Megillah 18

אחר ישובו בני ישראל ובקשו את ה׳ אלהיהם ואת דוד מלכם וכיון שבא דוד באתה תפלה שנאמר והביאותים אל הר קדשי ושמחתים בבית תפלתי

“Afterward the children of Israel shall return, and seek the Lord their God and David their king” (Hosea 3:5), and consequently, the blessing of the kingdom of David follows the blessing of the building of Jerusalem. And once the scion of David comes, the time for prayer will come, as it is stated: “I will bring them to My sacred mountain and make them joyful in My house of prayer” (Isaiah 56:7). Therefore, the blessing of hearing prayer is recited after the blessing of the kingdom of David.

וכיון שבאת תפלה באת עבודה שנאמר עולותיהם וזבחיהם לרצון על מזבחי וכיון שבאת עבודה באתה תודה שנאמר זובח תודה יכבדנני

And after prayer comes, the Temple service will arrive, as it is stated in the continuation of that verse: “Their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted on My altar” (Isaiah 56:7). The blessing of restoration of the Temple service follows the blessing of hearing prayer. And when the Temple service comes, with it will also come thanksgiving, as it is stated: “Whoever sacrifices a thanks-offering honors Me” (Psalms 50:23), which teaches that thanksgiving follows sacrifice. Therefore, the blessing of thanksgiving follows the blessing of restoration of the Temple service.

ומה ראו לומר ברכת כהנים אחר הודאה דכתיב וישא אהרן את ידיו אל העם ויברכם וירד מעשות החטאת והעולה והשלמים

And why did they see fit to institute that one says the Priestly Benediction after the blessing of thanksgiving? As it is written: “And Aaron lifted up his hand toward the people and blessed them, and he came down from sacrificing the sin-offering, and the burnt-offering, and the peace-offerings” (Leviticus 9:22), teaching that the Priestly Benediction follows the sacrificial service, which includes the thanks-offering.

אימא קודם עבודה לא סלקא דעתך דכתיב וירד מעשות החטאת וגו׳ מי כתיב לעשות מעשות כתיב

The Gemara asks: But the cited verse indicates that Aaron blessed the people and then sacrificed the offerings. Should we not then say the Priestly Benediction before the blessing of the Temple service? The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to say this, as it is written: “And he came down from sacrificing the sin-offering.” Is it written that he came down to sacrifice the offerings, implying that after blessing the people Aaron came down and sacrificed the offerings? No, it is written, “from sacrificing,” indicating that the offerings had already been sacrificed.

ולימרה אחר העבודה לא סלקא דעתך דכתיב זובח תודה

The Gemara asks: If, as derived from this verse, the Priestly Benediction follows the sacrificial service, the Priestly Benediction should be said immediately after the blessing of restoration of the Temple service, without the interruption of the blessing of thanksgiving. The Gemara rejects this argument: It should not enter your mind to say this, as it is written: “Whoever sacrifices a thanks-offering honors Me,” from which we learn that thanksgiving follows sacrifice, as already explained.

מאי חזית דסמכת אהאי סמוך אהאי מסתברא עבודה והודאה חדא מילתא היא

The Gemara asks: What did you see to rely on this verse and juxtapose thanksgiving with sacrifice? Rely rather on the other verse, which indicates that it is the Priestly Benediction that should be juxtaposed with the sacrificial service. The Gemara answers: It stands to reason to have the blessing of thanksgiving immediately following the blessing of the sacrificial service, since the sacrificial service and thanksgiving, which are closely related conceptually, are one matter.

ומה ראו לומר שים שלום אחר ברכת כהנים דכתיב ושמו את שמי על בני ישראל ואני אברכם ברכה דהקדוש ברוך הוא שלום שנאמר ה׳ יברך את עמו בשלום

And why did they see fit to institute that one says the blessing beginning with the words: Grant peace, after the Priestly Benediction? As it is written immediately following the Priestly Benediction: “And they shall put My name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them” (Numbers 6:27). The Priestly Benediction is followed by God’s blessing, and the blessing of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is peace, as it is stated: “The Lord blesses His people with peace” (Psalms 29:11).

