֹרָה — אִיכָּא ״יְגַר שָׂהֲדוּתָא״, אֶלָּא הָכָא מַאי תַּרְגּוּם אִיכָּא?

The Gemara asks: With regard to phylacteries and mezuzot, what is the reason that they must be written in Hebrew? The Gemara explains: It is because it is written with regard to them: “And these words shall be” (Deuteronomy 6:6), indicating that as they are so shall they be, without change. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If the baraita is referring to phylacteries and mezuzot, what Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible is there? Granted, in the Torah there is a verse written in Aramaic translation: “Yegar sahaduta” (Genesis 31:47); however, here, in phylacteries and mezuzot, what verses in Aramaic translation are there that could be written in Hebrew?

אֶלָּא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בִּמְגִילָּה, כָּאן בִּסְפָרִים. מְגִילָּה מַאי טַעְמָא, דִּכְתִיב בַּהּ: ״כִּכְתָבָם וְכִלְשׁוֹנָם״. מַאי תַּרְגּוּם שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ מִקְרָא אִיכָּא?

Rather, say this is not difficult. Here, the baraita is referring to the Megilla, the Scroll of Esther, which must be written in Hebrew; there, the mishna is referring to Torah scrolls, which may be written in any language. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Megilla must be written in Hebrew? It is due to the fact that it is written with regard to the Megilla: “According to their writing, and according to their language” (Esther 8:9), without change. The Gemara asks: But if the baraita is referring to the Megilla, what Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible is there? The entire Megilla is written in Hebrew.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: ״וְנִשְׁמַע פִּתְגָם הַמֶּלֶךְ״. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: ״וְכׇל הַנָּשִׁים יִתְּנוּ יְקָר לְבַעְלֵיהֶן״.

Rav Pappa said that it is written: “And when the king’s decree [pitgam] shall be publicized” (Esther 1:20), and that pitgam is essentially an Aramaic word. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that it is written: “And all the wives will give honor [yekar] to their husbands” (Esther 1:20), and yekar is Aramaic for honor.

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא בִּשְׁאָר סְפָרִים, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: תְּפִלִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת אֵין נִכְתָּבִין אֶלָּא אַשּׁוּרִית, וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ הִתִּירוּ יְוָנִית.

Rav Ashi suggested a different explanation and said: When that baraita is taught it is taught with regard to the rest of the books of the Bible, other than the Torah. And it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Phylacteries and mezuzot are written only in Ashurit; and our Rabbis permitted writing them in Greek as well.

וְהָכְתִיב ״וְהָיוּ״! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: סְפָרִים נִכְתָּבִים בְּכׇל לָשׁוֹן, וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ הִתִּירוּ יְוָנִית. הִתִּירוּ?! מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא אָסַר!

The Gemara asks: How did our Rabbis permit this? Isn’t it written with regard to phylacteries and mezuzot: “And these words shall be” (Deuteronomy 6:6), indicating that their language may not be changed. Rather, say that this is what the baraita is saying: Torah scrolls are written in any language; and our Rabbis permitted writing them in Greek as well. Once again the Gemara asks: Our Rabbis permitted? By inference, apparently the first tanna prohibits writing a Torah scroll in Greek. However, he explicitly permits writing a Torah scroll in any language.

אֶלָּא אֵימָא: רַבּוֹתֵינוּ לֹא הִתִּירוּ שֶׁיִּכָּתְבוּ אֶלָּא יְוָנִית. וְתַנְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אַף כְּשֶׁהִתִּירוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ יְוָנִית — לֹא הִתִּירוּ אֶלָּא בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה,

Rather, say in explanation of the baraita: And our Rabbis permitted them to be written only in Greek. And it is taught in another baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: Even when our Rabbis permitted Greek, they permitted it only in a Torah scroll, and not for other books of the Bible, which must be written only in Hebrew.

וּמִשּׁוּם מַעֲשֶׂה דְּתַלְמַי הַמֶּלֶךְ. דְּתַנְיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּתַלְמַי הַמֶּלֶךְ שֶׁכִּינֵּס שִׁבְעִים וּשְׁנַיִם זְקֵנִים וְהִכְנִיסָן בְּשִׁבְעִים וּשְׁנַיִם בָּתִּים וְלֹא גִּילָּה לָהֶם עַל מָה כִּינְסָן. וְנִכְנַס אֵצֶל כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד, וְאָמַר לָהֶם: כִּתְבוּ לִי תּוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה רַבְּכֶם. נָתַן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּלֵב כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד עֵצָה וְהִסְכִּימוּ כּוּלָּן לְדַעַת אַחַת.

The Gemara continues: And this was due to the incident of King Ptolemy, as it is taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving King Ptolemy of Egypt, who assembled seventy-two Elders from the Sages of Israel, and put them into seventy-two separate rooms, and did not reveal to them for what purpose he assembled them, so that they would not coordinate their responses. He entered and approached each and every one, and said to each of them: Write for me a translation of the Torah of Moses your teacher. The Holy One, Blessed be He, placed wisdom in the heart of each and every one, and they all agreed to one common understanding. Not only did they all translate the text correctly, they all introduced the same changes into the translated text.

וְכָתְבוּ לוֹ: ״אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא בְּרֵאשִׁית״. ״אֶעֱשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצֶלֶם וּבִדְמוּת״.

And they wrote for him: God created in the beginning [bereshit], reversing the order of the words in the first phrase in the Torah that could be misinterpreted as: “Bereshit created God” (Genesis 1:1). They did so to negate those who believe in the preexistence of the world and those who maintain that there are two powers in the world: One is Bereshit, who created the second, God. And they wrote: I shall make man in image and in likeness, rather than: “Let us make man in our image and in our likeness” (Genesis 1:26), as from there too one could mistakenly conclude that there are multiple powers and that God has human form.

״וַיְכַל בְּיוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי וַיִּשְׁבּוֹת בְּיוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי״. ״זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאוֹ״, וְלֹא כָּתְבוּ ״בְּרָאָם״.

Instead of: “And on the seventh day God concluded His work” (Genesis 2:2), which could have been understood as though some of His work was completed on Shabbat itself, they wrote: And on the sixth day He concluded His work, and He rested on the seventh day. They also wrote: Male and female He created him, and they did not write as it is written in the Torah: “Male and female He created them” (Genesis 5:2), to avoid the impression that there is a contradiction between this verse and the verse: “And God created man” (Genesis 1:27), which indicates that God created one person.

״הָבָה אֵרְדָה וְאָבְלָה שָׁם שְׂפָתָם״. ״וַתִּצְחַק שָׂרָה בִּקְרוֹבֶיהָ״.

Instead of: “Come, let us go down, and there confound their language” (Genesis 11:7), which indicates multiple authorities, they wrote in the singular: Come, let me go down, and there confound their language. In addition, they replaced the verse: “And Sarah laughed within herself [bekirba]” (Genesis 18:12), with: And Sarah laughed among her relatives [bikroveha]. They made this change to distinguish between Sarah’s laughter, which God criticized, and Abraham’s laughter, to which no reaction is recorded. Based on the change, Sarah’s laughter was offensive because she voiced it to others.

״כִּי בְאַפָּם הָרְגוּ שׁוֹר וּבִרְצוֹנָם עִקְּרוּ אֵבוּס״. ״וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֶת בָּנָיו וַיַּרְכִּיבֵם עַל נוֹשֵׂא בְּנֵי אָדָם״.

They also altered the verse: “For in their anger they slew a man and in their self-will they slaughtered an ox” (Genesis 49:6), to read: For in their anger they slew an ox and in their self-will they uprooted a trough, to avoid the charge that Jacob’s sons were murderers. Instead of: “And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon a donkey” (Exodus 4:20), they wrote: And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon a carrier of people, which could be understood as referring to a horse or a camel rather than the lowly donkey.

״וּמוֹשַׁב בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָשְׁבוּ בְּמִצְרָיִם וּבִשְׁאָר אֲרָצוֹת אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה״. ״וַיִּשְׁלַח אֶת זַאֲטוּטֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״. ״וְאֶל זַאֲטוּטֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ״.

Instead of: “And the residence of the children of Israel, who resided in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years” (Exodus 12:40), which when read literally is imprecise, for they did not dwell in Egypt that long, they wrote: And the residence of the children of Israel, who resided in Egypt and in other lands, was four hundred years. Instead of: “And he sent the youth of the children of Israel, who brought burnt-offerings” (Exodus 24:5), which evokes the question of why young men were sent to perform that service, they wrote: And he sent the elect [za’atutei] of the children of Israel. The same term was substituted again several verses later, rendering the verse: “And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand” (Exodus 24:11), as: And upon the elect of the children of Israel He laid not His hand.

״לֹא חֶמֶד אֶחָד מֵהֶם נָשָׂאתִי״. ״אֲשֶׁר חָלַק ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֹתָם לְהָאִיר לְכׇל הָעַמִּים״.

Instead of Moses’ assertion: “I have not taken one donkey [ḥamor] from them” (Numbers 16:15), they wrote in more general terms: “I have not taken one item of value [ḥemed] from them,” to prevent the impression that Moses took other items. To the verse that discusses the worship of the sun and the moon, about which it is written: “Which the Lord your God has allotted to all the nations” (Deuteronomy 4:19), they added a word to make it read: “Which the Lord your God has allotted to give light to all the nations,” to prevent the potential misinterpretation that the heavenly bodies were given to the gentiles so that they may worship them.

״וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיַּעֲבוֹד אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוִּיתִי לְעוֹבְדָם״.

The verse: “And has gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or the moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded” (Deuteronomy 17:3), could be understood as indicating that God did not command their existence, i.e., these entities created themselves. Therefore, when these Elders translated the verse they added a word to the end of the verse to make it read: Which I have not commanded to serve them.

וְכָתְבוּ לוֹ: ״אֶת צְעִירַת הָרַגְלַיִם״, וְלֹא כָּתְבוּ לוֹ ״אֶת הָאַרְנֶבֶת״, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל תַּלְמַי אַרְנֶבֶת שְׁמָהּ, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר שָׂחֲקוּ בִּי הַיְּהוּדִים וְהֵטִילוּ שֵׁם אִשְׁתִּי בַּתּוֹרָה.

And in the list of unclean animals they wrote for him: The short-legged beast [tze’irat haraglayim]. And they did not write for him: “And the hare [arnevet]” (Leviticus 11:6), since the name of Ptolemy’s wife was Arnevet, so that he would not say: The Jews have mocked me and inserted my wife’s name in the Torah. Therefore, they did not refer to the hare by name, but by one of its characteristic features.

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף בַּסְּפָרִים לֹא הִתִּירוּ שֶׁיִּכָּתְבוּ אֶלָּא יְוָנִית. אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אָמַר קְרָא: ״יַפְתְּ אֱלֹהִים לְיֶפֶת וְיִשְׁכֹּן בְּאׇהֳלֵי שֵׁם״, דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל יֶפֶת יִהְיוּ בְּאׇהֳלֵי שֵׁם.

The mishna cites that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even with regard to Torah scrolls, the Sages permitted them to be written only in Greek. Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? He based his opinion on an allusion in the Torah, as the verse states: “God shall enlarge Japheth, and He shall dwell in the tents of Shem” (Genesis 9:27), indicating that the words of Japheth shall be in the tents of Shem. The language of Javan, who is the forbear of the Greek nation and one of the descendants of Japheth, will also serve as a sacred language in the tents of Shem, where Torah is studied.

וְאֵימָא גּוֹמֶר וּמָגוֹג? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״יַפְתְּ אֱלֹהִים לְיֶפֶת״, יַפְיוּתוֹ שֶׁל יֶפֶת יְהֵא בְּאׇהֳלֵי שֵׁם.

The Gemara asks: And say that it is the languages of Gomer and Magog that serve as sacred languages, as they too were descendants of Japheth (see Genesis 10:2). The Gemara answers that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: This is the reason, as it is written: “God shall enlarge [yaft] Japheth [Yefet].” Yaft is etymologically similar to the Hebrew term for beauty [yofi]. The verse teaches that the beauty of Japheth shall be in the tents of Shem, and Greek is the most beautiful of the languages of the descendants of Japheth.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵין בֵּין כֹּהֵן מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה לִמְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים אֶלָּא פַּר הַבָּא עַל כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת.

MISHNA: The difference between a High Priest anointed with the oil of anointing, which was the method through which High Priests were consecrated until the oil was sequestered toward the end of the First Temple period, and one consecrated by donning multiple garments unique to the High Priest, which was the practice during the Second Temple period, is only that the latter does not bring the bull that comes for transgression of any of the mitzvot. An anointed High Priest who unwittingly issued an erroneous halakhic ruling and acted upon that ruling, and transgressed a mitzva whose unwitting violation renders one liable to bring a sin-offering, is obligated to bring a sin-offering unique to one in his position.

אֵין בֵּין כֹּהֵן מְשַׁמֵּשׁ לְכֹהֵן שֶׁעָבַר אֶלָּא פַּר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה.

The difference between a High Priest currently serving in that capacity and a former High Priest, who temporarily filled that position when the High Priest was unfit for service, is only with regard to the bull brought by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, and the tenth of an ephah meal-offering brought daily by the High Priest. Each of these offerings is brought only by the current High Priest, and not by a former High Priest.

גְּמָ׳ הָא לְעִנְיַן פַּר יוֹם כִּפּוּרִים וַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה — זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין.

GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of the bull brought by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, and with regard to the tenth of an ephah meal-offering, both this, the anointed High Priest, and that, the High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments, are equal.

מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, [הָא תַּנְיָא]: מְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים מֵבִיא פַּר הַבָּא עַל כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא.

The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it would be difficult. Isn’t it taught in a baraita: A High Priest consecrated by donning the multiple garments unique to the High Priest brings the bull brought for the unwitting violation of any of the mitzvot; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He does not bring that offering.

מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר — דְּתַנְיָא: ״מָשִׁיחַ״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה, מְרוּבֵּה בְגָדִים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הַמָּשִׁיחַ״.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? It is as it is taught in a baraita that it is written: “If the anointed priest shall sin” (Leviticus 4:3). From the word anointed, I have derived only that this halakha applies to a High Priest who was actually anointed with the oil of anointing. From where do I derive that even a High Priest consecrated by donning the multiple garments is also included in this halakha? The verse states: “The anointed,” with the definite article, indicating that the halakha applies to every High Priest.

בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְנָא — דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אֵין בֵּין כֹּהֵן מְשַׁמֵּשׁ לְכֹהֵן שֶׁעָבַר אֶלָּא פַּר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה. הָא לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶן — זֶה וָזֶה שָׁוִין, אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵירַע בּוֹ פְּסוּל וּמִינּוּ כֹּהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, רִאשׁוֹן — חוֹזֵר לַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ, שֵׁנִי — כׇּל מִצְוֹת כְּהוּנָּה גְּדוֹלָה עָלָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: רִאשׁוֹן — חוֹזֵר לַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ, שֵׁנִי — אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לֹא לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וְלֹא לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט.

The Gemara asks: How did we establish the mishna? We established that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Say the latter clause of the mishna: The difference between a High Priest currently serving in that capacity and a former High Priest is only with regard to the bull brought on Yom Kippur, and the tenth of an ephah meal-offering. The Gemara infers that with regard to all other matters, both this, a High Priest currently serving, and that, a former High Priest, are equal. If so we have arrived at the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: If temporary disqualification befell the High Priest, and they appointed another priest in his stead, then after the cause of disqualification of the first priest passes, he returns to his service as High Priest. With regard to the second priest, all of the mitzvot of the High Priest are incumbent upon him; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The first returns to his service; the second is fit to serve neither as a High Priest nor as a common priest.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵף בֶּן אִלֵּם מִצִּיפּוֹרִי שֶׁאֵירַע בּוֹ פְּסוּל בְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וּמִינּוּהוּ תַּחְתָּיו, וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים, וְאָמְרוּ: רִאשׁוֹן — חוֹזֵר לַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ, שֵׁנִי — אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לֹא לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל וְלֹא לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט.

And Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving the priest Rabbi Yosef ben Elem of Tzippori, who, when disqualification befell a High Priest, the priests appointed him in his stead. And after the cause of the disqualification was resolved, the incident came before the Sages for a ruling with regard to the status of Rabbi Yosef ben Elem. And the Sages said: The original High Priest returns to his service, while the second is fit to serve neither as High Priest nor as a common priest.

כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל — מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָה, כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט — מִשּׁוּם מַעֲלִין בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין. רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן, וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר!

The Gemara explains: Neither as a High Priest, due to hatred, jealousy, and bitterness that would arise if there were two High Priests with equal standing in the Temple; nor as a common priest, because the principle is: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Once he has served as a High Priest he cannot be restored to the position of a common priest. Is that to say that the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Meir, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir?

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, אִין: רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: רַבִּי הִיא, וְנָסֵיב לַהּ אַלִּיבָּא דְתַנָּאֵי.

Rav Ḥisda said: Indeed, the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rav Yosef said: The entire mishna is according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he formulates it according to the opinions of different tanna’im, that is to say, resulting in a third opinion, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to a High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments, and the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to a former High Priest.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵין בֵּין בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה לַבָּמָה קְטַנָּה אֶלָּא פְּסָחִים. זֶה הַכְּלָל: כֹּל שֶׁהוּא נִידָּר וְנִידָּב — קָרֵב בְּבָמָה, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ לֹא נִידָּר וְלֹא נִידָּב — אֵינוֹ קָרֵב בְּבָמָה.

MISHNA: The difference between a great, public altar, such as the altars established at Nob and Gibeon, which served as religious centers following the destruction of the Tabernacle in Shiloh, and a small, personal altar on which individuals would sacrifice their offerings, is only with regard to Paschal lambs, which may not be sacrificed on a small altar. This is the principle: Any offering that is vowed or contributed voluntarily is sacrificed on a small altar, and any offering that is neither vowed nor contributed voluntarily, but rather is compulsory, e.g., a sin-offering, is not sacrificed on a small altar.

גְּמָ׳ פְּסָחִים וְתוּ לָא? אֵימָא כְּעֵין פְּסָחִים.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Is the difference only Paschal lambs and nothing more? The continuation of the mishna indicates that there are additional differences. The Gemara answers: Say that the difference between them is only with regard to offerings that are similar to Paschal lambs.

מַנִּי — רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף צִבּוּר לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ אֶלָּא פְּסָחִים וְחוֹבוֹת שֶׁקָּבוּעַ לָהֶם זְמַן, אֲבָל חוֹבוֹת שֶׁאֵין קָבוּעַ לָהֶם זְמַן — הָכָא וְהָכָא לָא קְרוּב.

The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion is the mishna taught? The Gemara answers: It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Even the public sacrificed only Paschal lambs and compulsory offerings for which there is a set time, like fixed communal offerings. However, compulsory offerings for which there is not a set time, e.g., sin-offerings brought for an unwitting transgression committed by the community, are sacrificed neither here on a small altar nor here on a great altar; they are sacrificed only in the Temple.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵין בֵּין שִׁילֹה לִירוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶלָּא שֶׁבְּשִׁילֹה אוֹכְלִין קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בְּכׇל הָרוֹאֶה, וּבִירוּשָׁלַיִם לִפְנִים מִן הַחוֹמָה.

MISHNA: The difference between the Tabernacle in Shilo and the Temple in Jerusalem is only that in Shiloh one eats offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g., individual peace-offerings, thanks-offerings, and the Paschal lamb, and also the second tithe, in any place that overlooks Shiloh, as Shiloh was not a walled city and any place within its Shabbat boundary was regarded as part of the city. And in Jerusalem one eats those consecrated items only within the walls.

