Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 30, 2014 | 讙壮 讘讗讘 转砖注状讚

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Megillah 19

拽谞拽谞转讜诐 讞专转讗 讚讗讜砖讻驻讬 讚讬驻转专讗 讚诪诇讬讞 讜拽诪讬讞 讜诇讗 注驻讬抓 谞讬讬专 诪讞拽讗

Kankantom is what is called in Aramaic 岣rta de鈥檜shkafei, a black dye used by shoemakers. Diftera is hide that was processed with salt and flour, but not with gallnuts. Neyar is known in Aramaic as ma岣ka, paper made from reeds.

注讚 砖转讛讗 讻转讜讘讛 讗砖讜专讬转 讚讻转讬讘 讻讻转讘诐 讜讻讝诪谞诐

搂 It was taught in the mishna: He does not fulfill his obligation unless the Megilla is written in Ashurit. The Gemara explains the reason for this: As it is written concerning the Megilla: 鈥淎ccording to their writing and according to their time鈥 (Esther 9:27), i.e., the way it was originally written.

注诇 讛住驻专 讜讘讚讬讜 讜讻讜壮 诪谞诇谉 讗转讬讗 讻转讬讘讛 讻转讬讘讛 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜转讻转讘 讗住转专 讛诪诇讻讛 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讜讬讗诪专 诇讛诐 讘专讜讱 诪驻讬讜 讬拽专讗 讗诇讬 讗转 讻诇 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讜讗谞讬 讻讜转讘 注诇 讛住驻专 讘讚讬讜

The mishna concludes: He does not fulfill his obligation unless the Megilla is written upon parchment and with ink.鈥 The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers: It is derived by way of a verbal analogy between one instance of writing and another instance of writing. It is written here in the book of Esther: 鈥淭hen Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote all the acts of power, to confirm this second letter of Purim鈥 (Esther 9:29), and it is written there: 鈥淭hen Baruch answered them: He pronounced all these words to me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink on the parchment鈥 (Jeremiah 36:18). Just as there the writing was with ink on parchment, so too here, a Megilla must be written with ink on parchment.

诪转谞讬壮 讘谉 注讬专 砖讛诇讱 诇讻专讱 讜讘谉 讻专讱 砖讛诇讱 诇注讬专 讗诐 注转讬讚 诇讞讝讜专 诇诪拽讜诪讜 拽讜专讗 讻诪拽讜诪讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 拽讜专讗 注诪讛谉

MISHNA: With regard to a resident of an unwalled town who went to a walled city, where the Megilla is read on the fifteenth of Adar, and conversely, a resident of a walled city who went to an unwalled town where it is read on the fourteenth, the following distinction applies: If he is destined to return to his original place, he reads it according to the halakha governing his own place, and if not, i.e., if he is not destined to return to his place, he reads with them, the residents of his current location.

讜诪讛讬讻谉 拽讜专讗 讗讚诐 讗转 讛诪讙讬诇讛 讜讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讬讚讬 讞讜讘讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讗讬砖 讬讛讜讚讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪讗讞专 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诇讛

Beginning from where must a person read the Megilla in order to fulfill his obligation? Rabbi Meir says: He must read all of it. Rabbi Yehuda says: He need read only from 鈥淭here was a certain Jew鈥 (Esther 2:5). Rabbi Yosei says: From 鈥淎fter these things鈥 (Esther 3:1).

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖注转讬讚 诇讞讝讜专 讘诇讬诇讬 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 注转讬讚 诇讞讝讜专 讘诇讬诇讬 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 拽讜专讗 注诪讛谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 注诇 讻谉 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐 讛驻专讝讬诐 讛讬讜砖讘讬诐 讘注专讬 讛驻专讝讜转 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐 讛驻专讝讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬讻转讘 讛讬讜砖讘讬诐 讘注专讬 讛驻专讝讜转 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚驻专讜讝 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 谞拽专讗 驻专讜讝

GEMARA: Rava said: They taught the mishna that one who is destined to return to his own place reads according to the halakha governing his own place only with regard to one who is destined to return to his own place on the night of the fourteenth of Adar. But if he is not destined to return on the night of the fourteenth, although he does intend to return to his own place eventually, he reads with the residents of his current location. Rava said: From where do I say this? As it is written: 鈥淭herefore the Jews of unwalled towns, who dwell in the unwalled towns, make the fourteenth day of the month Adar a day of gladness and feasting鈥 (Esther 9:19). Since it is already written: 鈥淭he Jews of unwalled towns,鈥 why do I need it to write further, 鈥渨ho dwell in the unwalled towns鈥? It comes to teach us this: That one who is in an unwalled town even for the day is also called one who lives in an unwalled town.