וכי מאחר דמאה ועשרים זקנים ומהם כמה נביאים תקנו תפלה על הסדר שמעון הפקולי מאי הסדיר שכחום וחזר וסדרום

The Gemara returns to the baraita cited at the beginning of the discussion: Now, since the baraita teaches that a hundred and twenty Elders, including many prophets, established the Amida prayer in its fixed order, what is it that Shimon HaPakuli arranged in a much later period of time, as related by Rabbi Yoḥanan? The Gemara answers: Indeed, the blessings of the Amida prayer were originally arranged by the hundred and twenty members of the Great Assembly, but over the course of time the people forgot them, and Shimon HaPakuli then arranged them again.

מכאן ואילך אסור לספר בשבחו של הקדוש ברוך הוא דאמר רבי אלעזר מאי דכתיב מי ימלל גבורות ה׳ ישמיע כל תהלתו למי נאה למלל גבורות ה׳ למי שיכול להשמיע כל תהלתו

The Gemara comments: These nineteen blessings are a fixed number, and beyond this it is prohibited for one to declare the praises of the Holy One, Blessed be He, by adding additional blessings to the Amida. As Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Who can utter the mighty acts of the Lord? Who can declare all His praise?” (Psalms 106:2)? It means: For whom is it fitting to utter the mighty acts of the Lord? Only for one who can declare all His praise. And since no one is capable of declaring all of God’s praises, we must suffice with the set formula established by the Sages.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן המספר בשבחו של הקדוש ברוך הוא יותר מדאי נעקר מן העולם שנאמר היסופר לו כי אדבר אם אמר איש כי יבלע

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to one who excessively declares the praises of the Holy One, Blessed be He, his fate is to be uprooted from the world, as it appears as if he had exhausted all of God’s praises. As it is stated: “Shall it be told to Him when I speak? If a man says it, he would be swallowed up” (Job 37:20). The Gemara interprets the verse as saying: Can all of God’s praises be expressed when I speak? If a man would say such a thing, he would be “swallowed up” as punishment.

דרש רבי יהודה איש כפר גבוריא ואמרי לה איש כפר גבור חיל מאי דכתיב לך דומיה תהלה סמא דכולה משתוקא כי אתא רב דימי אמר אמרי במערבא מלה בסלע משתוקא בתרין

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehuda, a man of Kefar Gibboraya, and some say he was a man of Kefar Gibbor Ĥayil, taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For You silence is praise” (Psalms 65:2)? The best remedy of all is silence, i.e., the optimum form of praising God is silence. The Gemara relates: When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Israel to Babylonia, he said: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say an adage: If a word is worth one sela, silence is worth two.

קראה על פה לא יצא וכו׳ מנלן אמר רבא אתיא זכירה זכירה כתיב הכא והימים האלה נזכרים וכתיב התם כתב זאת זכרון בספר מה להלן בספר אף כאן בספר

§ It is taught in the mishna: If one read the Megilla by heart he has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rava said: This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between one instance of the term remembrance and another instance of the term remembrance. It is written here, with regard to the Megilla: “That these days should be remembered” (Esther 9:28), and it is written elsewhere: “And the Lord said to Moses: 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). Just as there, with regard to Amalek, remembrance is referring specifically to something written in a book, as it is stated, “in the book,” so too here, the Megilla remembrance is through being written in a book.

וממאי דהאי זכירה קריאה היא דלמא עיון בעלמא לא סלקא דעתך (דכתיב) זכור יכול בלב כשהוא אומר לא תשכח הרי שכחת הלב אמור הא מה אני מקיים זכור בפה

The Gemara raises a question: But from where do we know that this remembrance that is stated with regard to Amalek and to the Megilla involves reading it out loud from a book? Perhaps it requires merely looking into the book, reading it silently. The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind to say this, as it was taught in a baraita: The verse states: “Remember what Amalek did to you” (Deuteronomy 25:17). One might have thought that it suffices for one to remember this silently, in his heart. But this cannot be, since when it says subsequently: “You shall not forget” (Deuteronomy 25:19), it is already referring to forgetting from the heart. How, then, do I uphold the meaning of “remember”? What does this command to remember add to the command to not forget? Therefore, it means that the remembrance must be expressed out loud, with the mouth.