וְכָאן וְכָאן, קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים נֶאֱכָלִין לִפְנִים מִן הַקְּלָעִים. קְדוּשַּׁת שִׁילֹה —

And here, in Shiloh, and there, in Jerusalem, offerings of the most sacred order are eaten only within the hangings. The Tabernacle courtyard in Shiloh was surrounded by hangings and the Temple courtyard in Jerusalem was surrounded by a wall. There is another difference: With regard to the sanctity of Shiloh,

יֵשׁ אַחֲרֶיהָ הֶיתֵּר, וּקְדוּשַּׁת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם — אֵין אַחֲרֶיהָ הֶיתֵּר.

after the Tabernacle was destroyed, there is permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars. But with regard to the sanctity of Jerusalem, after the Temple was destroyed, there is no permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars, as the prohibition remains intact.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁמַּקְרִיבִין בְּבֵית חוֹנְיוֹ בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה. קָסָבַר: בֵּית חוֹנְיוֹ לָאו בֵּית עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הִיא, וְקָא סָבַר: קְדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה — קִידְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְלֹא קִידְּשָׁה לְעָתִיד לָבוֹא.

GEMARA: Rabbi Yitzḥak said: I heard that one sacrifices offerings in the temple of Onias in Egypt at the present time. The Gemara cites the basis for the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak. He maintains that the temple of Onias is not a house of idol worship but rather a temple devoted to the service of God, and he maintains that the initial consecration sanctified Jerusalem for its time and did not sanctify Jerusalem forever. Therefore, after the destruction of the Temple, the sanctity of Jerusalem lapsed and the sacrifice of offerings elsewhere was no longer prohibited. For these reasons it was permitted to sacrifice offerings in the temple of Onias after the Temple was destroyed.

דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי לֹא בָּאתֶם עַד עָתָּה אֶל הַמְּנוּחָה וְאֶל הַנַּחֲלָה״. ״מְנוּחָה״ — זוֹ שִׁילֹה, ״נַחֲלָה״ — זוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, מַקִּישׁ נַחֲלָה לִמְנוּחָה: מָה ״מְנוּחָה״ יֵשׁ אַחֲרֶיהָ הֶיתֵּר, אַף ״נַחֲלָה״ יֵשׁ אַחֲרֶיהָ הֶיתֵּר.

The Gemara cites the source of this halakha. It is as it is written: “For you are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance” (Deuteronomy 12:9), which is interpreted: “Rest,” this is Shiloh; “inheritance,” this is Jerusalem. The verse juxtaposes and likens inheritance to rest: Just as in the place of rest, Shiloh, after its destruction there is permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars, so too in the place of inheritance, Jerusalem, after its destruction there is permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars.

אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אָמַרְתָּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא. אֲמַר רָבָא: הָאֱלֹהִים! אַמְרַהּ, וּגְמִירְנָא לַהּ מִינֵּיהּ.

The Gemara reports that the other Sages said to Rabbi Yitzḥak: Did you say this halakha with regard to the temple of Onias? He said to them: No, I did not say that. Rava said, reinforcing his assertion with an oath: By God! Rabbi Yitzḥak did in fact say this, and I myself learned it from him, but he later retracted this ruling.

וּמַאי טַעְמָא קָא הָדַר בֵּיהּ? מִשּׁוּם קֻשְׁיָא דְּרַב מָרִי. דְּמוֹתֵיב רַב מָרִי: קְדוּשַּׁת שִׁילֹה — יֵשׁ אַחֲרֶיהָ הֶיתֵּר. קְדוּשַּׁת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם — אֵין אַחֲרֶיהָ הֶיתֵּר. וְעוֹד תְּנַן: מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ לִירוּשָׁלַיִם נֶאֶסְרוּ הַבָּמוֹת, וְלֹא הָיָה לָהֶם עוֹד הֶיתֵּר, וְהִיא הָיְתָה נַחֲלָה.

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason he retracted his ruling? The Gemara explains: It is due to the difficulty raised by Rav Mari, as Rav Mari raised an objection from the mishna: With regard to the sanctity of Shiloh, after the Tabernacle was destroyed there is permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars. But with regard to the sanctity of Jerusalem, after the Temple was destroyed there is no permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars. And furthermore, we learned in a mishna (Zevaḥim 112b): Once they came to Jerusalem, improvised altars were prohibited, and they did not again have permission to do so, and Jerusalem became the everlasting inheritance.

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. (דְּתַנְיָא) אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: שָׁמַעְתִּי כְּשֶׁהָיוּ בּוֹנִין בַּהֵיכָל, עוֹשִׂין קְלָעִים לַהֵיכָל וּקְלָעִים לָעֲזָרָה. אֶלָּא שֶׁבַּהֵיכָל בּוֹנִין מִבַּחוּץ, וּבָעֲזָרָה בּוֹנִין מִבִּפְנִים.

The Gemara comments: This matter is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a mishna (Eduyyot 8:6): Rabbi Eliezer said: I heard that when they were building the Sanctuary in the Second Temple, they fashioned temporary hangings for the Sanctuary and temporary hangings for the courtyard to serve as partitions until construction of the stone walls was completed. The difference was only that in building the Sanctuary, the workers built the walls outside the hangings, without entering, and in the courtyard, the workers built the walls inside the hangings.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁמַּקְרִיבִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בַּיִת, אוֹכְלִין קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין קְלָעִים, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין חוֹמָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקְּדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִידְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְקִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא. מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר לֹא קִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא.

And Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard that one sacrifices offerings on the altar even though there is no Temple, one eats offerings of the most sacred order in the Temple courtyard even if there are no hangings, and one eats offerings of lesser sanctity and second tithe produce in Jerusalem even if there is no wall surrounding the city, due to the fact that the initial consecration sanctified Jerusalem for its time and also sanctified Jerusalem forever. Even if the walls do not exist, the sanctity remains intact. The Gemara concludes: From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua based his opinion on the principle that the initial sanctification sanctified Jerusalem forever, by inference one can conclude that Rabbi Eliezer holds: It did not sanctify Jerusalem forever. Apparently, this issue is subject to a dispute between tanna’im.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא קְדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִידְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְקִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא, וּמָר — מַאי דִּשְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ קָאָמַר, וּמָר — מַאי דִּשְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ קָאָמַר. וְכִי תֵּימָא: קְלָעִים לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְמָה לִי? לִצְנִיעוּתָא בְּעָלְמָא.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: From where do you draw this inference? Perhaps everyone maintains that the initial consecration sanctified Jerusalem for its time and also sanctified Jerusalem forever. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, stated that tradition, which he heard from his teachers, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua, stated that tradition, which he heard from his teachers, and there is no dispute between them. And if you would say: Why then do I need hangings at all according to Rabbi Eliezer? The original sanctity remained when Jerusalem was not surrounded by walls, and the presence or absence of hangings is irrelevant as well. The Gemara answers: The hangings were established merely for seclusion, as it would have been unbecoming for the activity in this most sacred venue to be visible to all.

אֶלָּא כִּי הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: לָמָּה מָנוּ חֲכָמִים אֶת אֵלּוּ? שֶׁכְּשֶׁעָלוּ בְּנֵי הַגּוֹלָה מָצְאוּ אֶת אֵלּוּ וְקִידְּשׁוּם, אֲבָל הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת בָּטְלוּ מִשֶּׁבָּטְלָה הָאָרֶץ. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: קְדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִידְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְלֹא קִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא.

Rather, this matter is subject to the dispute between these tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: Why did the Sages enumerate these nine cities in tractate Arakhin as cities walled since the days of Joshua, son of Nun? Weren’t there many more? As, when the exiles ascended to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, they discovered these cities and consecrated them as walled cities; but the sanctity of the first walled cities enumerated in the book of Joshua was negated when settlement in the land was negated and the Jewish people were exiled. Apparently, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, maintains: The initial consecration sanctified Jerusalem for its time only and did not sanctify Jerusalem forever.

וּרְמִינְהוּ, אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וְכִי אֵלּוּ בִּלְבַד הָיוּ? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״שִׁשִּׁים עִיר כׇּל חֶבֶל אַרְגּוֹב״, וּכְתִיב: ״כָּל אֵלֶּה עָרִים בְּצוּרוֹת חוֹמָה גְבוֹהָה״. אֶלָּא לָמָּה מָנוּ חֲכָמִים אֶת אֵלּוּ? שֶׁכְּשֶׁעָלוּ בְּנֵי הַגּוֹלָה מָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ וְקִידְּשׁוּם.

The Gemara raises a contradiction from a different baraita. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: Were these cities that were enumerated in tractate Arakhin the only walled cities? Wasn’t it already stated: “Sixty cities, all the region of Argov” (Deuteronomy 3:4), and concerning these cities it is written: “All these cities were fortified with high walls, gates and bars” (Deuteronomy 3:5), indicating that there were a great number of walled cities? Rather, why then did the Sages enumerate these specific cities? It is due to the fact that when the exiles ascended from Babylonia they discovered these and consecrated them as walled cities.

קִידְּשׁוּם?!

The Gemara asks: Consecrated them? If their sanctity remained, why was it necessary to consecrate them?

הַשְׁתָּא [הָא] אָמְרִי לָא צְרִיכָא לְקַדּוֹשֵׁי! אֶלָּא: מָצְאוּ אֶת אֵלּוּ וּמְנָאוּם.

Now, didn’t they say later in the same baraita that it is not necessary to consecrate them? Rather, this is what the baraita means to say: It is due to the fact that when the exiles ascended from Babylonia they discovered these and enumerated them.

וְלֹא אֵלּוּ בִּלְבַד, אֶלָּא כׇּל שֶׁתַּעֲלֶה לְךָ מָסוֹרֶת בְּיָדְךָ מֵאֲבוֹתֶיךָ שֶׁמּוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן — כׇּל הַמִּצְוֹת הַלָּלוּ נוֹהֲגִין בָּהּ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקְּדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִידְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְקִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא. קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אַדְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

The baraita continues. And not only these, but in any city with regard to which you receive a tradition from your ancestors that it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun, all these mitzvot are observed in it, due to the fact that the initial consecration sanctified Eretz Yisrael for its time and sanctified Eretz Yisrael forever. This is difficult, as there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yishmael and another statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

תְּרֵי תַנָּאֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, הָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר יוֹסֵי אַמְרַהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹא חוֹמָה״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עַכְשָׁיו וְהָיָה לוֹ קוֹדֶם לָכֵן.

The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between two later tanna’im, who hold according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. Each transmitted Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion in a different manner. And if you wish, say instead that one of the traditions is mistaken, as with regard to this statement, Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei said it, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said that the verse states: “Which has [lo] a wall” (Leviticus 25:30). The word lo is written with an alef, meaning no, that it does not have a wall, but its vocalization is in the sense of its homonym, lo with a vav, meaning that it has a wall. This indicates that even though it does not presently have a wall, as it was destroyed, but it had a wall previously, it retains its status as a walled city. It is Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that the first consecration sanctified Jerusalem forever.

״וַיְהִי בִּימֵי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ״, אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: דָּבָר זֶה מָסוֹרֶת בְּיָדֵינוּ מֵאַנְשֵׁי כְּנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה, כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַיְהִי״ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן צַעַר.

§ The Gemara returns to the primary topic of this chapter, the book of Esther. The Gemara cites various aggadic interpretations of the verses of the Megilla. The opening verse of the Megilla states: “And it came to pass [vayhi] in the days of Ahasuerus” (Esther 1:1). Rabbi Levi said, and some say that it was Rabbi Yonatan who said: This matter is a tradition that we received from the members of the Great Assembly. Anywhere that the word vayhi is stated, it is an ominous term indicating nothing other than impending grief, as if the word were a contraction of the words vai and hi, meaning woe and mourning.

״וַיְהִי בִּימֵי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ״ — הֲוָה הָמָן. ״וַיְהִי בִּימֵי שְׁפוֹט הַשּׁוֹפְטִים״ — הֲוָה רָעָב. ״וַיְהִי כִּי הֵחֵל הָאָדָם לָרוֹב״ — ״וַיַּרְא ה׳ כִּי רַבָּה רָעַת הָאָדָם״.

The Gemara cites several proofs corroborating this interpretation. “And it came to pass [vayhi] in the days of Ahasuerus” led to grief, as there was Haman. “And it came to pass [vayhi] in the days when the judges ruled” (Ruth 1:1) introduces a period when there was famine. “And it came to pass [vayhi], when men began to multiply” (Genesis 6:1) is immediately followed by the verse: “And the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth” (Genesis 6:5).

״וַיְהִי בְּנׇסְעָם מִקֶּדֶם״ — ״הָבָה נִבְנֶה לָּנוּ עִיר״. ״וַיְהִי בִּימֵי אַמְרָפֶל״ — ״עָשׂוּ מִלְחָמָה״. ״וַיְהִי בִּהְיוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּירִיחוֹ״ — ״וְחַרְבּוֹ שְׁלוּפָה בְּיָדוֹ״. ״וַיְהִי ה׳ אֶת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ״ — ״וַיִּמְעֲלוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״. ״וַיְהִי אִישׁ אֶחָד מִן הָרָמָתַיִם״ — ״כִּי אֶת חַנָּה אָהֵב וַה׳ סָגַר רַחְמָהּ״.

“And it came to pass [vayhi] as they journeyed from the east” (Genesis 11:2) is followed by: “Come, let us build us a city” (Genesis 11:4), which led to the sin of the Tower of Babel. The Gemara cites further examples: “And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel” (Genesis 14:1), about whom it is stated: “These made war” (Genesis 14:2). Another verse states: “And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho” (Joshua 5:13), it was there that he saw an angel “with his sword drawn in his hand” as a warning. It is written: “And the Lord was [vayhi] with Joshua” (Joshua 6:27), and immediately afterward: “But the children of Israel committed a trespass” (Joshua 7:1). It states: “And it came to pass that there was a certain man of Ramathaim” (I Samuel 1:1), and it mentions shortly afterward Hannah’s inability to conceive: “For he loved Hannah, but the Lord had closed up her womb” (I Samuel 1:5).

״וַיְהִי (כִּי) זָקֵן שְׁמוּאֵל״ — ״וְלֹא הָלְכוּ בָנָיו בִּדְרָכָיו״. ״וַיְהִי דָוִד לְכׇל דְּרָכָיו מַשְׂכִּיל [וַה׳ עִמּוֹ]״ — ״וַיְהִי שָׁאוּל עוֹיֵן אֶת דָּוִד״. ״וַיְהִי כִּי יָשַׁב הַמֶּלֶךְ בְּבֵיתוֹ״ — ״רַק אַתָּה לֹא תִבְנֶה הַבָּיִת״.

Similarly, the verse states: “And it came to pass, when Samuel was old” (I Samuel 8:1), and then it is written: “And his sons did not walk in his ways” (I Samuel 8:3). Also, it states: “And it came to pass that David was successful in all his ways, and the Lord was with him” (I Samuel 18:14), and only a few verses prior it is written: “And Saul viewed David with suspicion” (I Samuel 18:9). In another instance, the verse states: “And it came to pass, when the king dwelt in his house” (II Samuel 7:1). Here King David mentioned his desire to build a temple for God, but it is written elsewhere that he was told: “Yet you shall not build the house” (II Chronicles 6:9).

וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי״, וְתַנְיָא: אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם הָיְתָה שִׂמְחָה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כְּיוֹם שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ בּוֹ שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ, כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וַיְהִי בְּיוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וַיְהִי (בֹקֶר) יוֹם אֶחָד״!

After citing several verses where vayhi portends grief, the Gemara mentions a number of verses that seem to indicate otherwise. But isn’t it written: “And it came to pass [vayhi] on the eighth day” (Leviticus 9:1), which was the day of the dedication of the Tabernacle? And it is taught in a baraita with regard to that day: On that day there was joy before the Holy One, Blessed be He, similar to the joy that existed on the day on which the heavens and earth were created. The Gemara cites a verbal analogy in support of this statement. It is written here, with regard to the dedication of the Tabernacle: “And it came to pass [vayhi] on the eighth day,” and it is written there, in the Creation story: “And it was [vayhi] evening, and it was morning, one day” (Genesis 1:5). This indicates that there was joy on the eighth day, when the Tabernacle was dedicated, similar to the joy that existed on the day the world was created. Apparently, the term vayhi is not necessarily a portent of grief.

הָא שְׁכֵיב נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא.

The Gemara answers: This verse does not contradict the principle. On the day of the dedication of the Tabernacle, a calamity also befell the people, as Nadav and Avihu died.

וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי בִשְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה״! וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר רָאָה יַעֲקֹב אֶת רָחֵל״! וְהָכְתִיב ״וַיְהִי עֶרֶב וַיְהִי בֹקֶר יוֹם אֶחָד״! וְהָאִיכָּא שֵׁנִי! וְהָאִיכָּא שְׁלִישִׁי! וְהָאִיכָּא טוּבָא!

The Gemara cites additional verses where vayhi is not indicative of impending grief: But isn’t it written: “And it came to pass [vayhi] in the four hundred and eightieth year” (I Kings 6:1), which discusses the joyous occasion of the building of the Temple? And furthermore, isn’t it written: “And it came to pass [vayhi] when Jacob saw Rachel” (Genesis 29:10), which was a momentous occasion? And isn’t it written: “And it was [vayhi] evening, and it was [vayhi] morning, one day” (Genesis 1:5)? And isn’t there the second day of Creation, and isn’t there the third day, where the term vayhi is used? And aren’t there many verses in the Bible in which the term vayhi appears and no grief ensues? Apparently, the proposed principle is incorrect.

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כׇּל ״וַיְהִי״ — אִיכָּא הָכִי וְאִיכָּא הָכִי, ״וַיְהִי בִּימֵי״ — אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן צַעַר.

Rather, Rav Ashi said: With regard to every instance of vayhi alone, there are some that mean this, grief, and there are some that mean that, joy. However, wherever the phrase “and it came to pass in the days of [vayhi bimei]” is used in the Bible, it is nothing other than a term of impending grief.

חַמְשָׁה ״וַיְהִי בִּימֵי״ הָווּ: ״וַיְהִי בִּימֵי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ״, ״וַיְהִי בִּימֵי שְׁפוֹט הַשּׁוֹפְטִים״, ״וַיְהִי בִּימֵי אַמְרָפֶל״, ״וַיְהִי בִּימֵי אָחָז״, ״וַיְהִי בִּימֵי יְהוֹיָקִים״.

The Gemara states that there are five instances of vayhi bimei in the Bible. “And it came to pass in the days of [vayhi bimei] Ahasuerus”; “And it came to pass in the days [vayhi bimei] when the judges ruled”; “And it came to pass in the days of [vayhi bimei] Amraphel”; “And it came to pass in the days of [vayhi bimei] Ahaz” (Isaiah 7:1); “And it came to pass in the days of [vayhi bimei] Jehoiakim” (Jeremiah 1:3). In all those incidents, grief ensued.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי, דָּבָר זֶה מָסוֹרֶת בְּיָדֵינוּ מֵאֲבוֹתֵינוּ: אָמוֹץ וַאֲמַצְיָה — אֲחֵי הָווּ. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן?

§ Apropos the tradition cited by Rabbi Levi above, the Gemara cites additional traditions that he transmitted. Rabbi Levi said: This matter is a tradition that we received from our ancestors: Amoz, father of Isaiah, and Amaziah, king of Judea, were brothers. The Gemara questions: What novel element is this statement teaching us?

כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל כַּלָּה שֶׁהִיא צְנוּעָה בְּבֵית חָמִיהָ — זוֹכָה וְיוֹצְאִין מִמֶּנָּה מְלָכִים וּנְבִיאִים. מְנָלַן? מִתָּמָר, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּרְאֶהָ יְהוּדָה וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לְזוֹנָה כִּי כִסְּתָה פָּנֶיהָ״, מִשּׁוּם דְּכִסְּתָה פָּנֶיהָ ״וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לְזוֹנָה״?

The Gemara responds: It is in accordance with that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Any bride who is modest in the house of her father-in-law merits that kings and prophets will emerge from her. From where do we derive this? From Tamar, as it is written: “When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a prostitute; for she had covered her face” (Genesis 38:15). Can it be that because Tamar covered her face he thought her to be a prostitute? On the contrary, a harlot tends to uncover her face.

אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּכִסְּתָה פָּנֶיהָ בְּבֵית חָמִיהָ, וְלָא הֲוָה יָדַע לַהּ, זָכְתָה וְיָצְאוּ מִמֶּנָּה מְלָכִים וּנְבִיאִים. מְלָכִים — מִדָּוִד, נְבִיאִים — דְּאָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי, מָסוֹרֶת בְּיָדֵינוּ מֵאֲבוֹתֵינוּ: אָמוֹץ וַאֲמַצְיָה אַחִים הָיוּ, וּכְתִיב: ״חֲזוֹן יְשַׁעְיָהוּ בֶן אָמוֹץ״.

Rather, because she covered her face in the house of her father-in-law and he was not familiar with her appearance, Judah didn’t recognize Tamar, thought she was a harlot, and sought to have sexual relations with her. Ultimately, she merited that kings and prophets emerged from her. Kings emerged from her through David, who was a descendant of Tamar’s son, Peretz. However, there is no explicit mention that she was the forebear of prophets. This is derived from that which Rabbi Levi said: This matter is a tradition that we received from our ancestors. Amoz, father of Isaiah, and Amaziah, king of Judea, were brothers, and it is written: “The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz” (Isaiah 1:1). Amoz was a member of the Davidic dynasty, and his son, the prophet Isaiah, was also a descendant of Tamar.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי, דָּבָר זֶה מָסוֹרֶת בְּיָדֵינוּ מֵאֲבוֹתֵינוּ: מְקוֹם אָרוֹן אֵינוֹ מִן הַמִּדָּה.

And Rabbi Levi said: This matter is a tradition that we received from our ancestors: The place of the Ark of the Covenant is not included in the measurement of the Holy of Holies in which it rested.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אָרוֹן שֶׁעָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה יֵשׁ לוֹ עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת לְכׇל רוּחַ, וּכְתִיב: ״וְלִפְנֵי הַדְּבִיר עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה אוֹרֶךְ״, וּכְתִיב: ״כְּנַף הַכְּרוּב הָאֶחָד עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת וּכְנַף הַכְּרוּב הָאֶחָד עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת״, אָרוֹן גּוּפֵיהּ הֵיכָא הֲוָה קָאֵי? אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: בְּנֵס הָיָה עוֹמֵד.

The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: The Ark crafted by Moses had ten cubits of empty space on each side. And it is written in the description of Solomon’s Temple: “And before the Sanctuary, which was twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth” (I Kings 6:20). The place “before the Sanctuary” is referring to the Holy of Holies. It was twenty by twenty cubits. If there were ten cubits of empty space on either side of the Ark, apparently the Ark itself occupied no space. And it is written: And the wing of one of the cherubs was ten cubits and the wing of the other cherub was ten cubits; the wings of the cherubs occupied the entire area. If so, where was the Ark itself standing? Rather, must one not conclude from it that the Ark stood by means of a miracle and occupied no space?

רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן פָּתַח לַהּ פִּיתְחָא לְהַאי פָּרַשְׁתָּא מֵהָכָא: ״וְקַמְתִּי עֲלֵיהֶם וְגוֹ׳ וְהִכְרַתִּי לְבָבֶל שֵׁם וּשְׁאָר וְנִין וָנֶכֶד נְאֻם ה׳״. ״שֵׁם״ — זֶה הַכְּתָב, ״שְׁאָר״ — זֶה לְשׁוֹן, ״נִין״ — זֶה מַלְכוּת, ״וָנֶכֶד״ — זוֹ וַשְׁתִּי.

§ The Gemara cites prologues utilized by various Sages to introduce study of the Megilla: Rabbi Yonatan introduced this passage, the book of Esther, with an introduction from here: “For I will rise up against them, says the Lord of hosts, and cut off from Babylonia name, and remnant, and offspring [nin], and posterity, says the Lord” (Isaiah 14:22). This verse may be interpreted homiletically: “Name,” this is the writing of ancient Babylonia that will disappear from the world. “Remnant,” this is the language of ancient Babylonia. “Offspring,” this is their kingdom. And “posterity,” this is Vashti, who according to tradition was Nebuchadnezzar’s granddaughter, and the book of Esther relates how she too was removed from the throne.

רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי, פָּתַח לַהּ פִּיתְחָא לְהַאי פָּרַשְׁתָּא מֵהָכָא: ״תַּחַת הַנַּעֲצוּץ יַעֲלֶה בְרוֹשׁ וְתַחַת הַסִּרְפַּד יַעֲלֶה הֲדַס״.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “Instead of the thorn shall the cypress come up, and instead of the nettle shall the myrtle come up; and it shall be to the Lord for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off” (Isaiah 55:13). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani interpreted the verse homiletically as referring to the righteous individuals who superseded the wicked ones in the book of Esther.

״תַּחַת הַנַּעֲצוּץ״ — תַּחַת הָמָן הָרָשָׁע שֶׁעָשָׂה עַצְמוֹ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבְכֹל הַנַּעֲצוּצִים וּבְכֹל הַנַּהֲלוֹלִים״.

“Instead of the thorn”; this means instead of the wicked Haman. He is referred to as a thorn because he turned himself into an object of idol worship, as he decreed that all must prostrate themselves before him. The Gemara cites proof that the term thorn is used in connection with idol worship, as it is written: “And upon all thorns, and upon all brambles” (Isaiah 7:19), which is understood to be a reference to idol worship.

״יַעֲלֶה בְּרוֹשׁ״ — זֶה מָרְדֳּכַי שֶׁנִּקְרָא רֹאשׁ לְכׇל הַבְּשָׂמִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאַתָּה קַח לְךָ בְּשָׂמִים רֹאשׁ מׇר דְּרוֹר״, וּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן: ״מֹר דְּכֵי״.

The next section of the verse discusses what will replace the thorns, i.e., Haman: “Shall the cypress [berosh] come up”; this is Mordecai. Why is he called a cypress [berosh]? Because he was called the chief [rosh] of all the spices, as it is stated: “Take you also to yourself the chief spices, of pure myrrh [mar deror]” (Exodus 30:23), and we translate “pure myrrh,” into Aramaic as mari dakhei. Mordecai was like mari dakhi, the chief [rosh] of spices, and therefore he is called berosh.

״תַּחַת הַסִּרְפַּד״ — תַּחַת וַשְׁתִּי הָרְשָׁעָה בַּת בְּנוֹ שֶׁל נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר הָרָשָׁע שֶׁשָּׂרַף רְפִידַת בֵּית ה׳, דִּכְתִיב: ״רְפִידָתוֹ זָהָב״.

The verse continues: “And instead of the nettle [sirpad],” this means instead of the wicked Vashti. Why is she called a nettle [sirpad]? Because she was the daughter of the son of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, who burned the ceiling [saraf refidat] of the House of God, as it is written: “Its top [refidato] of gold” (Song of Songs 3:10).

״יַעֲלֶה הֲדַס״ — זוֹ אֶסְתֵּר הַצַּדֶּקֶת שֶׁנִּקְרֵאת הֲדַסָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי אוֹמֵן אֶת הֲדַסָּה״. ״וְהָיָה לַה׳ לְשֵׁם״ — זוֹ מִקְרָא מְגִילָּה. ״לְאוֹת עוֹלָם לֹא יִכָּרֵת״ — אֵלּוּ יְמֵי פוּרִים.

The next section of the verse states: “Shall the myrtle [hadas] come up”; this is the righteous Esther, who was called Hadassah in the Megilla, as it is stated: “And he had brought up Hadassah; that is, Esther” (Esther 2:7). The concluding section of the verse states: “And it shall be to the Lord for a name”; this is the reading of the Megilla. “For an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off”; these are the days of Purim.

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי פָּתַח לַהּ פִּיתְחָא לְהַאי פָּרַשְׁתָּא מֵהָכָא: ״וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׂשׂ ה׳ עֲלֵיכֶם לְהֵיטִיב אֶתְכֶם כֵּן יָשִׂישׂ… לְהָרַע אֶתְכֶם״.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to cause you to perish, and to destroy you” (Deuteronomy 28:63). The verse indicates that just as the Lord rejoiced in the good he did on behalf of Israel, so too, the Lord will rejoice to cause you harm.

וּמִי חָדֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּמַפַּלְתָּן שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים? וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״בְּצֵאת לִפְנֵי הֶחָלוּץ וְאוֹמְרִים הוֹדוּ לַה׳ כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ״, וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נֶאֱמַר ״כִּי טוֹב״ בְּהוֹדָאָה זוֹ? לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שָׂמֵחַ בְּמַפַּלְתָּן שֶׁל רְשָׁעִים.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked: Does the Holy One, Blessed be He, in fact rejoice over the downfall of the wicked? But it is written: “As they went out before the army, and say: Give thanks to the Lord, for His kindness endures forever” (II Chronicles 20:21), and Rabbi Yoḥanan said: For what reason were the words: “for He is good” not stated in this statement of thanksgiving, as the classic formulation is: “Give thanks to the Lord; for He is good; for His kindness endures forever” (I Chronicles 16:34)? Because the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not rejoice over the downfall of the wicked. Since this song was sung in the aftermath of a military victory, which involved the downfall of the wicked, the name of God was not mentioned for the good.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלֹא קָרַב זֶה אֶל זֶה כׇּל הַלָּיְלָה״ — בִּקְּשׁוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת לוֹמַר שִׁירָה, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַי טוֹבְעִין בַּיָּם, וְאַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים שִׁירָה?

And similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the one came not near the other all the night” (Exodus 14:20)? The ministering angels wanted to sing their song, for the angels would sing songs to each other, as it states: “And they called out to each other and said” (Isaiah 6:3), but the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: The work of My hands, the Egyptians, are drowning at sea, and you wish to say songs? This indicates that God does not rejoice over the downfall of the wicked.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הוּא אֵינוֹ שָׂשׂ, אֲבָל אֲחֵרִים מֵשִׂישׂ. וְדַיְקָא נָמֵי, דִּכְתִיב: ״כֵּן יָשִׂישׂ״, וְלָא כְּתִיב ״יָשׂוּשׂ״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

Rabbi Elazar said that this is how the matter is to be understood: Indeed, God Himself does not rejoice over the downfall of the wicked, but He causes others to rejoice. The Gemara comments: One can learn from the language of the verse as well, as it is written: “So the Lord will rejoice [ken yasis]” (Deuteronomy 28:63). And it is not written yasus, the grammatical form of the verb meaning: He will rejoice. Rather, it is written yasis. The grammatical form of this verb indicates that one causes another to rejoice. Consequently, these words are understood to mean that God will cause others to rejoice. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the case.

רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כָּהֲנָא פָּתַח לַהּ פִּיתְחָא לְהַאי פָּרַשְׁתָּא מֵהָכָא: ״לְאָדָם שֶׁטּוֹב לְפָנָיו נָתַן חׇכְמָה וְדַעַת וְשִׂמְחָה״ — זֶה מָרְדֳּכַי הַצַּדִּיק, ״וְלַחוֹטֶא נָתַן עִנְיָן לֶאֱסוֹף וְלִכְנוֹס״ — זֶה הָמָן, ״לָתֵת לְטוֹב לִפְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים״ — זֶה מָרְדְּכַי וְאֶסְתֵּר, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַתָּשֶׂם אֶסְתֵּר אֶת מׇרְדֳּכַי עַל בֵּית הָמָן״.

Rabbi Abba bar Kahana introduced this passage with an introduction from here. The verse states with regard to God’s reward to the righteous: “He gives to a man that is good in His sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy” (Ecclesiastes 2:26). The Gemara explains that this verse is referring to the righteous Mordecai. With regard to the next part of the verse: “But to the sinner He gives the task of gathering and heaping up,” this is referring to Haman. The conclusion of the verse states: “That he may give it to one who is good before God” (Ecclesiastes 2:26). This is Mordecai and Esther, as it is written: “And Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman” (Esther 8:2).

רַבָּה בַּר עוֹפְרָן פָּתַח לַהּ פִּיתְחָא לְהַאי פָּרַשְׁתָּא מֵהָכָא: ״וְשַׂמְתִּי כִסְאִי בְּעֵילָם וְהַאֲבַדְתִּי מִשָּׁם מֶלֶךְ וְשָׂרִים״. ״מֶלֶךְ״ — זוֹ וַשְׁתִּי, ״וְשָׂרִים״ — זֶה הָמָן וַעֲשֶׂרֶת בָּנָיו.

Rabba bar Oferan introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “And I will set my throne in Elam, and destroy from there the king and the princes, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 49:38). “The king” who was destroyed; this is referring to Vashti. “And the princes”; this is referring to Haman and his ten sons.

רַב דִּימִי בַּר יִצְחָק פָּתַח לַהּ פִּיתְחָא לְהַאי פָּרַשְׁתָּא מֵהָכָא,

Rav Dimi bar Yitzḥak introduced this passage with an introduction from here:

״כִּי עֲבָדִים אֲנַחְנוּ וּבְעַבְדוּתֵנוּ לֹא עֲזָבָנוּ אֱלֹהֵינוּ וַיַּט עָלֵינוּ חֶסֶד לִפְנֵי מַלְכֵי פָרַס״, אֵימָתַי — בִּזְמַן הָמָן.

“For we are bondmen; yet our God has not forsaken us in our bondage, but has extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia” (Ezra 9:9). When did this occur? In the time of Haman.

רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא פָּתַח לַהּ פִּתְחָא לְהָא פָּרַשְׁתָּא מֵהָכָא: ״הִרְכַּבְתָּ אֱנוֹשׁ לְרֹאשֵׁנוּ בָּאנוּ בָאֵשׁ וּבַמַּיִם״, ״בָּאֵשׁ״ — בִּימֵי נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר הָרָשָׁע. ״וּבַמַּיִם״ — בִּימֵי פַרְעֹה, ״וַתּוֹצִיאֵנוּ לָרְוָיָה״ — בִּימֵי הָמָן.

Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa introduced this passage with an introduction from here: The verse states: “You have caused men to ride over our heads; we went through fire and through water; but You brought us out into abundance” (Psalms 66:12). “Through fire”; this was in the days of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, who cast the righteous into the furnace. “And through water”; this was in the days of Pharaoh, who decreed that all newborn males be cast into the water. “But You brought us out into abundance”; this was in the days of Haman, where abundant feasts played a pivotal role in their peril and salvation.

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן פָּתַח לֵהּ פִּתְחָא לְהָא פָּרַשְׁתָּא מֵהָכָא: ״זָכַר חַסְדּוֹ וֶאֱמוּנָתוֹ לְבֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל רָאוּ כׇל אַפְסֵי אָרֶץ אֵת יְשׁוּעַת אֱלֹהֵינוּ״, אֵימָתַי ״רָאוּ כׇל אַפְסֵי אָרֶץ אֵת יְשׁוּעַת אֱלֹהֵינוּ״ — בִּימֵי מׇרְדֳּכַי וְאֶסְתֵּר.

Rabbi Yoḥanan introduced this passage with an introduction from here: The verse states: “He has remembered His mercy and His faithfulness toward the house of Israel: All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God” (Psalms 98:3). When did all the ends of the earth see the salvation of our God? In the days of Mordecai and Esther, for their peril and salvation became known through the letters sent throughout the empire.

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ פָּתַח לַהּ פִּתְחָא לְהָא פָּרַשְׁתָּא מֵהָכָא: ״אֲרִי נוֹהֵם וְדוֹב שׁוֹקֵק מוֹשֵׁל רָשָׁע עַל עַם דָּל״, ״אֲרִי נוֹהֵם״ — זֶה נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר הָרָשָׁע, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״עָלָה אַרְיֵה מִסּוּבְּכוֹ״. ״דּוֹב שׁוֹקֵק״ — זֶה אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״וַאֲרוּ חֵיוָה אׇחֳרִי תִנְיָינָה דָּמְיָה לְדוֹב״, וְתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: אֵלּוּ פַּרְסִיִּים, שֶׁאוֹכְלִין וְשׁוֹתִין כְּדוֹב, וּמְסוּרְבָּלִין בָּשָׂר כְּדוֹב, וּמְגַדְּלִין שֵׂעָר כְּדוֹב, וְאֵין לָהֶם מְנוּחָה כְּדוֹב.

Reish Lakish introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “As a roaring lion, and a ravenous bear, so is a wicked ruler over a poor people” (Proverbs 28:15). “A roaring lion”; this is the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, as it is written about him: “The lion has come up from his thicket” (Jeremiah 4:7). “A hungry bear”; this is Ahasuerus, as it is written about him: “And behold, another beast, a second one, like a bear” (Daniel 7:5). And Rav Yosef taught that these who are referred to as a bear in the verse are the Persians. They are compared to a bear, as they eat and drink in large quantities like a bear; and they are coated with flesh like a bear; and they grow their hair long like a bear; and they never rest like a bear, whose manner it is to move about from place to place.

״מוֹשֵׁל רָשָׁע״ — זֶה הָמָן. ״עַל עַם דָּל״ — אֵלּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁהֵם דַּלִּים מִן הַמִּצְוֹת.

“A wicked ruler”; this is Haman. “Over a poor people”; this is the Jewish people, who are referred to in this manner because they are poor in their observance of the mitzvot.

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר פָּתַח לֵהּ פִּתְחָא לְהָא פָּרַשְׁתָּא מֵהָכָא: ״בַּעֲצַלְתַּיִם יִמַּךְ הַמְּקָרֶה וּבְשִׁפְלוּת יָדַיִם יִדְלוֹף הַבָּיִת״, בִּשְׁבִיל עַצְלוּת שֶׁהָיָה לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא עָסְקוּ בַּתּוֹרָה, נַעֲשָׂה שׂוֹנְאוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מָךְ. וְאֵין ״מָךְ״ אֶלָּא עָנִי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִם מָךְ הוּא מֵעֶרְכֶּךָ״, וְאֵין ״מְקָרֶה״ אֶלָּא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַמְקָרֶה בַמַּיִם עֲלִיּוֹתָיו״.

Rabbi Elazar introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “Through laziness the rafters [hamekare] sink in [yimakh]; and through idleness of the hands the house leaks” (Ecclesiastes 10:18). Rabbi Elazar interprets the verse homiletically: Through the laziness of the Jewish people, who did not occupy themselves with Torah study, the enemy of the Holy One, Blessed be He, a euphemism for God Himself, became poor [makh], so that, as it were, He was unable to help them, as makh is nothing other than poor, as it is stated: “But if he be too poor [makh] for the valuation” (Leviticus 27:8). And the word mekare in the verse is referring to no one other than the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: “Who lays the beams [hamekare] of His chambers in the waters” (Psalms 104:3).