קראה תרגום לא יצא וכו׳ היכי דמי אילימא דכתיבה מקרא וקרי לה תרגום היינו על פה לא צריכא דכתיבה תרגום וקרי לה תרגום

§ It was taught further in the mishna: If one read the Megilla in Aramaic translation he has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that the Megilla was written in the original biblical text, i.e., in Hebrew, and he read it in Aramaic translation, then this is the same as reading it by heart, as he is not reading the words written in the text, and the mishna has already stated that one does not fulfill his obligation by reading the Megilla by heart. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach this case as well, as it is referring to a case in which the Megilla was written not in the original Hebrew but in Aramaic translation, and he read it as written, in Aramaic translation.

אבל קורין אותה ללועזות בלעז וכו׳ והא אמרת קראה בכל לשון לא יצא רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו בלעז יווני

§ The mishna continues: However, for those who speak a foreign language, one may read the Megilla in that foreign language. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn’t you say in the mishna: If he read it in any other language he has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara cites the answer of Rav and Shmuel, who both say: When the mishna says: A foreign language, it is referring specifically to the Greek foreign language, which has a unique status with regard to biblical translation.

היכי דמי אילימא דכתיבה אשורית וקרי לה יוונית היינו על פה אמר רבי אחא אמר רבי אלעזר שכתובה בלעז יוונית

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that the Megilla was written in Ashurit, i.e., in Hebrew, and he read it in Greek, this is the same as reading it by heart, and the mishna teaches that one does not fulfill his obligation by reading by heart. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Aḥa said that Rabbi Elazar said: The mishna is dealing with a case in which the Megilla was written in the Greek foreign language and was also read in that language.

ואמר רבי אחא אמר רבי אלעזר מנין שקראו הקדוש ברוך הוא ליעקב אל שנאמר ויקרא לו אל אלהי ישראל דאי סלקא דעתך למזבח קרא ליה יעקב אל ויקרא לו יעקב מיבעי ליה אלא ויקרא לו ליעקב אל ומי קראו אל אלהי ישראל

Apropos statements in this line of tradition, the Gemara adds: And Rabbi Aḥa further said that Rabbi Elazar said: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, called Jacob El, meaning God? As it is stated: “And he erected there an altar, and he called it El, God of Israel” (Genesis 33:20). It is also possible to translate this as: And He, i.e., the God of Israel, called him, Jacob, El. Indeed, it must be understood this way, as if it enters your mind to say that the verse should be understood as saying that Jacob called the altar El, it should have specified the subject of the verb and written: And Jacob called it El. But since the verse is not written this way, the verse must be understood as follows: He called Jacob El; and who called him El? The God of Israel.

מיתיבי קראה גיפטית עברית עילמית מדית יוונית לא יצא

The Gemara returns to discussing languages for reading the Megilla and raises an objection against Rav and Shmuel, who said that one may read the Megilla in Greek but not in other foreign languages. It is taught in a baraita: If one read the Megilla in Coptic [Giptit], Ivrit, Elamite, Median, or Greek, he has not fulfilled his obligation, indicating that one cannot fulfill his obligation by reading the Megilla in Greek.

הא לא דמיא אלא להא גיפטית לגיפטים עברית לעברים עילמית לעילמים יוונית ליוונים יצא

The Gemara answers: The clause in the mishna that teaches that the Megilla may be read in a foreign language to one who speaks that foreign language is comparable only to that which was taught in a different baraita: If one reads the Megilla in Coptic to Copts, in Ivrit to Ivrim, in Elamite to Elamites, or in Greek to Greeks, he has fulfilled his obligation. The Megilla may be read in any language, provided the listener understands that language.

אי הכי רב ושמואל אמאי מוקמי לה למתניתין בלעז יוונית לוקמה בכל לעז [אלא מתניתין כברייתא] וכי איתמר דרב ושמואל בעלמא איתמר רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו לעז יווני לכל כשר

The Gemara asks: But if so, that one who reads the Megilla in a foreign language that he speaks fulfills his obligation, why did Rav and Shmuel establish the ruling of the mishna as referring specifically to Greek? Let them interpret it as referring to any foreign language that one speaks. The Gemara explains: Rather, the mishna is to be understood like the baraita, that one who reads the Megilla in a language that he speaks fulfills his obligation; and that which was stated in the name of Rav and Shmuel was said as a general statement, not relating to the mishna but as an independent ruling, as follows: Rav and Shmuel both say: The Greek language is acceptable for everyone, i.e., anyone who reads the Megilla in Greek has fulfilled his obligation, even if he does not understand Greek.

והא קתני יוונית ליוונים אין לכולי עלמא לא אינהו דאמור כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל דתנן רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף ספרים לא התירו שיכתבו אלא יוונית

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn’t the baraita cited above teach that if one reads the Megilla in Greek to Greeks he has fulfilled his obligation? This implies that reading in Greek, yes, this is acceptable for Greeks, but for everyone else, no, it is not. The Gemara answers: Rav and Shmuel disagree with this statement of the baraita, because they agree with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. As we learned in a mishna (Megilla 8b): Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even for books of the Bible, the Sages did not permit them to be written in any foreign language other than Greek, indicating that Greek has a special status, and is treated like the original Hebrew.

ולימרו הלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל אי אמרי הלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל הוה אמינא הני מילי שאר ספרים אבל מגילה דכתיב בה ככתבם אימא לא קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks: But if this was the intention of Rav and Shmuel, let them state explicitly: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Why did Rav and Shmuel formulate their statement as if they were issuing a new ruling? The Gemara answers: Had they said simply that the halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, I would have said that this applies only to the other books of the Bible, but with regard to the Megilla, of which it is written: “According to their writing,” I would say that one does not fulfill his obligation if he reads it in Greek. Therefore they stated their own opinion to teach us that even in the case of the Megilla one fulfills his obligation if he reads it in Greek.

והלועז ששמע אשורית יצא וכו׳ והא לא ידע מאי קאמרי מידי דהוה אנשים ועמי הארץ

§ It was taught in the mishna: And one who speaks a foreign language who heard the Megilla being read in Ashurit, i.e., in Hebrew, has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it so that he does not understand what they are saying? Since he does not understand Hebrew, how does he fulfill his obligation? The Gemara answers: It is just as it is with women and uneducated people; they too understand little Hebrew, but nevertheless they fulfill their obligation when they hear the Megilla read in that language.

מתקיף לה רבינא אטו אנן האחשתרנים בני הרמכים מי ידעינן אלא מצות קריאה ופרסומי ניסא הכא נמי מצות קריאה ופרסומי ניסא

Ravina strongly objects to the premise of the question raised above, i.e., that someone who does not understand the original, untranslated language of the Megilla cannot fulfill his obligation. Is that to say that even we, the Sages, who are very well acquainted with Hebrew, know for certain the meaning of the obscure words ha’aḥashteranim benei haramakhim (Esther 8:10), often translated as: “Used in the royal service, bred from the stud”? But nevertheless, we fulfill the mitzva of reading the Megilla and publicizing the miracle of Purim by reading these words as they appear in the original text. Here too, one who speaks a foreign language who hears the Megilla being read in Hebrew fulfills the mitzva of reading the Megilla and publicizing the Purim miracle, even if he does not understand the words themselves.