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק פָּתַח לַהּ פִּתְחָא לְהָא פָּרַשְׁתָּא מֵהָכָא: ״שִׁיר הַמַּעֲלוֹת לוּלֵי ה׳ שֶׁהָיָה לָנוּ יֹאמַר נָא יִשְׂרָאֵל. לוּלֵי ה׳ שֶׁהָיָה לָנוּ בְּקוּם עָלֵינוּ אָדָם״. ״אָדָם״ — וְלֹא מֶלֶךְ.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “A song of ascents of David. If not for the Lord Who was with us, let Israel now say; if not for the Lord who was with us, when a man rose up against us” (Psalms 124:1–2). The verse speaks of “a man” who rose up against us and not a king. This occurred in the days of Haman, as he, and not King Ahasuerus, was the chief enemy of the Jewish people.

רָבָא פָּתַח לַהּ פִּתְחָא לְהָא פָּרַשְׁתָּא מֵהָכָא: ״בִּרְבוֹת צַדִּיקִים יִשְׂמַח הָעָם וּבִמְשׁוֹל רָשָׁע יֵאָנַח עָם״, ״בִּרְבוֹת צַדִּיקִים יִשְׂמַח הָעָם״ — זֶה מׇרְדֳּכַי וְאֶסְתֵּר, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָעִיר שׁוּשָׁן צָהֲלָה וְשָׂמֵחָה״. ״וּבִמְשׁוֹל רָשָׁע יֵאָנַח עָם״ — זֶה הָמָן, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָעִיר שׁוּשָׁן נָבוֹכָה״.

Rava introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “When the righteous are on the increase, the people rejoice; but when the wicked man rules, the people mourn” (Proverbs 29:2). “When the righteous are on the increase, the people rejoice”; this is Mordecai and Esther, as it is written: “And the city of Shushan rejoiced and was glad” (Esther 8:15). “But when the wicked man rules, the people mourn”; this is Haman, as it is written: “But the city of Shushan was perplexed” (Esther 3:15).

רַב מַתְנָה אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״כִּי מִי גוֹי גָּדוֹל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ אֱלֹהִים קְרוֹבִים אֵלָיו״. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״אוֹ הֲנִסָּה אֱלֹהִים וְגוֹ׳״.

Rav Mattana said his introduction from here: “For what nation is there so great, that has God so near to them” (Deuteronomy 4:7), as to witness the great miracles in the days of Mordecai and Esther? Rav Ashi said his introduction from here: The verse states: “Or has God ventured to go and take Him a nation from the midst of another nation?” (Deuteronomy 4:34), as in the times of Esther, God saved the Jewish people who were scattered throughout the Persian Empire.

״וַיְהִי בִּימֵי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ״, אָמַר רַב: וַיי וְהֵי, הָדָא דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִתְמַכַּרְתֶּם שָׁם לְאוֹיְבֶיךָ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת וְגוֹ׳״.

§ The Gemara returns to its interpretation of the book of Esther. The verse states: “And it came to pass [vayhi] in the days of Ahasuerus” (Esther 1:1). Rav said: The word vayhi may be understood as if it said vai and hi, meaning woe and mourning. This is as it is written: “And there you shall sell yourselves to your enemies for bondsmen and bondswomen, and no man shall buy you” (Deuteronomy 28:68). The repetitive nature of the verse, indicating that no one will be willing to buy you for servitude, but they will purchase you in order to murder you, indicates a doubly horrific situation, which is symbolized by the dual term vayhi, meaning woe and mourning.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: ״לֹא מְאַסְתִּים וְלֹא גְעַלְתִּים לְכַלּוֹתָם״. ״לֹא מְאַסְתִּים״ — בִּימֵי יְווֹנִים. ״וְלֹא גְעַלְתִּים״ — בִּימֵי נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר. ״לְכַלּוֹתָם״ — בִּימֵי הָמָן. ״לְהָפֵר בְּרִיתִי אִתָּם״ — בִּימֵי פָרְסִיִּים. ״כִּי אֲנִי ה׳ אֱלֹהֵיהֶם״ — בִּימֵי גוֹג וּמָגוֹג.

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.

בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: ״לֹא מְאַסְתִּים״ — בִּימֵי כַּשְׂדִּים, שֶׁהֶעֱמַדְתִּי לָהֶם דָּנִיֵּאל חֲנַנְיָה מִישָׁאֵל וַעֲזַרְיָה. ״וְלֹא גְעַלְתִּים״ — בִּימֵי יְווֹנִים, שֶׁהֶעֱמַדְתִּי לָהֶם שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק, וְחַשְׁמוֹנַאי וּבָנָיו, וּמַתִּתְיָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל. ״לְכַלּוֹתָם״ — בִּימֵי הָמָן, שֶׁהֶעֱמַדְתִּי לָהֶם מׇרְדֳּכַי וְאֶסְתֵּר. ״לְהָפֵר בְּרִיתִי אִתָּם״ — בִּימֵי רוֹמִיִּים, שֶׁהֶעֱמַדְתִּי לָהֶם שֶׁל בֵּית רַבִּי וְחַכְמֵי דוֹרוֹת. ״כִּי אֲנִי ה׳ אֱלֹהֵיהֶם״ — לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא, שֶׁאֵין כׇּל אוּמָּה וְלָשׁוֹן יְכוֹלָה לִשְׁלוֹט בָּהֶם.

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.

רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״וְאִם לֹא תוֹרִישׁוּ אֶת יוֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ״.

Rabbi Levi said his introduction from here: “But if you will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall come to pass, that those whom you allow to remain of them shall be as thorns in your eyes” (Numbers 33:55). King Saul’s failure to completely annihilate Amalek allowed for the existence of his descendant Haman, who acted as a thorn in the eyes of Israel during the Purim episode.

רַבִּי חִיָּיא אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּמִּיתִי לַעֲשׂוֹת לָהֶם אֶעֱשֶׂה לָכֶם״.

Rabbi Ḥiyya said his introduction from here, the continuation of the previously cited verse: “And it shall come to pass, that as I thought to do unto them, so I shall do unto you” (Numbers 33:56). Prior to the miracle of Purim, the Jewish people were subject to the punishment that the Torah designated for its enemies, because they did not fulfill God’s commandments.

״אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ״, אָמַר רַב: אָחִיו שֶׁל רֹאשׁ, וּבֶן גִּילוֹ שֶׁל רֹאשׁ. אָחִיו שֶׁל רֹאשׁ, אָחִיו שֶׁל נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר הָרָשָׁע שֶׁנִּקְרָא ״רֹאשׁ״, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַנְתְּ הוּא רֵישָׁא דִּי דַהֲבָא״. בֶּן גִּילוֹ שֶׁל רֹאשׁ, הוּא הָרַג — הוּא בִּיקֵּשׁ לַהֲרוֹג, הוּא הֶחְרִיב — הוּא בִּיקֵּשׁ לְהַחְרִיב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבְמַלְכוּת אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ בִּתְחִלַּת מַלְכוּתוֹ כָּתְבוּ שִׂטְנָה עַל יוֹשְׁבֵי יְהוּדָה וִירוּשָׁלִָם״.

The Gemara continues with its explanation of the book of Esther, beginning with a discussion of the name Ahasuerus. Rav said: The name should be viewed as a contraction: The brother of the head [aḥiv shel rosh] and of the same character as the head [ben gilo shel rosh]. Rav explains: The brother of the head, i.e., the brother of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, who is called “head,” as it is stated: “You are the head of gold” (Daniel 2:38). Of the same character as the head, for he, Nebuchadnezzar, killed the Jews, and he, Ahasuerus, sought to kill them. He destroyed the Temple, and he sought to destroy the foundations for the Temple laid by Zerubbabel, as it is stated: “And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote to him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem” (Ezra 4:6), and he ordered that the construction of the Temple cease.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: שֶׁהוּשְׁחֲרוּ פְּנֵיהֶם שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּיָמָיו כְּשׁוּלֵי קְדֵרָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כֹּל שֶׁזּוֹכְרוֹ אֹמֵר ״אָח לְרֹאשׁוֹ״. וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: שֶׁהַכֹּל נַעֲשׂוּ רָשִׁין בְּיָמָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיָּשֶׂם הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ מַס״.

And Shmuel said: The name Ahasuerus should be understood in the sense of black [shaḥor], as the face of the Jewish people was blackened in his days like the bottom of a pot. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said a different explanation: Everyone who recalled him said: “Woe upon his head” [aḥ lerosho]. And Rabbi Ḥanina said: The name alludes to the fact that everyone became poor [rash] in his days, as it is stated: “And the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon the land” (Esther 10:1).

״הוּא אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ״ — הוּא בְּרִשְׁעוֹ מִתְּחִילָּתוֹ וְעַד סוֹפוֹ. ״הוּא עֵשָׂו״ — הוּא בְּרִשְׁעוֹ מִתְּחִילָּתוֹ וְעַד סוֹפוֹ. ״הוּא דָּתָן וַאֲבִירָם״ — הֵן בְּרִשְׁעָן מִתְּחִילָּתָן וְעַד סוֹפָן. ״הוּא הַמֶּלֶךְ אָחָז״ — הוּא בְּרִשְׁעוֹ מִתְּחִילָּתוֹ וְעַד סוֹפוֹ.

The Gemara continues: “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.

״אַבְרָם הוּא אַבְרָהָם״ — הוּא בְּצִדְקוֹ מִתְּחִילָּתוֹ וְעַד סוֹפוֹ. ״הוּא אַהֲרֹן וּמֹשֶׁה״ — הֵן בְּצִדְקָן מִתְּחִילָּתָן וְעַד סוֹפָן. ״וְדָוִד הוּא הַקָּטָן״ — הוּא בְּקַטְנוּתוֹ מִתְּחִילָּתוֹ עַד סוֹפוֹ, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁבְּקַטְנוּתוֹ הִקְטִין עַצְמוֹ אֵצֶל מִי שֶׁגָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בַּתּוֹרָה, כָּךְ בְּמַלְכוּתוֹ הִקְטִין עַצְמוֹ אֵצֶל מִי שֶׁגָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְּחָכְמָה.

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.

״הַמּוֹלֵךְ״, אָמַר רַב: שֶׁמָּלַךְ מֵעַצְמוֹ. אָמְרִי לַהּ לְשֶׁבַח וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לִגְנַאי. אָמְרִי לַהּ לְשֶׁבַח — דְּלָא הֲוָה אִינִישׁ דַּחֲשִׁיב לְמַלְכָּא כְּווֹתֵיהּ, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לִגְנַאי — דְּלָא הֲוָה חֲזֵי לְמַלְכוּתָא, וּמָמוֹנָא יַתִּירָא הוּא דִּיהַב וְקָם.

The next term in the opening verse: “Who reigned” (Esther 1:1), is now interpreted. Rav said: This comes to teach that he reigned on his own, without having inherited the throne. Some say this to his credit, and some say it to his disgrace. The Gemara explains: Some say this to his credit, that there was no other man as fit as him to be king. And some say it to his disgrace, that he was not fit to be king, but he distributed large amounts of money, and in that way rose to the throne.

״מֵהוֹדּוּ וְעַד כּוּשׁ״, רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל חַד אָמַר: הוֹדּוּ בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם וְכוּשׁ בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם, וְחַד אָמַר: הוֹדּוּ וְכוּשׁ גַּבֵּי הֲדָדֵי הֲווֹ קָיְימִי; כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמָּלַךְ עַל הוֹדּוּ וְכוּשׁ, כָּךְ מָלַךְ מִסּוֹף הָעוֹלָם וְעַד סוֹפוֹ.

The opening verse continues that Ahasuerus reigned “from Hodu to Cush.” Rav and Shmuel disagreed about its meaning. One said: Hodu is a country at one end of the world, and Cush is a country at the other end of the world. And one said: Hodu and Cush are situated next to each other, and the verse means to say as follows: Just as Ahasuerus reigned with ease over the adjacent countries of Hodu and Cush, so too, he reigned with ease from one end of the world to the other.

כַּיּוֹצֵא בַּדָּבָר אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: ״כִּי הוּא רוֹדֶה בְּכׇל עֵבֶר הַנָּהָר מִתִּפְסַח וְעַד עַזָּה״, רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל חַד אָמַר: תִּפְסַח בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם וְעַזָּה בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם, וְחַד אָמַר: תִּפְסַח וְעַזָּה בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי הֲווֹ קָיְימִי; כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמָּלַךְ עַל תִּפְסַח וְעַל עַזָּה, כָּךְ מָלַךְ עַל כׇּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ.

On a similar note, you say with regard to Solomon: “For he had dominion over all the region on this side of the river, from Tiphsah even to Gaza” (I Kings 5:4), and also with regard to this Rav and Shmuel disagreed. One said: Tiphsah is at one end of the world, whereas Gaza is at the other end of the world. And one said: Tiphsah and Gaza are situated next to each other, and the verse means to say as follows: Just as Solomon reigned with ease over the adjacent Tiphsah and Gaza, so too, he reigned with ease over the entire world.

״שֶׁבַע וְעֶשְׂרִים וּמֵאָה מְדִינָה״, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: בַּתְּחִילָּה מָלַךְ עַל שֶׁבַע, וּלְבַסּוֹף מָלַךְ עַל עֶשְׂרִים, וּלְבַסּוֹף מָלַךְ עַל מֵאָה. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה: ״וּשְׁנֵי חַיֵּי עַמְרָם שֶׁבַע וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה״, מַאי דָּרְשַׁתְּ בֵּיהּ? שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דִּקְרָא יַתִּירָא הוּא: מִכְּדֵי כְּתִיב ״מֵהוֹדּוּ וְעַד כּוּשׁ״, ״שֶׁבַע וְעֶשְׂרִים וּמֵאָה מְדִינָה״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לִדְרָשָׁה.

The opening verse continues, stating that Ahasuerus reigned “over seven and twenty and a hundred provinces” (Esther 1:1). Rav Ḥisda said: This verse should be understood as follows: At first he reigned over seven provinces; and then he reigned over twenty more; and finally he reigned over another hundred. The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, with regard to the similarly worded verse: “And the years of the life of Amram were seven and thirty and a hundred years” (Exodus 6:20), what would you expound from it? The Gemara answers: It is different here, in the book of Esther, as this part of the verse is entirely superfluous. Since it is already written: “From Hodu to Cush,” why then do I need “Seven and twenty and a hundred provinces”? Rather, learn from here that these words come for this exposition, to teach that Ahasuerus did not begin to reign over all of them at the same time.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁלֹשָׁה מָלְכוּ בַּכִּיפָּה, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: אַחְאָב וַאֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ וּנְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר. אַחְאָב, דִּכְתִיב: ״חַי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ אִם יֶשׁ גּוֹי וּמַמְלָכָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא שָׁלַח אֲדוֹנִי שָׁם לְבַקֶּשְׁךָ וְגוֹ׳״. וְאִי לָא דַּהֲוָה מָלֵיךְ עֲלַיְיהוּ, הֵיכִי מָצֵי מַשְׁבַּע לְהוּ?

§ Apropos the discussion of the kingdoms of Ahasuerus and Solomon, the Gemara cites a baraita in which the Sages taught: Three men ruled over the entire world, and they were Ahab, and Ahasuerus, and Nebuchadnezzar. The Gemara explains: Ahab, as it is written in the words of Obadiah, servant of Ahab, to Elijah: “As the Lord your God lives, there is no nation or kingdom where my master has not sent to seek you, and they said: He is not there; and he made the kingdom and nation swear, that they had not found you” (I Kings 18:10). And if he did not reign over them, how could he have made them swear? Apparently, then, he reigned over the entire world.

נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיָה הַגּוֹי וְהַמַּמְלָכָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִתֵּן אֶת צַוָּארוֹ בְּעוֹל מֶלֶךְ בָּבֶל״. אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, הָא דַּאֲמַרַן.

Nebuchadnezzar also ruled over the whole world, as it is written: “And it shall come to pass, that the nation and the kingdom that not serve this same Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylonia, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylonia, that nation will I visit, says the Lord, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand” (Jeremiah 27:8). Ahasuerus also ruled the world, as we have said above.

(סִימָן: שסד״‎ך) וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָא אִיכָּא שְׁלֹמֹה! לָא סְלִיק מַלְכוּתֵיהּ.

After mentioning three kings who ruled over the world, the Gemara presents a mnemonic for the names of other kings that will be discussed below: Shin, Solomon, i.e., Shlomo; samekh, Sennacherib; dalet, Darius; kaf, Cyrus, i.e., Koresh. The Gemara asks: But is there no other king besides those previously mentioned who ruled over the entire world? But there is King Solomon who ruled over the world and should be added to the list. The Gemara answers: Solomon did not complete his kingship, as he left the throne during his lifetime, and therefore, his name doesn’t appear on the list.

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מֶלֶךְ וְהֶדְיוֹט. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מֶלֶךְ וְהֶדְיוֹט וּמֶלֶךְ — מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? שְׁלֹמֹה מִילְּתָא אַחֲרִיתִי הֲוָה בֵּיהּ — שֶׁמָּלַךְ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנִים וְעַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֵּשֶׁב שְׁלֹמֹה עַל כִּסֵּא ה׳״.

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that Solomon was first a king and then a commoner, never returning to the throne. But according to the one who said that he was first a king and then a commoner, and then afterward he returned again to be a king, what can be said to explain why he is not mentioned in the list of kings who ruled over the entire world? The Gemara answers: There was something else about Solomon that makes it impossible to compare him to the others, for he ruled over the inhabitants of the heavenly worlds, i.e., demons and spirits, as well as the human inhabitants of the earthly worlds, as it is stated: “Then Solomon sat upon the throne of the Lord as king” (I Chronicles 29:23), which indicates that his reign extended even to the heavenly worlds, with King Solomon sitting upon the throne of the Lord, and therefore he cannot be compared to the others, who merely ruled on earth.

וְהָא הֲוָה סַנְחֵרִיב, דִּכְתִיב: ״מִי בְּכׇל אֱלֹהֵי הָאֲרָצוֹת הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר הִצִּילוּ אֶת אַרְצָם מִיָּדִי״! הָא אִיכָּא יְרוּשָׁלַיִם דְּלָא כַּבְשַׁהּ!

The Gemara asks further: But there was Sennacherib, who ruled over the entire world, as it is written: “Who are they among all the gods of these countries, that have delivered their country out of my hand that the Lord should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?” (Isaiah 36:20). The Gemara answers: There is Jerusalem that he did not conquer, as indicated in the verse.

וְהָא אִיכָּא דָּרְיָוֶשׁ, דִּכְתִיב: ״דָּרְיָוֶשׁ מַלְכָּא כְּתַב לְכׇל עַמְמַיָּא אוּמַיָּא וְלִשָּׁנַיָּא דִּי דָיְירִין בְּכׇל אַרְעָא שְׁלָמְכוֹן יִסְגֵּא״! הָא אִיכָּא שְׁבַע דְּלָא מְלַךְ עֲלַיְיהוּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״שְׁפַר קֳדָם דָּרְיָוֶשׁ וַהֲקִים עַל מַלְכוּתָא לַאֲחַשְׁדַּרְפְּנַיָּא מְאָה וְעֶשְׂרִין״!

The Gemara continues to ask: But there is Darius, as it is stated: “Then King Darius wrote to all the peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth: Peace be multiplied to you” (Daniel 6:26). The Gemara answers: There are the seven provinces over which he did not rule, as it is written: “It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty satraps” (Daniel 6:2). It is apparent from here that Darius did not rule over the entire world, for his son Ahasuerus ruled over a hundred and twenty-seven provinces, an additional seven.

וְהָא אִיכָּא כּוֹרֶשׁ, דִּכְתִיב: ״כֹּה אָמַר כּוֹרֶשׁ מֶלֶךְ פָּרַס כֹּל מַמְלְכוֹת הָאָרֶץ נָתַן לִי ה׳״! הָתָם אִשְׁתַּבּוֹחֵי הוּא דְּקָא מִשְׁתַּבַּח בְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ.