קראה סירוגין יצא וכו׳ לא הוו ידעי רבנן מאי סירוגין שמעוה לאמתא דבי רבי דקאמרה להו לרבנן דהוי עיילי פסקי פסקי לבי רבי עד מתי אתם נכנסין סירוגין סירוגין

§ The mishna continues: If one reads the Megilla at intervals [seirugin] he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara relates that the Sages did not know what is meant by the word seirugin. One day they heard the maidservant in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s house saying to the Sages who were entering the house intermittently rather than in a single group: How long are you going to enter seirugin seirugin? As she lived in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s house and certainly heard the most proper Hebrew being spoken, they understood from this that the word seirugin means at intervals.

לא הוו ידעי רבנן מאי חלוגלוגות שמעוה לאמתא דבי רבי דאמרה ליה לההוא גברא דהוה קא מבדר פרפחיני עד מתי אתה מפזר חלוגלוגך

It is similarly related that the Sages did not know what is meant by the word ḥalogelogot, which appears in various mishnayot and baraitot. One day they heard the maidservant in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s house saying to a certain man who was scattering purslane: How long will you go on scattering your ḥalogelogot? And from this they understood that ḥalogelogot is purslane.

לא הוו ידעי רבנן מאי סלסלה ותרוממך שמעוה לאמתא דבי רבי דהוות אמרה לההוא גברא דהוה מהפך במזייה אמרה ליה עד מתי אתה מסלסל בשערך

Likewise, the Sages did not know what is meant by salseleha in the verse: “Get wisdom…salseleha and it will exalt you” (Proverbs 4:7–8). One day they heard the maidservant in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s house talking to a certain man who was twirling his hair, saying to him: How long will you go on twirling [mesalsel] your hair? And from this they understood that the verse is saying: Turn wisdom around and around, and it will exalt you.

לא הוו ידעי רבנן מאי השלך על ה׳ יהבך אמר רבה בר בר חנה זימנא חדא הוה אזילנא בהדי ההוא טייעא וקא דרינא טונא ואמר לי שקול יהביך ושדי אגמלאי

The Gemara relates additional examples: The Sages did not know what is meant by the word yehav in the verse: “Cast upon the Lord your yehav” (Psalms 55:23). Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: One time I was traveling with a certain Arab [Tayya’a] and I was carrying a load, and he said to me: Take your yehav and throw it on my camel, and I understood that yehav means a load or burden.

לא הוו ידעי רבנן מאי וטאטאתיה במטאטא השמד שמעוה לאמתא דבי רבי דהוות אמרה לחברתה שקולי טאטיתא וטאטי ביתא

And similarly, the Sages did not know what is meant by the word matatei in the verse: “And I will tatei it with the matatei of destruction” (Isaiah 14:23). One day they heard the maidservant in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s house saying to her friend: Take a tateita and tati the house, from which they understood that a matatei is a broom, and the verb tati means to sweep.

תנו רבנן קראה סירוגין יצא

On the matter of reading the Megilla with interruptions, the Sages taught the following baraita: If one reads the Megilla at intervals, pausing and resuming at intervals, he has fulfilled his obligation.

סירוסין לא יצא רבי מונא אומר משום רבי יהודה אף בסירוגין אם שהה כדי לגמור את כולה חוזר לראש אמר רב יוסף הלכה כרבי מונא שאמר משום רבי יהודה

But if he reads it out of order, i.e., if he changes the order of the words or verses of the Megilla, he has not fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Mona said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: Even when he reads it at intervals, if he pauses and interrupts his reading long enough for one to finish reading the whole Megilla during that time, he must go back to the beginning and start again. Rav Yosef said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Mona, who stated his opinion in the name of Rabbi Yehuda.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף כדי לגמור את כולה מהיכא דקאי לסיפא או דלמא מרישא לסיפא אמר ליה מרישא לסיפא דאם כן נתת דבריך לשיעורין

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: When Rabbi Mona said: Long enough for one to finish reading the whole Megilla, did he mean from the verse where he is now until the end? Or perhaps he meant long enough to read the entire Megilla from the beginning until the end. He said to him: Rabbi Mona meant from the beginning until the end, as if it were so that he meant from where he paused until the end of the Megilla, you would be subjecting your statement to the varying circumstances of each case. There would be no standard principle to determine the length of a permitted pause; in each case, depending on where one stopped, it would take a different amount of time to finish the Megilla until the end. And the Sages did not institute measures that are not standardized.