The Gemara raises another question: But there is Cyrus, as it is written: “Thus says Cyrus, king of Persia: The Lord, God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth” (Ezra 1:2). The Gemara answers: This is not proof that he ruled the world, for there he was merely boasting about himself, although in fact there was no truth to his words.

״בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם כְּשֶׁבֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ״, וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״בִּשְׁנַת שָׁלֹשׁ לְמׇלְכוֹ״! אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי ״כְּשֶׁבֶת״, לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּתְיַישְּׁבָה דַּעְתּוֹ. אָמַר: בֵּלְשַׁצַּר חַשֵּׁב וּטְעָה, אֲנָא חָשֵׁיבְנָא וְלָא טָעֵינָא.

§ The second verse in Esther states: “In those days when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom” (Esther 1:2), implying that the events to follow took place during the first year of his reign; and one verse afterward it is written: “In the third year of his reign” (Esther 1:3), indicating that it was the third year, not the first. Rava said: There is no contradiction. What is the meaning of “when he sat” [keshevet]? It is intended to indicate that he acted not immediately upon his rise to the throne, but rather after his mind was settled [shenityasheva], and he overcame his anxiety and worry with regard to the redemption of the Jewish people. He said to himself as follows: Belshazzar, the king of Babylonia, calculated and erred with regard to the Jewish people’s redemption. I too will calculate, but I will not err.

מַאי הִיא — דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי לְפִי מְלֹאת לְבָבֶל שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה אֶפְקוֹד אֶתְכֶם״, וּכְתִיב: ״לְמַלֹּאות לְחׇרְבוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה״. חַשֵּׁוב: אַרְבְּעִין וַחֲמֵשׁ דִּנְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר, וְעֶשְׂרִים וּתְלָת דֶּאֱוִיל מְרוֹדַךְ, וְתַרְתֵּי דִּידֵיהּ — הָא שִׁבְעִים. אַפֵּיק מָאנֵי דְּבֵי מַקְדְּשָׁא וְאִשְׁתַּמַּשׁ בְּהוּ.

The Gemara explains: What is this calculation? As it is written with regard to Jeremiah’s prophecy of a return to Eretz Yisrael: “After seventy years are accomplished for Babylonia I will remember you and perform My good word toward you, enabling you to return to this place” (Jeremiah 29:10), and elsewhere it is written in a slightly different formulation: “In the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, meditated in the books, over the number of the years, which the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that He would accomplish for the desolations of Jerusalem seventy years” (Daniel 9:2). He, Belshazzar, calculated as follows: Forty-five years of Nebuchadnezzar, and twenty-three of Evil-merodach, and two of his own, for a total of seventy years that had passed without redemption. He was therefore certain that Jeremiah’s prophecy would no longer be fulfilled, and he therefore said: I will take out the vessels of the Holy Temple and use them.

וּנְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר, מְנָלַן דְּאַרְבְּעִין וַחֲמֵשׁ שְׁנִין מְלַךְ? דְּאָמַר מָר: גָּלוּ בְּשֶׁבַע, גָּלוּ בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה, גָּלוּ בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה, גָּלוּ בִּתְשַׁע עֶשְׂרֵה.

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that Nebuchadnezzar reigned for forty-five years? As the Master said: They were exiled in the seventh year; they were exiled in the eighth year; they were exiled in the eighteenth year; and they were exiled in the nineteenth year.

גָּלוּ בְּשֶׁבַע — לְכִיבּוּשׁ יְהוֹיָקִים גָּלוּת יְהוֹיָכִין, שֶׁהִיא שְׁמוֹנֶה לִנְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר. גָּלוּ בִּשְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה — לְכִיבּוּשׁ יְהוֹיָקִים גָּלוּת צִדְקִיָּהוּ שֶׁהִיא תְּשַׁע עֶשְׂרֵה לִנְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר, דְּאָמַר מָר: שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה כִּיבֵּשׁ נִינְוֵה, שְׁנִיָּה כִּיבֵּשׁ יְהוֹיָקִים. וּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי בִשְׁלֹשִׁים וָשֶׁבַע שָׁנָה לְגָלוּת יְהוֹיָכִין מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ בְּעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה לַחֹדֶשׁ נָשָׂא אֱוִיל מְרוֹדַךְ מֶלֶךְ בָּבֶל [בִּשְׁנַת מַלְכוּתוֹ] אֶת רֹאשׁ יְהוֹיָכִין מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה וַיּוֹצֵא אוֹתוֹ מִבֵּית הַכֶּלֶא״.

The Gemara explains: They were exiled in the seventh year after Nebuchadnezzar’s subjugation of Jehoiakim, in what was known as the exile of Jehoiachin, which was actually the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. Then later they were exiled a second time in the eighteenth year after the subjugation of Jehoiakim, in what was known as the exile of Zedekiah, which was actually in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, as the Master said: In the first year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Nineveh; in his second year he conquered Jehoiakim. And it is written: “And it came to pass in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin, king of Judea, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-fifth day of the month, that Evil-merodach, king of Babylonia, in the first year of his reign, lifted up the head of Jehoiachin, king of Judea, and brought him out of prison” (Jeremiah 52:31).

תַּמְנֵי וּתְלָתִין וּשְׁבַע — הֲרֵי אַרְבְּעִין וַחֲמֵשׁ דִּנְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר. וְעֶשְׂרִין וּתְלָת דֶּאֱוִיל מְרוֹדַךְ — גְּמָרָא, וְתַרְתֵּי דִּידֵיהּ — הָא שִׁבְעִין. אֲמַר: הַשְׁתָּא וַדַּאי תּוּ לָא מִיפַּרְקִי, אַפֵּיק מָאנֵי דְּבֵי מַקְדְּשָׁא וְאִשְׁתַּמַּשׁ בְּהוּ.

The Gemara calculates: Since Evil-merodach acted in the first year of his reign, immediately after coming to power, it turns out that Nebuchadnezzar ruled for eight years before he sent Jehoiachin into exile, and thirty-seven years during which Jehoiachin was in prison. This equals forty-five years of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. And the twenty-three years of Evil-merodach are known through tradition. And together with the two years of Belshazzar, this brings the count of the years of exile to seventy. At that point Belshazzar said to himself: Now for sure they will not be redeemed. Therefore, I will take out the vessels of the Holy Temple and use them.

הַיְינוּ דְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ דָּנִיאֵל: ״וְעַל מָרֵי שְׁמַיָּא הִתְרוֹמַמְתָּ וּלְמָאנַיָּא דִי בַיְיתֵיהּ הַיְתִיו קׇדָמָךְ״, וּכְתִיב: ״בֵּיהּ בְּלֵילְיָא קְטִיל בֵּלְשַׁאצַּר מַלְכָּא [כַּשְׂדָּאָה]״. וּכְתִיב: ״וְדָרְיָוֶשׁ מָדָאָה קַבֵּל מַלְכוּתָא כְּבַר שְׁנִין שִׁתִּין וְתַרְתֵּין״.

This is that which Daniel said to him with regard to his impending punishment for using the Temple’s vessels: “But you have lifted yourself up against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of His House before you” (Daniel 5:23). And it is written further in the chapter: “In that night Belshazzar, the king of the Chaldeans, was slain” (Daniel 5:30). This was the description of Belshazzar’s mistaken calculation. And it states after the fall of Belshazzar: “And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old” (Daniel 6:1).

אֲמַר: אִיהוּ מִיטְעָא טָעֵי, אֲנָא חָשֵׁיבְנָא וְלָא טָעֵינָא. מִי כְּתִיב ״לְמַלְכוּת בָּבֶל״? ״לְבָבֶל״ כְּתִיב, מַאי ״לְבָבֶל״? לְגָלוּת בָּבֶל, כַּמָּה בְּצִירָן — תַּמְנֵי, חַשֵּׁיב וְעַיֵּיל חִילּוּפַיְיהוּ חֲדָא דְּבֵלְשַׁצַּר, וַחֲמֵשׁ דְּדָרְיָוֶשׁ וְכוֹרֶשׁ, וְתַרְתֵּי דִּידֵיהּ — הָא שִׁבְעִין. כֵּיוָן דְּחָזֵי דִּמְלוֹ שִׁבְעִין וְלָא אִיפְּרוּק — אֲמַר: הַשְׁתָּא וַדַּאי תּוּ לָא מִיפַּרְקִי, אַפֵּיק מָאנֵי דְּבֵי מַקְדְּשָׁא וְאִשְׁתַּמַּשׁ בְּהוּ. בָּא שָׂטָן וְרִיקֵּד בֵּינֵיהֶן וְהָרַג אֶת וַשְׁתִּי.

Ahasuerus said: He, Belshazzar, erred. I too will calculate, but I will not err, thinking he understood the source of Belshazzar’s mistake. Is it written: “Seventy years for the kingdom of Babylonia”? It is written: “Seventy years for Babylonia.” What is meant by “for Babylonia”? These words are referring to the seventy years for the exile of Babylonia. How many years are still lacking from the seventy years? Eight years. He calculated, and inserted in their stead one year of Belshazzar, and five years of Darius and Cyrus, and two years of his own, bringing the total to seventy. Once he saw that seventy years had been completed, and the Jewish people were still not redeemed, he said: Now for sure they will not be redeemed. Therefore, I will take out the vessels of the Temple and use them. What happened to him? As a punishment for what he did, the Satan came and danced among them, and brought confusion to his celebration until he killed Vashti.

וְהָא שַׁפִּיר חַשֵּׁיב? אִיהוּ נָמֵי מִיטְעָא טָעֵי, דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמִימְנֵי מֵחׇרְבוֹת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם.

The Gemara asks: But he calculated properly; why then did this happen? The Gemara answers: He too erred in his calculation, for he should have counted from the destruction of Jerusalem at the time of the exile of Zedekiah and not from the first exile of Jehoiachin.

סוֹף סוֹף כַּמָּה בְּצִירָן? חֲדֵיסַר. אִיהוּ כַּמָּה מְלַךְ? אַרְבֵּיסַר, בְּאַרְבֵּיסַר דִּידֵיהּ אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמִיבְנֵי בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, אַלְּמָה כְּתִיב: ״בֵּאדַיִן בְּטֵילַת עֲבִידַת בֵּית אֱלָהָא דִּי בִּירוּשְׁלֶם״, אָמַר רָבָא: שָׁנִים מְקוּטָּעוֹת הֲווֹ.

The Gemara asks: Ultimately, how many years were lacking? Eleven, for the exile of Zedekiah took place eleven years after that of Jehoiachin. How many years did Ahasuerus reign as king? Fourteen. Indeed, in his fourteenth year, then, the Temple should have been built. If so, why is it written: “Then the work of the House of God, which is in Jerusalem, ceased; so it ceased until the second year of the reign of Darius, king of Persia” (Ezra 4:24), which indicates that the Temple was not built during the entire reign of Ahasuerus? Rava said: The years reckoned were partial years. To complete the seventy years, it was necessary to wait until the second year of the rule of Darius II, when indeed the Temple was built.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: וְעוֹד שָׁנָה אַחֶרֶת לְבָבֶל וְעָמַד דָּרְיָוֶשׁ וְהִשְׁלִימָהּ.

This is also taught in a baraita, as an indication that the years counted were only partial years: And when Belshazzar was killed, there was still another year left for Babylonia before the reckoning of the seventy years was completed. And then Darius arose and completed it. Although seventy years were previously counted according to Belshazzar’s count, from the exile of Jehoiakim, because the years were only partial, there was still one year left in order to complete those seventy years.

אָמַר רָבָא: אַף דָּנִיאֵל טְעָה בְּהַאי חוּשְׁבָּנָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״בִּשְׁנַת אַחַת לְמׇלְכוֹ אֲנִי דָּנִיֵּאל בִּינוֹתִי בַּסְּפָרִים״. מִדְּקָאָמַר ״בִּינוֹתִי״ — מִכְּלָל דִּטְעָה.

Rava said: Daniel also erred in this calculation, as it is written: “In the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, meditated in the books over the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that He would accomplish for the desolations of Jerusalem seventy years” (Daniel 9:2). From the fact that he said “I meditated,” a term indicating recounting and calculating, it can be inferred that he had previously erred.

מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קָשׁוּ קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי, כְּתִיב: ״מְלֹאות לְבָבֶל״, וּכְתִיב: ״לְחׇרְבוֹת יְרוּשָׁלַםִ״!

The Gemara comments: In any case, the verses contradict each other with regard to how the seventy years should be calculated. In one verse it is written: “After seventy years are accomplished for Babylonia I will remember [efkod] you, and perform My good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place” (Jeremiah 29:10), which indicates that the seventy years should be counted from the Babylonian exile. And in another verse it is written: “That he would accomplish for the desolations of Jerusalem seventy years” (Daniel 9:2), indicating that the seventy years are calculated from the destruction of Jerusalem.

אָמַר רָבָא: לִפְקִידָה בְּעָלְמָא. וְהַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״כֹּה אָמַר כּוֹרֶשׁ מֶלֶךְ פָּרַס כֹּל מַמְלְכוֹת הָאָרֶץ נָתַן לִי ה׳ אֱלֹהֵי הַשָּׁמָיִם וְהוּא פָקַד עָלַי לִבְנוֹת לוֹ בַיִת בִּירוּשָׁלִַם״.

Rava said in response: The seventy years that “are accomplished for Babylonia” were only for being remembered [lifekida], as mentioned in the verse, allowing the Jews to return to Eretz Yisrael but not to build the Temple. And this is as it is written with regard to Cyrus’s proclamation permitting the Jewish people’s return to Eretz Yisrael, in the seventieth year of the Babylonian exile: “Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: The Lord, God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and He has charged [pakad] me to build Him a house in Jerusalem” (Ezra 1:2). The verse makes use of the same root, peh-kuf-dalet, heralding the return to Jerusalem to build the Temple, but not its actual completion.

דָּרַשׁ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר רַב חִסְדָּא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ לִמְשִׁיחוֹ לְכוֹרֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר הֶחֱזַקְתִּי בִימִינוֹ״, וְכִי כּוֹרֶשׁ מָשִׁיחַ הָיָה? אֶלָּא אָמַר לֵיהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמָשִׁיחַ: קוֹבֵל אֲנִי לְךָ עַל כּוֹרֶשׁ. אֲנִי אָמַרְתִּי: הוּא יִבְנֶה בֵּיתִי וִיקַבֵּץ גָּלִיּוֹתַי, וְהוּא אָמַר: ״מִי בָכֶם מִכׇּל עַמּוֹ וְיַעַל״.

Apropos its mention of Cyrus, the Gemara states that Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda interpreted homiletically a verse concerning Cyrus: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Thus says the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held” (Isaiah 45:1), which seemingly is referring to Cyrus as God’s anointed? Now was Cyrus God’s anointed one, i.e., the Messiah, that the verse should refer to him in this manner? Rather, the verse should be understood as God speaking to the Messiah with regard to Cyrus: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Messiah: I am complaining to you about Cyrus, who is not acting in accordance with what he is intended to do. I had said: “He shall build My House and gather My exiles” (see Isaiah 45:13), but he did not carry this out. Rather, he said: “Whoever is among you of all His people…let him go up to Jerusalem” (Ezra 1:3). He gave permission to return to Israel, but he did no more than that.

״חֵיל פָּרַס וּמָדַי הַפַּרְתְּמִים״, וּכְתִיב: ״לְמַלְכֵי מָדַי וּפָרָס״. אָמַר רָבָא: אַתְנוֹיֵי אַתְנוֹ בַּהֲדָדֵי, אִי מִינַּן מַלְכֵי — מִינַּיְיכוּ אִיפַּרְכֵי וְאִי מִינַּיְיכוּ מַלְכֵי — מִינַּן אִיפַּרְכֵי.

§ The Gemara returns to its interpretations of verses in the Megilla. The Megilla mentions that among those invited to the king’s feast were: “The army of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces” (Esther 1:3), and it is written near the conclusion of the Megilla: “In the book of chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia” (Esther 10:2). Why is Persia mentioned first at the beginning of the Megilla, while later in the Megilla, Media is mentioned first? Rava said in response: These two peoples, the Persians and the Medes, stipulated with each other, saying: If the kings will come from us, the ministers will come from you; and if the kings will come from you, the ministers will come from us. Therefore, in reference to kings, Media is mentioned first, whereas in connection with nobles and princes, Persia is given priority.

״בְּהַרְאוֹתוֹ אֶת עוֹשֶׁר כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלָּבַשׁ בִּגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״יְקָר תִּפְאֶרֶת גְּדוּלָּתוֹ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״לְכָבוֹד וּלְתִפְאֶרֶת״.

The verse states: “When he showed the riches of his glorious [kevod] kingdom and the honor of his majestic [tiferet] greatness” (Esther 1:4). Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: This teaches that Ahasuerus wore the priestly vestments. Proof for this assertion may be adduced from the fact that the same terms are written with regard to the priestly vestments, as it is written here: “The riches of his glorious [kevod] kingdom and the honor of his majestic [tiferet] greatness.” And it is written there, with regard to the priestly garments: “For glory [kavod] and for majesty [tiferet]” (Exodus 28:2).

״וּבִמְלֹאות הַיָּמִים הָאֵלֶּה וְגוֹ׳״. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, חַד אָמַר: מֶלֶךְ פִּיקֵּחַ הָיָה, וְחַד אָמַר: מֶלֶךְ טִיפֵּשׁ הָיָה. מַאן דְּאָמַר מֶלֶךְ פִּיקֵּחַ הָיָה — שַׁפִּיר עֲבַד דְּקָרֵיב רַחִיקָא בְּרֵישָׁא, דִּבְנֵי מָאתֵיהּ כׇּל אֵימַת דְּבָעֵי מְפַיֵּיס לְהוּ. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר טִיפֵּשׁ הָיָה — דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְקָרוֹבֵי בְּנֵי מָאתֵיהּ בְּרֵישָׁא, דְּאִי מָרְדוּ בֵּיהּ הָנָךְ, הָנֵי הֲווֹ קָיְימִי בַּהֲדֵיהּ.

The verse states: “And when these days were fulfilled, the king made a feast for all the people that were present in Shushan the capital” (Esther 1:5). Rav and Shmuel disagreed as to whether this was a wise decision. One said: Ahasuerus arranged a feast for the residents of Shushan, the capital, after the feast for foreign dignitaries that preceded it, as mentioned in the earlier verses, indicating that he was a clever king. And the other one said: It is precisely this that indicates that he was a foolish king. The one who said that this proves that he was a clever king maintains that he acted well when he first brought close those more distant subjects by inviting them to the earlier celebration, as he could appease the residents of his own city whenever he wished. And the one who said that he was foolish maintains that he should have invited the residents of his city first, so that if those faraway subjects rebelled against him, these who lived close by would have stood with him.

שָׁאֲלוּ תַּלְמִידָיו אֶת רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: מִפְּנֵי מָה נִתְחַיְּיבוּ שׂוֹנְאֵיהֶן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ הַדּוֹר כְּלָיָה? אָמַר לָהֶם: אִמְרוּ אַתֶּם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנֶּהֱנוּ מִסְּעוּדָתוֹ שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע. אִם כֵּן שֶׁבְּשׁוּשַׁן יֵהָרְגוּ, שֶׁבְּכׇל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ אַל יֵהָרְגוּ! אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אֱמוֹר אַתָּה! אָמַר לָהֶם: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לַצֶּלֶם.