אמר רבי אבא אמר רבי ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב הלכה כרבי מונא ושמואל אמר אין הלכה כרבי מונא בסורא מתנו הכי בפומבדיתא מתנו הכי אמר רב כהנא אמר רב הלכה כרבי מונא ושמואל אמר אין הלכה כרבי מונא רב ביבי מתני איפכא רב אמר אין הלכה כרבי מונא ושמואל אמר הלכה כרבי מונא

Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Mona, but Shmuel said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Mona. The Gemara elaborates: This is how they taught the opinions of the Sages in Sura. However, in Pumbedita they taught it slightly differently, like this: Rav Kahana said that Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Mona, but Shmuel said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Mona. Rav Beivai taught the opposite: Rav said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Mona, but Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Mona.

אמר רב יוסף נקוט דרב ביבי בידך דשמואל הוא דחייש ליחידאה דתנן שומרת יבם שקידש אחיו את אחותה משום רבי יהודה בן בתירה אמרו אומרים לו המתן עד שיעשה אחיך הגדול מעשה

Rav Yosef said: Grasp the version of Rav Beivai in your hand, i.e., accept it as the most authoritative one. It appears to be correct, as we know that Shmuel takes into consideration even an individual dissenting opinion when it is more stringent than the majority opinion. The Gemara proves its assertion about Shmuel: As we learned in a mishna (Yevamot 41a) with regard to a different matter, the case of a widow whose husband died childless and who was waiting for one of his surviving brothers to perform the required levirate marriage with her or, alternatively, to release her with the ḥalitza ceremony: In a case where a woman was waiting for her brother-in-law and in the meantime one of her deceased husband’s brothers betrothed this woman’s sister, they said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: We say to this brother: Wait before marrying your betrothed until your older brother acts, performing the levirate marriage or ḥalitza.

אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי יהודה בן בתירה

The reason for this is that before levirate marriage or ḥalitza is performed, all the brothers are considered, by rabbinic decree, to have a quasi-marital connection with the widow. Consequently, just as one may not marry his wife’s sister, he may not marry the sister of a woman who is waiting for him to perform levirate marriage. The Sages, however, disagree with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and maintain that only the oldest of the brothers is considered bound to the widow, as he is the primary candidate to perform these acts. Consequently, the widow has no connection at all with the other brothers. And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. This demonstrates that Shmuel takes into consideration the opinion of a single Sage against the majority when that minority opinion is more stringent than the majority opinion.

תנו רבנן השמיט בה סופר אותיות או פסוקין וקראן הקורא כמתורגמן המתרגם יצא

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: If the scribe who wrote the Megilla omitted letters or even complete verses when he wrote it, and the reader read these missing items as a translator would do when translating, i.e., he recited the missing parts by heart, he has fulfilled his obligation. Missing material in a Megilla and reading words or verses by heart do not invalidate the reading.

מיתיבי היו בה אותיות מטושטשות או מקורעות אם רשומן ניכר כשרה ואם לאו פסולה לא קשיא הא בכולה הא במקצתה

The Gemara raises an objection from another baraita: If a Megilla contains letters that are blurred or torn, the following distinction applies: If their imprint is still visible, the Megilla is fit for reading, but if not, it is unfit. This baraita indicates that even the omission of several letters invalidates the Megilla. The Gemara resolves the contradiction between the two baraitot: This is not difficult. This second baraita, which says that a Megilla with blurred or torn letters is unfit, is referring to a case where this is so throughout the whole of the Megilla; whereas this first baraita, which says that a Megilla is fit even if whole verses are missing, is referring to a case where the missing material is in only part of it.