The students of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai asked him: For what reason were the enemies of Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people themselves when exhibiting behavior that is not in their best interests, in that generation deserving of annihilation? He, Rabbi Shimon, said to them: Say the answer to your question yourselves. They said to him: It is because they partook of the feast of that wicked one, Ahasuerus, and they partook there of forbidden foods. Rabbi Shimon responded: If so, those in Shushan should have been killed as punishment, but those in the rest of the world, who did not participate in the feast, should not have been killed. They said to him: Then you say your response to our question. He said to them: It is because they prostrated before the idol that Nebuchadnezzar had made, as is recorded that the entire world bowed down before it, except for Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: וְכִי מַשּׂוֹא פָּנִים יֵשׁ בַּדָּבָר? אָמַר לָהֶם: הֵם לֹא עָשׂוּ אֶלָּא לִפְנִים — אַף הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לֹא עָשָׂה עִמָּהֶן אֶלָּא לִפְנִים. וְהַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי לֹא עִנָּה מִלִּבּוֹ״.

They said to him: But if it is true that they worshipped idols and therefore deserved to be destroyed, why was a miracle performed on their behalf? Is there favoritism expressed by God here? He said to them: They did not really worship the idol, but pretended to do so only for appearance, acting as if they were carrying out the king’s command to bow before the idol. So too, the Holy One, Blessed be He, did not destroy them but did act angry with them only for appearance. He too merely pretended to desire to destroy them, as all He did was issue a threat, but in the end the decree was annulled. And this is as it is written: “For He does not afflict from His heart willingly” (Lamentations 3:33), but only for appearances’ sake.

״בַּחֲצַר גִּנַּת בִּיתַן הַמֶּלֶךְ״. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל, חַד אָמַר: הָרָאוּי לֶחָצֵר — לֶחָצֵר, הָרָאוּי לַגִּינָּה — לַגִּינָּה, הָרָאוּי לַבִּיתָן — לַבִּיתָן. וְחַד אָמַר: הוֹשִׁיבָן בֶּחָצֵר וְלֹא הֶחְזִיקָתַן, בַּגִּינָּה וְלֹא הֶחְזִיקָתַן, עַד שֶׁהִכְנִיסָן לַבִּיתָן וְהֶחְזִיקָתַן. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: הוֹשִׁיבָן בֶּחָצֵר וּפָתַח לָהֶם שְׁנֵי פְתָחִים, אֶחָד לַגִּינָּה וְאֶחָד לַבִּיתָן.

The verse states: “In the court of the garden of the king’s palace” (Esther 1:5). Rav and Shmuel disagreed with regard to how to understand the relationship between these three places: Court, garden, and palace: One said: The guests were received in different places. One who, according to his stature, was fit for the courtyard was brought to the courtyard; one who was fit for the garden was brought to the garden; and one who was fit for the palace was brought to the palace. And the other one said: He first sat them in the courtyard, but it did not hold them, as they were too numerous. He then sat them in the garden, but it did not hold them either, until he brought them into the palace and it held them. A third understanding was taught in a baraita: He sat them in the courtyard and opened two entranceways for them, one to the garden and one to the palace.

״חוּר כַּרְפַּס וּתְכֵלֶת״. מַאי חוּר? רַב אָמַר: חָרֵי חָרֵי, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מֵילָת לְבָנָה הִצִּיעַ לָהֶם. ״כַּרְפַּס״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: כָּרִים שֶׁל פַּסִּים.

The verse states: “There were hangings of ḥur, karpas, and sky blue” (Esther 1:6). The Gemara asks: What is ḥur? Rav said: A fabric fashioned with many holes [ḥarei ḥarei], similar to lace. And Shmuel said: He spread out for them carpets of white wool, as the word ḥavar means white. And what is karpas? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: Cushions [karim] of velvet [pasim].

״עַל גְּלִילֵי כֶסֶף וְעַמּוּדֵי שֵׁשׁ מִטּוֹת זָהָב וָכֶסֶף״, תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הָרָאוּי לְכֶסֶף — לְכֶסֶף, הָרָאוּי לְזָהָב — לְזָהָב. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה: אִם כֵּן, אַתָּה מֵטִיל קִנְאָה בַּסְּעוּדָה. אֶלָּא: הֵם שֶׁל כֶּסֶף, וְרַגְלֵיהֶן שֶׁל זָהָב.

The verse states: “On silver rods and pillars of marble; the couches were of gold and silver” (Esther 1:6). It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: Some couches were of gold and others of silver. One who, according to his stature, was fit for silver sat on a couch of silver, and one who was fit for gold sat on one of gold. Rabbi Neḥemya said to him: This was not done. If so, you would cast jealousy into the feast, for the guests would be envious of each other. Rather, the couches themselves were made of silver, and their feet were made of gold.

״בַּהַט וָשֵׁשׁ״. אֲמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: אֲבָנִים שֶׁמִּתְחוֹטְטוֹת עַל בַּעֲלֵיהֶן. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אַבְנֵי נֵזֶר מִתְנוֹסְסוֹת עַל אַדְמָתוֹ״.

The verse continues: “Upon a pavement of bahat and marble” (Esther 1:6). Rabbi Asi said with regard to the definition of bahat: These are stones that ingratiate themselves with their owners, as they are precious stones that people are willing to spend large amounts of money to acquire. And similarly, it states elsewhere that the Jewish people will be likened to precious stones: “And the Lord their God shall save them in that day as the flock of His people; for they shall be as “the stones of a crown, glittering over His land” (Zechariah 9:16).

״וְדַר וְסוֹחָרֶת״, רַב אָמַר: דָּרֵי דָּרֵי. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֶבֶן טוֹבָה יֵשׁ בִּכְרַכֵּי הַיָּם וְ״דָרָה״ שְׁמָהּ, הוֹשִׁיבָהּ בְּאֶמְצַע סְעוּדָה וּמְאִירָה לָהֶם כַּצׇּהֳרַיִם. דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: שֶׁקָּרָא דְּרוֹר לְכׇל בַּעֲלֵי סְחוֹרָה.

The verse concludes: “And dar and soḥaret” (Esther 1:6). Rav said: Dar means many rows [darei darei] around. Similarly, soḥaret is derived from seḥor seḥor, around and around, meaning that the floor was surrounded with numerous rows of bahat and marble stones. And Shmuel said: There is a precious stone in the seaports, and its name is dara, and Ahasuerus placed it in the center of the feast, and it illuminated the festivities for them as the sun illuminates the world at midday. He explains that the word soḥaret is derived from tzohar, a light. A scholar from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a baraita: This means that he proclaimed a remission for all the merchants, absolving them from paying their taxes, understanding that the word dar derives from deror, freedom, and soḥaret from soḥer, merchant.

״וְהַשְׁקוֹת בִּכְלֵי זָהָב וְכֵלִים מִכֵּלִים שׁוֹנִים״. ״מְשׁוּנִּים״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אָמַר רָבָא, יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה לָהֶם: רִאשׁוֹנִים כָּלוּ מִפְּנֵי כֵלַי, וְאַתֶּם שׁוֹנִים בָּהֶם! ״וְיֵין מַלְכוּת רָב״, אָמַר רַב: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד הִשְׁקָהוּ יַיִן שֶׁגָּדוֹל הֵימֶנּוּ בְּשָׁנִים.

The verse states: “And they gave them drink in vessels of gold, the vessels being diverse [shonim] from one another” (Esther 1:7). The Gemara asks: Why does the verse use the term shonim to express that they are different? It should have said the more proper term meshunim. Rava said: A Divine Voice issued forth and said to them: The early ones, referring to Belshazzar and his people, were destroyed because they used these vessels, the vessels of the Temple, and yet you use them again [shonim]? The verse continues: “And royal wine in abundance [rav]” (Esther 1:7). Rav said: This teaches that each and every guest at the feast was poured well-aged wine that was older [rav] than himself in years.

״וְהַשְּׁתִיָּה כַדָּת (אֵין אוֹנֵס)״, מַאי ״כַּדָּת״? אָמַר רַבִּי חָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: כְּדָת שֶׁל תּוֹרָה, מָה דָּת שֶׁל תּוֹרָה אֲכִילָה מְרוּבָּה מִשְּׁתִיָּה — אַף סְעוּדָּתוֹ שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע אֲכִילָה מְרוּבָּה מִשְּׁתִיָּה.

The verse states: “And the drinking was according to the law; none did compel” (Esther 1:8). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “according to the law”? Rabbi Ḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Meir: The drinking was according to the law of the Torah. Just as, according to the law of the Torah, with regard to offerings, the food sacrificed on the altar is greater in quantity than the drink, for the wine libation is quantitatively much smaller than the sacrificial offerings it accompanies, so too, at the feast of that wicked man, the food was greater in quantity than the drink.

״אֵין אוֹנֵס״, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד הִשְׁקָהוּ מִיֵּין מְדִינָתוֹ. ״לַעֲשׂוֹת כִּרְצוֹן אִישׁ וָאִישׁ״, אָמַר רָבָא: לַעֲשׂוֹת כִּרְצוֹן מָרְדֳּכַי וְהָמָן. מָרְדֳּכַי — דִּכְתִיב: ״אִישׁ יְהוּדִי״, הָמָן — ״אִישׁ צַר וְאוֹיֵב״.

The verse states: “None did compel” (Esther 1:8). Rabbi Elazar said: This teaches that each and every guest at the feast was poured a drink from wine of his own country, so that he would feel entirely free, as if he were in his home country. The verse continues: “That they should do according to every man’s pleasure” (Esther 1:8). Rava commented on the literal meaning of the verse, which is referring to two men, a man and a man [ish va’ish], and said: The man and man whom they should follow indicates that they should do according to the wishes of Mordecai and Haman. The two of them served as butlers at the feast, and they were in charge of distributing the wine. Why is the verse interpreted in this way? Mordecai is called “man,” as it is written: “There was a certain Jewish man [ish] in Shushan the castle, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair” (Esther 2:5). And Haman is also called man, as it states: “A man [ish] who is an adversary and an enemy, this evil Haman” (Esther 7:6).

״גַּם וַשְׁתִּי הַמַּלְכָּה עָשְׂתָה מִשְׁתֵּה נָשִׁים בֵּית הַמַּלְכוּת״. ״בֵּית הַנָּשִׁים״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁנֵיהֶן לִדְבַר עֲבֵירָה נִתְכַּוְּונוּ, הַיְינוּ דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: אִיהוּ בְּקָרֵי, וְאִתְּתֵיהּ

The verse states: “Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women, in the royal house, which belonged to King Ahasuerus” (Esther 1:9). The Gemara questions why she held the feast in the royal house, a place of men, rather than in the women’s house, where it should have been. Rava said in response: The two of them had sinful intentions. Ahasuerus wished to fornicate with the women, and Vashti wished to fornicate with the men. This explains the folk saying that people say: He with pumpkins and his wife

בְּבוּצִינֵי.

with zucchinis, indicating that often a man and his wife engage in similar actions.

״בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי כְּטוֹב לֵב הַמֶּלֶךְ בַּיָּיִן״. אַטּוּ עַד הַשְׁתָּא לָא טָב לִבֵּיהּ בְּחַמְרָא? אֲמַר רָבָא: יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שַׁבָּת הָיָה. שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל אוֹכְלִין וְשׁוֹתִין — מַתְחִילִין בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה וּבְדִבְרֵי תִשְׁבָּחוֹת. אֲבָל אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם שֶׁאוֹכְלִין וְשׁוֹתִין — אֵין מַתְחִילִין אֶלָּא בְּדִבְרֵי תִיפְלוּת.

The verse states: “On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine” (Esther 1:10). The Gemara asks: Is that to say that until now his heart was not merry with wine? Did it take seven days for him to achieve merriment? Rava said: The seventh day was Shabbat, when the difference between the Jewish people and the gentiles is most apparent. On Shabbat, when the Jewish people eat and drink, they begin by occupying themselves with words of Torah and words of praise for God. But the nations of the world, when they eat and drink, they begin only with words of licentiousness.

וְכֵן בִּסְעוּדָּתוֹ שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע, הַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: מָדִיּוֹת נָאוֹת, וְהַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: פָּרְסִיּוֹת נָאוֹת. אָמַר לָהֶם אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ: כְּלִי שֶׁאֲנִי מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ, אֵינוֹ לֹא מָדִיִּי וְלֹא פָּרְסִי אֶלָּא כַּשְׂדִּיִּי, רְצוֹנְכֶם לִרְאוֹתָהּ? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אִין, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁתְּהֵא עֲרוּמָּה.

The Gemara continues to detail what occurred at the feast. So too, at the feast of that wicked man, Ahasuerus, when the men began to converse, some said: The Median women are the most beautiful, while others said: The Persian women are the most beautiful. Ahasuerus said to them: The vessel that I use, i.e., my wife, is neither Median nor Persian, but rather Chaldean. Do you wish to see her? They said to him: Yes, provided that she be naked, for we wish to see her without any additional adornments.

שֶׁבַּמִּדָּה שֶׁאָדָם מוֹדֵד — בָּהּ מוֹדְדִין לוֹ, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיְתָה וַשְׁתִּי הָרְשָׁעָה מְבִיאָה בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמַפְשִׁיטָתָן עֲרוּמּוֹת וְעוֹשָׂה בָּהֶן מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת. הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה כְּשׁוֹךְ חֲמַת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ זָכַר אֶת וַשְׁתִּי וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂתָה וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר נִגְזַר עָלֶיהָ״, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁעָשָׂתָה — כָּךְ נִגְזַר עָלֶיהָ.

The Gemara comments: Vashti was punished in this humiliating way for it is with the measure that a man measures to others that he himself is measured. In other words, God punishes individuals in line with their transgressions, measure for measure. This teaches that the wicked Vashti would take the daughters of Israel, and strip them naked, and make them work on Shabbat. Therefore, it was decreed that she be brought before the king naked, on Shabbat. This is as it is written: “After these things, when the wrath of King Ahasuerus was appeased, he remembered Vashti, and what she had done, and what was decreed against her” (Esther 2:1). That is to say, just as she had done with the young Jewish women, so it was decreed upon her.

״וַתְּמָאֵן הַמַּלְכָּה וַשְׁתִּי״. מִכְּדֵי פְּרִיצְתָּא הֲוַאי, דְּאָמַר מָר: שְׁנֵיהֶן לִדְבַר עֲבֵירָה נִתְכַּוְּונוּ, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אֲתַאי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁפָּרְחָה בָּהּ צָרַעַת. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: [בָּא גַּבְרִיאֵל וְעָשָׂה לָהּ זָנָב].

The verse states: “But the queen Vashti refused to come” (Esther 1:12). The Gemara asks: Since she was immodest, as the Master said above: The two of them had sinful intentions, what is the reason that she did not come? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: This teaches that she broke out in leprosy, and therefore she was embarrassed to expose herself publicly. An alternative reason for her embarrassment was taught in a baraita: The angel Gabriel came and fashioned her a tail.

״וַיִּקְצֹף הַמֶּלֶךְ מְאֹד״. אַמַּאי דְּלַקָה בֵּיהּ כּוּלֵּי הַאי? אָמַר רָבָא, שְׁלַחָה לֵיהּ: בַּר אַהוּרְיָירֵיהּ דְּאַבָּא, אַבָּא לָקֳבֵל אַלְפָּא חַמְרָא שָׁתֵי וְלָא רָוֵי, וְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא אִשְׁתַּטִּי בְּחַמְרֵיהּ, מִיָּד: ״וַחֲמָתוֹ בָּעֲרָה בוֹ״.

The verse continues: “Therefore the king was very wrathful, and his anger burned in him” (Esther 1:12). The Gemara asks: Why did his anger burn in him so greatly merely because she did not wish to come? Rava said: Vashti not only refused to come, but she also sent him a message by way of a messenger: You, son of my father’s stableman [ahuriyyarei]. Belshazzar, my father, drank wine against a thousand men and did not become inebriated, as the verse in Daniel (5:1) testifies about him: “Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand”; and that man, referring euphemistically to Ahasuerus himself, has become senseless from his wine. Due to her audacity, immediately “his anger burned in him” (Esther 1:12).

״וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ לַחֲכָמִים״, מַאן חֲכָמִים — רַבָּנַן. ״יוֹדְעֵי הָעִתִּים״ — שֶׁיּוֹדְעִין לְעַבֵּר שָׁנִים וְלִקְבּוֹעַ חֳדָשִׁים. אֲמַר לְהוּ: דַּיְּינוּהָ לִי. אֲמַרוּ: הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד? נֵימָא לֵיהּ: קִטְלַהּ, לִמְחַר פָּסֵיק לֵיהּ חַמְרֵיהּ וּבָעֵי לַהּ מִינַּן. נֵימָא לֵיהּ: שִׁבְקַהּ — קָא מְזַלְזְלָה בְּמַלְכוּתָא, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִיּוֹם שֶׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְגָלִינוּ מֵאַרְצֵנוּ, נִיטְּלָה עֵצָה מִמֶּנּוּ וְאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לָדוּן דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. זִיל לְגַבֵּי עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב דְּיָתְבִי בְּדוּכְתַּיְיהוּ כְּחַמְרָא דְּיָתֵיב עַל דּוּרְדְּיֵיהּ.

The following verse states: “Then the king said to the wise men, who knew the times” (Esther 1:13). The Gemara asks: Who are these wise men? These wise men are the Sages of the Jewish people, who are referred to as those “who knew the times,” for they know how to intercalate years and fix the months of the Jewish calendar. Ahasuerus said to them: Judge her for me. The Sages said in their hearts: What should we do? If we say to him: Kill her, tomorrow he will become sober and then come and demand her from us. If we say to him: Let her be, she has scorned royalty, and that cannot be tolerated. Consequently, they decided not to judge the matter, and they said to him as follows: From the day that the Temple was destroyed and we have been exiled from our land, counsel and insight have been removed from us, and we do not know how to judge capital cases, as they are exceptionally difficult. Go to the people of Ammon and Moab, who have remained permanently settled in their places like wine that is settled on its lees, and so their minds are settled as well.

וְטַעְמָא אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״שַׁאֲנַן מוֹאָב מִנְּעוּרָיו וְשׁוֹקֵט הוּא אֶל שְׁמָרָיו וְלֹא הוּרַק מִכְּלִי אֶל כֶּלִי וּבַגּוֹלָה לֹא הָלָךְ עַל כֵּן עָמַד טַעְמוֹ בּוֹ וְרֵיחוֹ לֹא נָמָר״, מִיָּד: ״וְהַקָּרוֹב אֵלָיו כַּרְשְׁנָא שֵׁתָר אַדְמָתָא תַרְשִׁישׁ״.

And they provided a good reason when they spoke to him, as they proved that one who is settled retains his reasoning: For it is written: “Moab has been at ease from his youth, and he has settled on his lees, and has not been emptied from vessel to vessel, neither has he gone into exile; therefore his taste has remained in him, and his scent is not changed” (Jeremiah 48:11). Ahasuerus immediately acted on their advice and asked his advisors, as it is written: “And next to him was Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan” (Esther 1:14).

אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי: כׇּל פָּסוּק זֶה עַל שׁוּם קׇרְבָּנוֹת נֶאֱמַר.

Rabbi Levi said: This entire verse listing the names of the king’s advisors is stated on account of offerings. Each name alludes to an aspect of the sacrificial service that was unique to the Jewish people, which the ministering angels mentioned as merit for the Jewish people.