תנו רבנן השמיט בה הקורא פסוק אחד לא יאמר אקרא את כולה ואחר כך אקרא אותו פסוק אלא קורא מאותו פסוק ואילך נכנס לבית הכנסת ומצא צבור שקראו חציה לא יאמר אקרא חציה עם הצבור ואחר כך אקרא חציה אלא קורא אותה מתחילתה ועד סופה

The Sages taught in a baraita: If the reader of the Megilla omitted one verse, he may not say: I will continue to read the whole of the Megilla in order, and afterward I will go back and read that verse that I omitted. Rather, he must go back and read from that verse that he omitted and continue from there to the end of the Megilla. Similarly, if one enters a synagogue and encounters a congregation that has already read half of the Megilla, he may not say: I will read the second half of the Megilla with the congregation, and afterward I will go back and read the first half. Rather, he must go back and read it in its proper order from the beginning until the end.

מתנמנם יצא וכו׳ היכי דמי מתנמנם אמר רב אשי נים ולא נים תיר ולא תיר דקרו ליה ועני ולא ידע לאהדורי סברא וכי מדכרו ליה מידכר

§ It is taught in the mishna: If one read the Megilla while he is dozing off, he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case of dozing off? Rav Ashi said: It is referring to a situation in which one is asleep yet not fully asleep, awake yet not fully awake. If someone calls him he answers. And he is in a mental state in which he does not know how to provide an answer that requires logical reasoning, but when people remind him about something that has happened, he remembers it.

היה כותבה דורשה ומגיהה אם כוון לבו יצא וכו׳ היכי דמי אי דקא מסדר פסוקא פסוקא וכתב לה כי כוון לבו מאי הוי על פה הוא אלא דכתב פסוקא פסוקא וקרי ליה

§ The mishna continues: If one was writing a Megilla, or expounding upon it, or correcting it, and he read all its words as he was doing so, if he had intent to fulfill his obligation with that reading he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If he was articulating each verse of the Megilla and then writing it down, what of it that he intended to fulfill his obligation with that reading, since he recited those words by heart? Rather, it must be that he first wrote each verse in the Megilla and then read it out.

ומי יצא והאמר רבי חלבו אמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב הלכה כדברי האומר כולה ואפילו למאן דאמר מאיש יהודי צריכה שתהא כתובה כולה

The Gemara asks: But does one really fulfill his obligation in this way? Didn’t Rabbi Ḥelbo say that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who says that the Megilla must be read in its entirety in order to fulfill one’s obligation. And moreover, he said that even according to the one who said that one need not read the entire Megilla, but only from “There was a certain Jew” (Esther 2:5) and onward, the Megilla itself must nevertheless be written in its entirety. How, then, can it be suggested that one who is reading each verse as he writes it can fulfill his obligation by reading from a Megilla that is not yet written to the end?

אלא דמנחה מגילה קמיה וקרי לה מינה פסוקא פסוקא וכתב לה לימא מסייע ליה לרבה בר בר חנה דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן אסור לכתוב אות אחת שלא מן הכתב דלמא דאתרמי ליה אתרמויי

The Gemara answers: Rather, this is a case in which a complete Megilla is lying before him and he is copying from it, and he was reading from that complete Megilla verse by verse and then writing each verse in his new copy. The Gemara proposes: Let us say that this supports the opinion of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is prohibited to write even a single letter of the Bible when not copying from a written text. Since it was necessary to explain the mishna as addressing a case in which one was copying a Megilla out of a written text lying before him, this supports Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling. The Gemara rejects this: This is not a proof, as perhaps the mishna is merely dealing with a case where this is what happened to be what occurred, that one happened to be copying the text from an existing Megilla, but it is not a requirement to do this.

גופא אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן אסור לכתוב אות אחת שלא מן הכתב מיתיבי אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר מעשה ברבי מאיר שהלך לעבר שנה בעסיא ולא היה שם מגילה וכתבה מלבו וקראה

The Gemara examines Rabba bar bar Ḥana’s statement. With regard to the matter itself, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is prohibited to write even a single letter of the Bible when not copying from a written text. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: One Adar there was an incident involving Rabbi Meir, who went to intercalate the year in Asia Minor, as, owing to persecutory decrees, he could not do this in Eretz Yisrael. And there was no Megilla there when Purim arrived, so he wrote a Megilla by heart and read from it.

אמר רבי אבהו שאני רבי מאיר דמיקיים ביה ועפעפיך יישירו נגדך אמר ליה רמי בר חמא לרבי ירמיה מדפתי מאי ועפעפיך יישירו נגדך אמר לו אלו דברי תורה דכתיב בהו התעיף עיניך בו ואיננו ואפילו הכי מיושרין הן אצל רבי מאיר

Rabbi Abbahu said: Rabbi Meir is different, as in him is fulfilled the verse: “And let your eyelids look straight before you” (Proverbs 4:25), and with regard to this verse, Rami bar Ḥama said to Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti: What is the meaning of the phrase “and let your eyelids [afapekha],” from the root a-p-p, “look straight [yaishiru] before you”? He said to him: This is referring to the words of the Torah, which are difficult to remember exactly, and with regard to which it is written: “Will you glance upon it fleetingly [hata’if ], from the root a-p-p, with your eyes? It is already gone” (Proverbs 23:5), but nevertheless they remain exact [meyusharin] in the memory of Rabbi Meir, since he knows them all by heart.

רב חסדא אשכחיה לרב חננאל דהוה כתב ספרים שלא מן הכתב אמר ליה ראויה כל התורה כולה ליכתב על פיך אלא כך אמרו חכמים אסור לכתוב אות אחת שלא מן הכתב מדקאמר כל התורה כולה ראויה שתיכתב על פיך מכלל דמיושרין הן אצלו והא רבי מאיר כתב שעת הדחק שאני

It was related that Rav Ḥisda once found Rav Ḥananel writing Torah scrolls, but he was not copying them from a written text, as he knew it all by heart. He said to him: It is fitting for the entire Torah to be written by your mouth, i.e., relying on your memory, but this is what the Sages said: It is prohibited to write even a single letter of the Bible when not copying from a written text. The Gemara asks: Since Rav Ḥisda said to him: The entire Torah is fitting to be written by your mouth, it may be concluded by inference that the words of the Torah were exact in his memory, i.e., that Rav Ḥananel enjoyed total mastery of the text. But didn’t we say that Rabbi Meir wrote a Megilla without copying from a text due to similar proficiency? The Gemara answers: A time of exigent circumstances is different; since there was no other option available, he was permitted to rely on his expertise, but otherwise this must not be done.

אביי שרא לדבי בר חבו למיכתב תפלין ומזוזות שלא מן הכתב כמאן כי האי תנא דתניא רבי ירמיה אומר משום רבינו תפלין ומזוזות נכתבות שלא מן הכתב ואין צריכות שרטוט

It was further related that Abaye permitted the scribes of the house of ben Ḥavu to write phylacteries and mezuzot when they were not copying from a pre-existing text. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did he issue this allowance? The Gemara explains: In accordance with the opinion of the following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yirmeya said in the name of our master, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Phylacteries and mezuzot may be written when they are not copied from a written text, and they do not require scoring, i.e., the parchment is not required to have lines etched in it.

והלכתא תפלין אין צריכין שרטוט מזוזות צריכין שרטוט אידי ואידי נכתבות שלא מן הכתב מאי טעמא מיגרס גריסין

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is as follows: Phylacteries do not require scoring, whereas mezuzot require scoring. And unlike biblical books, both these and those, phylacteries and mezuzot, may be written when the scribe is not copying from a written text. What is the reason for this exception? These short texts are well known to all scribes, and therefore it is permitted to write them by heart.

היתה כתובה בסם כו׳ סם סמא סקרא אמר רבה בר בר חנה סקרתא שמה קומוס קומא

§ The mishna teaches: If one reads from a Megilla that was written with sam or with sikra or with komos or with kankantom, he has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara identifies these writing materials: Sam is what is called in Aramaic samma. With regard to sikra, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Its name in Aramaic is sikreta, a type of red paint. Komos is what is called koma, a tree resin.