״כַּרְשְׁנָא״ — אָמְרוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, כְּלוּם הִקְרִיבוּ לְפָנֶיךָ כָּרִים בְּנֵי שָׁנָה כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְפָנֶיךָ? ״שֵׁתָר״ — כְּלוּם הִקְרִיבוּ לְפָנֶיךָ שְׁתֵּי תוֹרִין? ״אַדְמָתָא״ — כְּלוּם בָּנוּ לְפָנֶיךָ מִזְבֵּחַ אֲדָמָה? ״תַּרְשִׁישׁ״ — כְּלוּם שִׁימְּשׁוּ לְפָנֶיךָ בְּבִגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ ״תַּרְשִׁישׁ וְשֹׁהַם וְיָשְׁפֵה״? ״מֶרֶס״ — כְּלוּם מֵירְסוּ בְּדָם לְפָנֶיךָ? ״מַרְסְנָא״ — כְּלוּם מֵירְסוּ בִּמְנָחוֹת לְפָנֶיךָ? ״מְמוּכָן״ — כְּלוּם הֵכִינוּ שֻׁלְחָן לְפָנֶיךָ?

“Carshena”; the ministering angels said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, did the gentiles ever offer before You lambs [karim] of the first year [shana], as the Jewish people have offered before You? “Shethar”; have they ever offered before You two turtledoves [shetei torim]? “Admatha”; have they ever built before You an altar of earth [adama]? “Tarshish”; have they ever ministered before You in the priestly vestments, as it is written that on the fourth of the four rows of precious stones contained on the breastplate were: “A beryl [tarshish], an onyx, and a jasper” (Exodus 28:20). “Meres”; have they ever stirred [meirsu] the blood of the offerings before You? “Marsena”; have they ever stirred [meirsu] the meal-offering before You? “Memucan”; have they ever prepared [hekhinu] the table before You, on which the shewbread was placed?

״וַיֹּאמֶר מְמוּכָן״. תָּנָא: מְמוּכָן זֶה הָמָן, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ מְמוּכָן? שֶׁמּוּכָן לְפוּרְעָנוּת. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מִכָּאן שֶׁהַהֶדְיוֹט קוֹפֵץ בָּרֹאשׁ.

The verse states: “And Memucan said” (Esther 1:16). A Sage taught in a baraita: Memucan is Haman. And why is Haman referred to as Memucan? Because he was prepared [mukhan] to bring calamity upon the Jewish people. Rav Kahana said: From here we see that the common man jumps to the front and speaks first, for Memucan was mentioned last of the king’s seven advisors, and nevertheless he expressed his opinion first.

״לִהְיוֹת כׇּל אִישׁ שׂוֹרֵר בְּבֵיתוֹ״. אָמַר רָבָא: אִלְמָלֵא אִגְּרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת לֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּיר מִשּׂוֹנְאֵיהֶן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל שָׂרִיד וּפָלִיט.

The king sent out letters to the people of all his provinces, in which it was written: “That every man shall wield authority in his own house and speak according to the language of his people” (Esther 1:22). Rava said: Were it not for the first letters sent by Ahasuerus, which everybody discounted, there would not have been left among the enemies of the Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people themselves, a remnant or a refugee. Since these first letters were the subject of ridicule, people didn’t take the king seriously and did not immediately act upon the directive of the later letters, calling for the Jewish people’s destruction.

אָמְרִי: מַאי הַאי דְּשַׁדַּיר לַן ״לִהְיוֹת כׇּל אִישׁ שׂוֹרֵר בְּבֵיתוֹ״? פְּשִׁיטָא, אֲפִילּוּ קָרָחָה — בְּבֵיתֵיהּ פַּרְדַּשְׁכָּא לֶיהֱוֵי!

The Gemara continues. The reason that the first letters were not taken seriously is that they who received them would say: What is this that he has sent us: “That every man shall wield authority in his own house”? This is obvious; even a lowly weaver is commander [paredashekha] in his house. If so, why then did the king find it necessary to make such a proclamation?

״וְיַפְקֵד הַמֶּלֶךְ פְּקִידִים״. אָמַר רַבִּי, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״כׇּל עָרוּם יַעֲשֶׂה בְדָעַת וּכְסִיל יִפְרֹשׂ אִוֶּלֶת״ —

The verse describes Ahasuerus’s search for a new wife by stating: “And let the king appoint officers in all the provinces of his kingdom, that they may gather together all the fair young virgins unto Shushan the castle” (Esther 2:3). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “In everything a prudent man acts with knowledge, but a fool unfolds his folly” (Proverbs 13:16)? The verse highlights the difference between two kings’ approaches to finding a wife.

״כׇּל עָרוּם יַעֲשֶׂה בְדָעַת״ — זֶה דָּוִד, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ עֲבָדָיו יְבַקְשׁוּ לַאדֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ נַעֲרָה בְתוּלָה״; כֹּל מַאן דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ בְּרַתָּא — אַיָּיתַהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ. ״וּכְסִיל יִפְרוֹשׁ אִוֶּלֶת״ — זֶה אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְיַפְקֵד הַמֶּלֶךְ פְּקִידִים״; כֹּל מַאן דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ בְּרַתָּא — אַיטְמְרַהּ מִינֵּיהּ.

“In everything a prudent man acts with knowledge”; this statement is referring to David, who also sought a wife for himself, as it is written: “And his servants said to him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin” (I Kings 1:2). Since he sought one maiden, whoever had a daughter brought her to him, for everyone wanted his daughter to be the king’s wife. With regard to the continuation of the verse: “But a fool unfolds his folly” (Proverbs 13:16), this statement is referring to Ahasuerus, as it is written: “And let the king appoint officers” to seek out many maidens. Since it became clear that the king would have relations with all of them, but in the end he would choose only one as his bride, whoever had a daughter hid her from him.

״אִישׁ יְהוּדִי הָיָה בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה וְגוֹ׳ אִישׁ יְמִינִי״. מַאי קָאָמַר: אִי לְיַחוֹסֵיהּ קָאָתֵי — לְיַחֲסֵיהּ וְלֵיזִיל עַד בִּנְיָמִין! אֶלָּא מַאי שְׁנָא הָנֵי?

The verse that initially describes Mordecai states: “There was a certain Jew in Shushan the castle, whose name was Mordecai the son of Jair the son of Shimei the son of Kish, a Benjamite” (Esther 2:5). The Gemara asks: What is it conveying in the verse by saying the names of Mordecai’s ancestors? If the verse in fact comes to trace his ancestry, it should continue tracing his lineage back all the way to Benjamin, the founder of his tribe. Rather, what is different about these names that they deserve special mention?

תָּנָא: כּוּלָּן עַל שְׁמוֹ נִקְרְאוּ. ״בֶּן יָאִיר״ — בֵּן שֶׁהֵאִיר עֵינֵיהֶם שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּתְפִלָּתוֹ. ״בֶּן שִׁמְעִי״ — בֵּן שֶׁשָּׁמַע אֵל תְּפִלָּתוֹ. ״בֶּן קִישׁ״ — שֶׁהִקִּישׁ עַל שַׁעֲרֵי רַחֲמִים וְנִפְתְּחוּ לוֹ.

The Gemara answers: A Sage taught the following baraita: All of them are names by which Mordecai was called. He was called “the son of Jair” because he was the son who enlightened [heir] the eyes of all of the Jewish people with his prayers; “the son of Shimei” because he was the son whom God heard [shama] his prayers; “the son of Kish” because he knocked [hikish] on the gates of mercy and they were opened to him.

קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״יְהוּדִי״ — אַלְמָא מִיהוּדָה קָאָתֵי, וְקָרֵי לֵיהּ ״יְמִינִי״ — אַלְמָא מִבִּנְיָמִין קָאָתֵי! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מָרְדֳּכַי מוּכְתָּר בְּנִימוּסוֹ הָיָה.

The Gemara points out a contradiction: Mordecai is referred to as a “Jew [Yehudi],” apparently indicating that he came from the tribe of Judah, but in the continuation of the verse he is called “Benjamite” [Yemini], which indicates that he came from the tribe of Benjamin. Rav Naḥman said: Mordecai was crowned with honorary names. Yehudi is one such honorary epithet, due to its allusion to the royal tribe of Judah, but it is not referring to Mordecai’s tribal affiliation.

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: אָבִיו מִבִּנְיָמִין, וְאִמּוֹ מִיהוּדָה. וְרַבָּנַן אָמְרִי: מִשְׁפָּחוֹת מִתְגָּרוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ. מִשְׁפַּחַת יְהוּדָה אוֹמֶרֶת: אֲנָא גְּרַמִי דְּמִתְיְלִיד מָרְדֳּכַי, דְּלָא קַטְלֵיהּ דָּוִד לְשִׁמְעִי בֶּן גֵּרָא. וּמִשְׁפַּחַת בִּנְיָמִין אָמְרָה: מִינַּאי קָאָתֵי.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said an alternative explanation: Mordecai’s father was from the tribe of Benjamin, and his mother was from the tribe of Judah. Therefore, he was both a Yemini, a Benjamite, and a Yehudi, from the tribe of Judah. And the Rabbis say that the dual lineage is due to a dispute: The families competed with each other over which tribe could take credit for Mordecai. The family of Judah would say: I caused the birth of Mordecai, as only because David did not kill Shimei, the son of Gera, when he cursed him (see II Samuel 16) was it possible for Mordecai to be born later from his descendants. And the family of Benjamin said in response: In the end he came from me, as he in fact was from Benjamin’s tribe.

רָבָא אָמַר: כְּנֶסֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל אָמְרָה לְאִידַּךְ גִּיסָא: רְאוּ מָה עָשָׂה לִי יְהוּדִי וּמָה שִׁילֵּם לִי יְמִינִי. מָה עָשָׂה לִי יְהוּדִי —

Rava said: The Congregation of Israel at the time said this from the opposite perspective, not as a boast, but as a complaint, remarking: See what a Judean has done to me and how a Benjamite has repaid me. What a Judean has done to me is referring to

דְּלָא קַטְלֵיהּ דָּוִד לְשִׁמְעִי, דְּאִתְיְלִיד מִינֵּיהּ מָרְדֳּכַי דְּמִיקַּנֵּי בֵּיהּ הָמָן. וּמָה שִׁילֵּם לִי יְמִינִי — דְּלָא קַטְלֵיהּ שָׁאוּל לַאֲגָג, דְּאִתְיְלִיד מִינֵּיהּ הָמָן דִּמְצַעַר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל.

the responsibility of Judah, as David did not kill Shimei, although he was liable to the death penalty. The grave consequences of this failure included that Mordecai was born from him, and it was he against whom Haman was jealous, leading Haman to issue a decree against all of the Jewish people. And how a Benjamite has repaid me is referring to the fact that Saul, who was from the tribe of Benjamin, did not kill the Amalekite king Agag immediately, from whom Haman was later born, and he caused suffering to the Jewish people.

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם מִבִּנְיָמִן קָאָתֵי, וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״יְהוּדִי״? עַל שׁוּם שֶׁכָּפַר בָּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. שֶׁכׇּל הַכּוֹפֵר בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נִקְרָא ״יְהוּדִי״, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״אִיתַי גּוּבְרִין יְהוּדָאיִן וְגוֹ׳״.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said a different explanation of the verse: Actually, Mordecai came from the tribe of Benjamin. Why, then, was he referred to as Yehudi? On account of the fact that he repudiated idol worship, for anyone who repudiates idolatry is called Yehudi. It is understood here in the sense of yiḥudi, one who declares the oneness of God, as it is written: “There are certain Jews [Yehuda’in] whom thou hast appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylonia, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego; these men, O king, have not regarded you: They serve not your gods, nor worship the golden image which you have set up” (Daniel 3:12). These three individuals were in fact Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who were not all from the tribe of Judah but are referred to as Yehuda’in because they repudiated idol worship.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי, כִּי הֲוָה פָּתַח בְּדִבְרֵי הַיָּמִים, אָמַר הָכִי: כׇּל דְּבָרֶיךָ אֶחָד הֵם, וְאָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לְדוֹרְשָׁן. ״וְאִשְׁתּוֹ הַיְהוּדִיָּה יָלְדָה אֶת יֶרֶד אֲבִי גְדוֹר וְאֶת חֶבֶר אֲבִי שׂוֹכוֹ וְאֶת יְקוּתִיאֵל אֲבִי זָנוֹחַ וְאֵלֶּה בְּנֵי בִּתְיָה בַת פַּרְעֹה אֲשֶׁר לָקַח מָרֶד״.

§ Incidental to the exposition of the word Yehudi as one who repudiates idolatry, the Gemara relates that when Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi introduced his exposition of the book of Chronicles, he addressed the book of Chronicles and said as follows: All of your words are one, and we know how to expound them. This introduction made reference to the fact that the book of Chronicles cannot always be interpreted literally but requires exposition, as the same individual might be called by various different names, as in the following verse: “And his wife HaYehudiyya bore Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Soco, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah. And these are the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took” (I Chronicles 4:18).

אַמַּאי קָרֵי לַהּ ״יְהוּדִיָּה״ — עַל שׁוּם שֶׁכָּפְרָה בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַתֵּרֶד בַּת פַּרְעֹה לִרְחוֹץ עַל הַיְאוֹר״, וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁיָּרְדָה לִרְחוֹץ מִגִּילּוּלֵי בֵּית אָבִיהָ.

Why is she, who we are told at the end of the verse was Pharaoh’s daughter Bithiah, referred to as Yehudiyya? Because she repudiated idol worship, as it is written: “And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash herself in the river” (Exodus 2:5), and Rabbi Yoḥanan said: She went down to wash and purify herself from the idols of her father’s house.

״יָלְדָה״? וְהָא רַבּוֹיֵי רַבִּיתֵיהּ! לוֹמַר לְךָ שֶׁכׇּל הַמְגַדֵּל יָתוֹם וִיתוֹמָה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ — מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ יְלָדוֹ.

The Gemara understands that all the names referred to in the verse as children of Pharaoh’s daughter refer to Moses, as it will soon explain. The Gemara asks: Pharaoh’s daughter bore Moses? But didn’t she merely raise him? Rather, it is telling you that with regard to anyone who raises an orphan boy or girl in his house, the verse ascribes him credit as if he gave birth to him.

״יֶרֶד״ זֶה מֹשֶׁה, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ ״יֶרֶד״? שֶׁיָּרַד לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מָן בְּיָמָיו. ״גְּדוֹר״ — שֶׁגָּדַר פִּרְצוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. ״חֶבֶר״ — שֶׁחִיבֵּר אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לַאֲבִיהֶן שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם. ״סוֹכוֹ״ — שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּסוּכָּה. ״יְקוּתִיאֵל״ — שֶׁקִּוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לָאֵל בְּיָמָיו. ״זָנוֹחַ״ — שֶׁהִזְנִיחַ עֲוֹנוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל.

The Gemara explains how all the names in fact are referring to Moses: “Jered”; this is Moses, and why was he called Jered? Because manna came down [yarad] for the Jewish people in his days. He was also called “Gedor” because he fenced in [gadar] the breaches of the Jewish people. He was called “Heber” because he connected [ḥibber] the Jewish people to their Father in Heaven. He was called “Soco” because he was for the Jewish people like a shelter [sukka] and shield. He was called “Jekuthiel” because the Jewish people trusted in God [kivu laEl] in his days. Lastly, he was called “Zanoah” because he caused the iniquities of the Jewish people to be disregarded [hizniaḥ].

״אֲבִי״ ״אֲבִי״ ״אֲבִי״ — אָב בַּתּוֹרָה, אָב בְּחׇכְמָה, אָב בִּנְבִיאוּת.

The Gemara notes that the words “father of” appear three times in that same verse: “And his wife Hajehudijah bore Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Soco, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah.” This teaches that Moses was a father to all of the Jewish people in three respects: A father in Torah, a father in wisdom, and a father in prophecy.

״וְאֵלֶּה בְּנֵי בִּתְיָה אֲשֶׁר לָקַח מָרֶד״, וְכִי מֶרֶד שְׁמוֹ? וַהֲלֹא כָּלֵב שְׁמוֹ! אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: יָבֹא כָּלֵב שֶׁמָּרַד בַּעֲצַת מְרַגְּלִים, וְיִשָּׂא אֶת בַּת פַּרְעֹה שֶׁמָּרְדָה בְּגִלּוּלֵי בֵּית אָבִיהָ.

The aforementioned verse stated: “And these are the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took.” The Gemara asks: Was Bithiah’s husband’s name Mered? Wasn’t his name Caleb? Rather, the verse alludes to the reason that Caleb married Bithiah. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Let Caleb, who rebelled [marad] against the advice of the spies, come and marry the daughter of Pharaoh, who rebelled against the idols of her father’s home.

״אֲשֶׁר הׇגְלָה מִירוּשָׁלַיִם״, אָמַר רָבָא: שֶׁגָּלָה מֵעַצְמוֹ.

§ The Gemara resumes its explanation of the book of Esther. The verse states with regard to Mordecai: “Who had been exiled from Jerusalem” (Esther 2:6). Rava said: This language indicates that he went into exile on his own, not because he was forced to leave Jerusalem. He knew that he would be needed by those in exile, and therefore he consciously left Jerusalem to attend to the needs of his people.

״וַיְהִי אוֹמֵן אֶת הֲדַסָּה״, קָרֵי לַהּ ״הֲדַסָּה״ וְקָרֵי לַהּ ״אֶסְתֵּר״? תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֶסְתֵּר שְׁמָהּ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ הֲדַסָּה — עַל שֵׁם הַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ הֲדַסִּים. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהוּא עוֹמֵד בֵּין הַהֲדַסִּים״.

The verse states: “And he had brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther” (Esther 2:7). She is referred to as “Hadassah” and she is referred to as “Esther.” What was her real name? It is taught in a baraita that the Sages differed in their opinion as to which was in fact her name and which one was a description: Rabbi Meir says: Esther was her real name. Why then was she called Hadassah? On account of the righteous, who are called myrtles [hadassim], and so it states: “And he stood among the myrtles [hahadassim]” (Zechariah 1:8).

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הֲדַסָּה שְׁמָהּ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרֵאת שְׁמָהּ אֶסְתֵּר? עַל שֵׁם שֶׁהָיְתָה מַסְתֶּרֶת דְּבָרֶיהָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֵין אֶסְתֵּר מַגֶּדֶת אֶת עַמָּהּ וְגוֹ׳״.

Rabbi Yehuda differs and says: Hadassah was her real name. Why then was she called Esther? Because she concealed [masteret] the truth about herself, as it is stated: “Esther had not yet made known her kindred nor her people” (Esther 2:20).

רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: הֲדַסָּה שְׁמָהּ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרֵאת אֶסְתֵּר? שֶׁהָיוּ אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ עַל שׁוּם אִסְתַּהַר. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: אֶסְתֵּר, לֹא אֲרוּכָּה וְלֹא קְצָרָה הָיְתָה, אֶלָּא בֵּינוֹנִית כַּהֲדַסָּה. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אָמַר: אֶסְתֵּר — יְרַקְרוֹקֶת הָיְתָה, וְחוּט שֶׁל חֶסֶד מָשׁוּךְ עָלֶיהָ.

Rabbi Neḥemya concurs and says: Hadassah was her real name. Why then was she called Esther? This was her non-Hebrew name, for owing to her beauty the nations of the world called her after Istahar, Venus. Ben Azzai says: Esther was neither tall nor short, but of average size like a myrtle tree, and therefore she was called Hadassah, the Hebrew name resembling that myrtle tree. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: Esther was called Hadassah because she was greenish, having a pale complexion like a myrtle, but a cord of Divine grace was strung around her, endowing her with a beautiful appearance.

״כִּי אֵין לָהּ אָב וָאֵם״ — ״וּבְמוֹת אָבִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ״ לְמָה לִי? אָמַר רַב אַחָא: עִיבְּרַתָּה — מֵת אָבִיהָ, יְלָדַתָּה — מֵתָה אִמָּהּ.

The verse initially states with regard to Esther: “For she had neither father nor mother” (Esther 2:7). Why do I need to be told in the continuation of the verse: “And when her father and mother were dead, Mordecai took her for his own daughter”? Rav Aḥa said: This repetition indicates that when her mother became pregnant with her, her father died, and when she gave birth to her, her mother died, so that she did not have a mother or a father for even a single day.

״וּבְמוֹת אָבִיהָ וְאִמָּהּ לְקָחָהּ מׇרְדֳּכַי לוֹ לְבַת״, תָּנָא מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אַל תִּקְרֵי ״לְבַת״ אֶלָּא לְבַיִת. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְלָרָשׁ אֵין כֹּל כִּי אִם כִּבְשָׂה אַחַת קְטַנָּה אֲשֶׁר קָנָה וַיְחַיֶּהָ וַתִּגְדַּל עִמּוֹ וְעִם בָּנָיו יַחְדָּו מִפִּתּוֹ תֹאכַל וּמִכּוֹסוֹ תִשְׁתֶּה וּבְחֵיקוֹ תִשְׁכָּב וַתְּהִי לוֹ כְּבַת״, מִשּׁוּם דִּבְחֵיקוֹ תִשְׁכָּב הֲווֹת לֵיהּ (לְבַת)? אֶלָּא — (לְבַיִת) הָכִי נָמֵי לְבַיִת.

The verse states: “And when her father and mother were dead, Mordecai took her for his own daughter” (Esther 2:7). A tanna taught a baraita in the name of Rabbi Meir: Do not read the verse literally as for a daughter [bat], but rather read it as for a home [bayit]. This indicates that Mordecai took Esther to be his wife. And so it states: “But the poor man had nothing, except one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and reared: And it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his bread, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was like a daughter [kevat] to him” (II Samuel 12:3). The Gemara questions: Because it lay in his bosom, it “was like a daughter to him”? Rather, the parable in II Samuel referenced the illicit taking of another’s wife, and the phrase should be read: Like a home [bayit] to him, i.e., a wife. So too, here, Mordecai took her for a home, i.e., a wife.

״וְאֵת שֶׁבַע הַנְּעָרוֹת וְגוֹ׳״. אָמַר רָבָא: שֶׁהָיְתָה מוֹנָה בָּהֶן יְמֵי שַׁבָּת. ״וַיְשַׁנֶּהָ וְאֶת נַעֲרוֹתֶיהָ וְגוֹ׳״. אָמַר רַב: שֶׁהֶאֱכִילָהּ מַאֲכָל יְהוּדִי.

The verse states: “And the seven maids chosen to be given her out of the king’s house” (Esther 2:9). Rava said: She would have a separate maid attend her each day, and she would count the days of the week by them, so she was always aware when Shabbat was. The verse continues: “And he advanced her and her maids to the best place in the house of the women.” Rav said: The advancement in the verse signals that he fed her food of Jews, i.e., kosher food.

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: שֶׁהֶאֱכִילָהּ קְדָלֵי דַחֲזִירֵי.

And Shmuel said an alternative understanding: The advancement was a well-intentioned act in that he fed her pig hinds, thinking she would view it as a delicacy, although in fact they were not kosher.

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: זֵרְעוֹנִים, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיְהִי הַמֶּלְצַר נוֹשֵׂא אֶת פַּת בָּגָם וְנוֹתֵן לָהֶם זֵרְעוֹנִים״.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said a third understanding: He gave her vegetables, which did not pose a problem with regard to the kosher laws. And so it states with regard to the kindness done for Daniel and his associates: “So the steward took away their food and the wine that they should drink; and gave them vegetables” (Daniel 1:16).

״שִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמּוֹר״. מַאי ״שֶׁמֶן הַמּוֹר״? רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר: סְטָכַת, רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: שֶׁמֶן זַיִת שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁלִישׁ. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַנְפָּקִינוֹן — שֶׁמֶן זַיִת שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁלִישׁ, וְלָמָּה סָכִין אוֹתוֹ — שֶׁמַּשִּׁיר אֶת הַשֵּׂיעָר וּמְעַדֵּן אֶת הַבָּשָׂר.

The verse states: “Six months with oil of myrrh” (Esther 2:12). The Gemara asks: What is “oil of myrrh”? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: It is the aromatic oil called setakt. Rav Huna said: It is a cosmetic oil derived from olives that have not yet reached one-third of their growth. It is similarly taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: Anpakinon is the oil of olives that have not reached one-third of their growth. And why is it smeared on the body? Because it removes the hair and softens the skin.

״בָּעֶרֶב הִיא בָאָה וּבַבֹּקֶר הִיא שָׁבָה״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִגְּנוּתוֹ שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע לָמַדְנוּ שִׁבְחוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ בַּיּוֹם.

The verse states: “In the evening she went, and in the morning she returned” (Esther 2:14). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From the implicit criticism of that wicked man, Ahasuerus, who cohabited with many women, we have incidentally learned his praise as well, that he would not engage in sexual relations during the day, but in a more modest fashion at night.

״וַתְּהִי אֶסְתֵּר נֹשֵׂאת חֵן״, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלְּכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד נִדְמְתָה לוֹ כְּאוּמָּתוֹ. ״וַתִּלָּקַח אֶסְתֵּר אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ אֶל בֵּית מַלְכוּתוֹ בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָעֲשִׂירִי הוּא חֹדֶשׁ טֵבֵת״, יֶרַח שֶׁנֶּהֱנֶה גּוּף מִן הַגּוּף.

The verse states: “And Esther obtained favor in the sight of all those who looked upon her” (Esther 2:15). Rabbi Elazar said: This teaches that she appeared to each and every one as if she were a member of his own nation, and therefore she obtained favor in the eyes of all. The next verse states: “So Esther was taken to King Ahasuerus into his royal house in the tenth month, which is the month Tevet” (Esther 2:16). It was by act of divine providence that Esther was taken to Ahasuerus in a cold winter month, in which the body takes pleasure in the warmth of another body, and therefore she found favor in his eyes.

״וַיֶּאֱהַב הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת אֶסְתֵּר מִכׇּל הַנָּשִׁים וַתִּשָּׂא חֵן וָחֶסֶד לְפָנָיו מִכׇּל הַבְּתוּלוֹת״, אָמַר רַב: בִּיקֵּשׁ לִטְעוֹם טַעַם בְּתוּלָה — טָעַם, טַעַם בְּעוּלָה — טָעַם.

The verse states: “And the king loved Esther more than all the women, and she obtained grace and favor in his sight more than all the virgins” (Esther 2:17). Rav said: This double language indicates that if he wanted to taste in her the taste of a virgin during intercourse, he tasted it, and if he wanted to experience the taste of a non-virgin, he tasted it, and therefore he loved her more than all the other women.

״וַיַּעַשׂ הַמֶּלֶךְ מִשְׁתֶּה גָדוֹל״. עֲבַד מִשְׁתְּיָא וְלָא גַּלְּיָא לֵיהּ, דַּלִּי כְּרָגָא וְלָא גַּלְּיָא לֵיהּ, שַׁדַּר פַּרְדִּישְׁנֵי וְלָא גַּלְּיָא לֵיהּ.

The verse states: “Then the king made a great feast for all his princes and his servants, even Esther’s feast” (Esther 2:18). The Gemara explains that this was part of an attempt to have Esther reveal her true identity. He made a great feast in her honor, but she did not reveal her identity to him. He lowered the taxes [karga] in her name, but still she did not reveal it to him. He sent gifts [pardishenei] to the ministers in her name, but even so she did not reveal it to him.

״וּבְהִקָּבֵץ בְּתוּלוֹת שֵׁנִית וְגוֹ׳״. אֲזַיל שְׁקַל עֵצָה מִמָּרְדֳּכַי, אֲמַר: אֵין אִשָּׁה מִתְקַנְּאָה אֶלָּא בְּיֶרֶךְ חֲבֶירְתָּהּ, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי לָא גַּלְּיָא לֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֵין אֶסְתֵּר מַגֶּדֶת מוֹלַדְתָּהּ וְגוֹ׳״.

The verse states: “And when the virgins were gathered together the second time and Mordecai sat in the king’s gate” (Esther 2:19). The Gemara explains: The reason Ahasuerus gathered the women together was that he went and took advice from Mordecai as to what he should do to get Esther to reveal her identity. Mordecai said to him: As a rule, a woman is jealous only of the thigh of another woman. Therefore, you should take for yourself additional women. But even so she did not reveal her origins to him, as it is written: “Esther had not yet made known her kindred nor her people” (Esther 2:20).

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, מַאי דִּכְתִיב:

§ Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written:

״לֹא יִגְרַע מִצַּדִּיק עֵינָיו״ — בִּשְׂכַר צְנִיעוּת שֶׁהָיְתָה בָּהּ בְּרָחֵל זָכְתָה וְיָצָא מִמֶּנָּה שָׁאוּל, וּבִשְׂכַר צְנִיעוּת שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹ בְּשָׁאוּל זָכָה וְיָצָאת מִמֶּנּוּ אֶסְתֵּר.

“He withdraws not His eyes from the righteous; but with kings upon the throne He establishes them forever, and they are exalted” (Job 36:7)? This teaches that in reward for the modesty shown by Rachel she merited that Saul, who was also modest, should descend from her, and in reward for the modesty shown by Saul, he merited that Esther should descend from him.

וּמַאי צְנִיעוּת הָיְתָה בָּהּ בְּרָחֵל? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּגֵּד יַעֲקֹב לְרָחֵל כִּי אֲחִי אָבִיהָ הוּא״. וְכִי אֲחִי אָבִיהָ הוּא? וַהֲלֹא בֶּן אֲחוֹת אָבִיהָ הוּא?

The Gemara explains: What was the modesty shown by Rachel? It is as it is written: “And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s brother, and that he was Rebecca’s son” (Genesis 29:12). It may be asked: Was he, Jacob, in fact her father’s brother? But wasn’t he the son of her father’s sister?

אֶלָּא, אֲמַר לַהּ: מִינַּסְבָא לִי? אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: אִין, מִיהוּ אַבָּא רַמָּאָה הוּא וְלָא יָכְלַתְּ לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לַהּ: אָחִיו אֲנָא בְּרַמָּאוּת. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: וּמִי שְׁרֵי לְצַדִּיקֵי לְסַגּוֹיֵי בְּרַמָּיוּתָא? אֲמַר לַהּ, אִין: ״עִם נָבָר תִּתָּבָר וְעִם עִקֵּשׁ תִּתַּפָּל״.

Rather, it must be understood that when Jacob met Rachel, he said to her: Will you marry me? She said to him: Yes, but my father, Laban, is a swindler, and you will not be able to outwit him. Jacob alleviated her fears, as he said to her that he is her father’s brother, referring not to their familial affiliation but rather to his ability to deal with her father on his level, as if to say: I am his brother in deception. She said to him: But is it really permitted for the righteous to be involved in deception? He said to her: Yes, it is permitted when dealing with deceptive individuals, as the verse states: “With the pure you will show yourself pure, and with the perverse you will show yourself subtle” (II Samuel 22:27), indicating that one should deal with others in the manner appropriate for their personality.

אֲמַר לַהּ: וּמַאי רַמָּיוּתָא? אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: אִית לִי אֲחָתָא דְּקַשִּׁישָׁא מִינַּאי וְלָא מַנְסֵיב לִי מִקַּמַּהּ. מְסַר לַהּ סִימָנִים.

Jacob then said to her: What is the deception that he will plan to carry out and I should be prepared for? Rachel said to him: I have a sister who is older than I, and he will not marry me off before her, and will try to give you her in my place. So Jacob gave her certain distinguishing signs that she should use to indicate to him that she was actually Rachel and not her sister.

כִּי מְטָא לֵילְיָא, אֲמַרָה: הַשְׁתָּא מִיכַּסְפָא אֲחָתַאי. מְסַרְתִּינְהוּ נִיהֲלַהּ. וְהַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי בַבֹּקֶר וְהִנֵּה הִיא לֵאָה״, מִכְּלָל דְּעַד הַשְׁתָּא לָאו לֵאָה הִיא? אֶלָּא: מִתּוֹךְ סִימָנִין שֶׁמָּסְרָה רָחֵל לְלֵאָה — לָא הֲוָה יָדַע עַד הַשְׁתָּא. לְפִיכָךְ זָכְתָה וְיָצָא מִמֶּנָּה שָׁאוּל.

When the wedding night arrived, and Laban planned to switch the sisters, Rachel said to herself: Now my sister will be embarassed, for Jacob will ask her for the signs and she will not know them. So she gave them to her. And this is as it is written: “And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah” (Genesis 29:25). Does this imply by inference that until now she was not Leah? Rather, due to the distinguishing signs that Rachel had given to Leah, he did not know until now, when it was light outside, that she was Leah. Therefore, Rachel merited that Saul should descend from her, due to her act of modesty in not revealing to Jacob that she had shown the signs to Leah.

וּמָה צְנִיעוּת הָיְתָה בְּשָׁאוּל? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת דְּבַר הַמְּלוּכָה לֹא הִגִּיד לוֹ אֲשֶׁר אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל״, זָכָה וְיָצָאת מִמֶּנּוּ אֶסְתֵּר. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כְּשֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא פּוֹסֵק גְּדוּלָּה לְאָדָם — פּוֹסֵק לְבָנָיו וְלִבְנֵי בָנָיו עַד סוֹף כׇּל הַדּוֹרוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיּוֹשִׁיבֵם לָנֶצַח וַיִּגְבָּהוּ (וְגוֹ׳)״. וְאִם הֵגִיס דַּעְתּוֹ — הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַשְׁפִּילוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִם אֲסוּרִים בַּזִּקִּים וְגוֹ׳״.

And what was the modesty shown by Saul? As it is written: “But of the matter of the kingdom, of which Samuel spoke, he did not tell him” (I Samuel 10:16). Saul expressed his modesty by not revealing Samuel’s promise that he would be king, and thereby merited that Esther would descend from him. Similarly, Rabbi Elazar said: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, assigns greatness to a person, He assigns it to his sons and to his son’s sons for all generations, as it is stated: “He withdraws not his eyes from the righteous; but with kings upon the throne He establishes them forever, and they are exalted” (Job 36:7). And if he becomes arrogant due to this, the Holy One, Blessed be He, lowers him in order to humble him, as it is stated in the next verse: “And if they are bound in chains, and are held in cords of affliction, then He declares unto them their work, and their transgressions, that they have behaved proudly” (Job 36:8–9).

״וְאֶת מַאֲמַר מׇרְדֳּכַי אֶסְתֵּר עוֹשָׂה״, אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: שֶׁהָיְתָה מַרְאָה דַּם נִדָּה לַחֲכָמִים. ״כַּאֲשֶׁר הָיְתָה בְאׇמְנָה אִתּוֹ״, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר לִימָא (מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב): שֶׁהָיְתָה עוֹמֶדֶת מֵחֵיקוֹ שֶׁל אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ וְטוֹבֶלֶת וְיוֹשֶׁבֶת בְּחֵיקוֹ שֶׁל מָרְדֳּכַי.

§ The Gemara returns to its exposition of the Megilla. The verse states: “For Esther adhered to the words of Mordecai, as she did when she was brought up with him” (Esther 2:20). Rabbi Yirmeya said: This teaches that she would show discharges of her menstrual blood to the Sages to inquire whether she was pure or impure. The verse continues: “As she did when she was brought up with him” (Esther 2:20). Rabba bar Lima said in the name of Rav: This means that she maintained a relationship with Mordecai, as she would arise from the lap of Ahasuerus, immerse herself in a ritual bath, and sit in the lap of Mordecai.

״בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וּמׇרְדֳּכַי יוֹשֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר הַמֶּלֶךְ קָצַף בִּגְתָן וָתֶרֶשׁ״, אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הִקְצִיף הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אָדוֹן עַל עֲבָדָיו לַעֲשׂוֹת רְצוֹן צַדִּיק. וּמַנּוּ? יוֹסֵף, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׁם אִתָּנוּ נַעַר עִבְרִי וְגוֹ׳״.

The Megilla continues: “In those days, while Mordecai sat in the king’s gate, two of the king’s chamberlains, Bigthan and Teresh, of those that guarded the doors, became angry, and sought to lay hands on the king Ahasuerus” (Esther 2:21). Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, caused a master to become angry with his servants in order to fulfill the will of a righteous man. And who is this? It is Joseph, as it is stated in the chief butler’s account of how Pharaoh had become angry with him and with the chief baker and sent them to jail: “And there was with us there a young man, a Hebrew” (Genesis 41:12).

עֲבָדִים עַל אֲדוֹנֵיהֶן לַעֲשׂוֹת נֵס לַצַּדִּיק, וּמַנּוּ? מָרְדֳּכַי, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּוָּדַע הַדָּבָר לְמׇרְדֳּכַי וְגוֹ׳״.

Similarly, the Holy One, Blessed be He, also caused servants to become angry with their master in order to perform a miracle for another righteous man. And who is he? It is Mordecai, as with regard to the plot to kill the king it is written: “And the matter became known to Mordecai” (Esther 2:22).

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בִּגְתָן וָתֶרֶשׁ שְׁנֵי טַרְסִיִּים הֲווֹ, וְהָיוּ מְסַפְּרִין בְּלָשׁוֹן טוּרְסִי, וְאוֹמְרִים: מִיּוֹם שֶׁבָּאת זוֹ לֹא רָאִינוּ שֵׁינָה בְּעֵינֵינוּ, בֹּא וְנַטִּיל אֶרֶס בַּסֵּפֶל כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּמוּת. וְהֵן לֹא הָיוּ יוֹדְעִין כִּי מָרְדֳּכַי מִיּוֹשְׁבֵי לִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית הָיָה, וְהָיָה יוֹדֵעַ בְּשִׁבְעִים לָשׁוֹן.

The Gemara explains how the matter became known to him. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Bigthan and Teresh were two Tarsians, and they would talk with one another in the Tarsian language. They said: From the day that Esther arrived we have not slept, as Ahasuerus has been with Esther all night, and he has been busying us with his demands. Come, let us cast poison in the goblet from which he drinks so that he will die. But they did not know that Mordecai was one of those who sat on the Sanhedrin, which convened in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, and that he knew seventy languages, a necessity for members of the Sanhedrin.

אָמַר לוֹ: וַהֲלֹא אֵין מִשְׁמַרְתִּי וּמִשְׁמַרְתְּךָ שָׁוָה? אָמַר לוֹ: אֲנִי אֶשְׁמוֹר מִשְׁמַרְתִּי וּמִשְׁמַרְתְּךָ. וְהַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְבֻקַּשׁ הַדָּבָר וַיִּמָּצֵא״ — שֶׁלֹּא נִמְצְאוּ בְּמִשְׁמַרְתָּן.

While planning their plot, one of them said to the other: But my post and your post are not identical. How then can one of us leave our position to succeed in our plot to poison the king? The other one said to him: I will guard both my post and your post. And this is as it is written with regard to the king’s verifying Mordecai’s revelation of the plan to kill the king: “And when inquiry was made of the matter, it was found to be so” (Esther 2:23); it was discovered that they were not both found at their posts.

״אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה״. (אַחַר מַאי?) אָמַר רָבָא: אַחַר שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא רְפוּאָה לַמַּכָּה.

The verse describes when the rest of the events of the Megilla occurred: “After these events did King Ahasuerus promote Haman” (Esther 3:1). The Gemara asks: After what particular events? Rava said: Only after the Holy One, Blessed be He, created a remedy for the blow and set in place the chain of events that would lead to the miraculous salvation was Haman appointed, setting the stage for the decree against the Jews to be issued.