讗砖讻讞谉 驻专讜讝 诪讜拽祝 诪谞讗 诇谉 住讘专讗 讛讜讗 诪讚驻专讜讝 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 拽专讜讬 驻专讜讝 诪讜拽祝 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 拽专讜讬 诪讜拽祝

The Gemara asks: We have found proof for a resident of a walled city who is temporarily located in an unwalled town. But from where do we derive the opposite case, that one from an unwalled town who is temporarily in a walled city is governed by a similar halakha? The Gemara answers: It is based on logical reasoning: Since one who is in an unwalled town for the day is called someone from an unwalled town, so too conversely, one who is in a walled city for a day is called someone from a walled city.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘谉 讻驻专 砖讛诇讱 诇注讬专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 拽讜专讗 注诪讛谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讗讬 讻讘谞讬 讛注讬专 讘注讬 诇诪拽专讬 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗拽讬诇讜 注诇 讛讻驻专讬诐 讻讚讬 砖讬住驻拽讜 诪讬诐 讜诪讝讜谉 诇讗讞讬讛诐 砖讘讻专讻讬谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讻讬 讗讬转讬讛 讘讚讜讻转讬讛 讗讘诇 讻讬 讗讬转讬讛 讘注讬专 讻讘谞讬 注讬专 讘注讬 诇诪拽专讬

And Rava said further: Someone from a village, where the Megilla is read on the Monday or Thursday prior to Purim (2a), who went to a town, reads the Megilla with the residents of the town, even if he had already read it in his own place. He does so in all circumstances, whether or not he will be returning to his own village. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this ruling? This villager should actually have read at the same time as the residents of the towns, but the Sages showed leniency toward the people of the villages and allowed them to advance their reading of the Megilla to the previous 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. This, however, applies only when the villager is in his place, in the village, but when he is in a town, he is required to read like the residents of the town, and not like the villagers.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘谉 讻专讱 砖讛诇讱 诇注讬专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 拽讜专讗 讻诪拽讜诪讜 讘谉 讻专讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘讗诐 注转讬讚 诇讞讝讜专 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘谉 讻驻专

Abaye raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: A resident of a walled city who went to an unwalled town, in all circumstances, whether or not he will be returning to his own city, reads the Megilla according to the halakha governing his permanent place. The Gemara first questions the text of the baraita as it is currently worded: Can it enter your mind that the resident of a walled city always reads in accordance with the halakha governing his own place, even if he is currently situated in an unwalled town? But doesn鈥檛 the matter depend on whether or not he will be returning on Purim to his hometown, as stated in the mishna? Therefore, it is clear that the baraita must be emended. Rather, is it not to be changed to: A resident of a village who went to an unwalled town? The baraita therefore teaches that a resident of a village who is visiting in a town must read the Megilla according to the halakha governing his own place, the village, unlike Rava鈥檚 teaching.

讜诇讗讜 转专讜爪讬 诪转专爪转 转谞讬 拽讜专讗 注诪讛谉

The Gemara rejects this: But did you not emend the reading in the baraita? Since you admit that the baraita in any event requires revision, change it further and teach: He reads the Megilla with the residents of the town. This wording in the baraita would then support the opinion of Rava.

诪讛讬讻谉 拽讜专讗 讗讚诐 讗转 讛诪讙讬诇讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 讬讜讞讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪讘诇讬诇讛 讛讛讜讗

搂 The mishna teaches that three Sages disagree about the question: Beginning from where must a person read the Megilla in order to fulfill his obligation? It is taught in a baraita that there is a fourth opinion as well: Rabbi Shimon bar Yo岣i says: One must start to read from 鈥淥n that night鈥 (Esther 6:1).

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 诪拽专讗 讗讞讚 讚专砖讜 讜转讻转讘 讗住转专 讛诪诇讻讛讜诪专讚讻讬 讛讬讛讜讚讬 讗转 讻诇 转讜拽祝 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 转讜拽驻讜 砖诇 讗讞砖讜专讜砖

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And all of these tanna鈥檌m, in arriving at their respective opinions, were expounding the same verse. As it is stated: 鈥淭hen Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote about all the acts of power to confirm this second letter of Purim鈥 (Esther 9:29). The one who said that the Megilla must be read in its entirety interprets 鈥渁cts of power鈥 as referring to the power of Ahasuerus, and so the Megilla must be read from the beginning, where the power of Ahasuerus is recounted.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讗讬砖 讬讛讜讚讬 转讜拽驻讜 砖诇 诪专讚讻讬 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讗讞专 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诇讛 转讜拽驻讜 砖诇 讛诪谉 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讘诇讬诇讛 讛讛讜讗 转讜拽驻讜 砖诇 谞住

And the one who said that it needs to be read from 鈥淭here was a certain Jew鈥 explains that 鈥渁cts of power鈥 is referring to the power of Mordecai. And the one who said that it needs to be read from 鈥淎fter these things鈥 maintains that 鈥渁cts of power鈥 is referring to the power of Haman. And the one who said that it needs to be read from 鈥淥n that night鈥 understands that the expression is referring to the power of the miracle, which began on that night when Ahasuerus could not sleep, and therefore one must begin reading the Megilla from there.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜诪讛 专讗讜 注诇 讻讻讛 讜诪讛 讛讙讬注 讗诇讬讛诐

Rav Huna said: The four Sages derived their respective opinions from here: 鈥淭herefore, because of all the words of this letter, and of that which they saw concerning this matter, and that which had befallen them, the Jews ordained…that they would keep these two days鈥 (Esther 9:26鈥27).

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 诪讛 专讗讛 讗讞砖讜专讜砖 砖谞砖转诪砖 讘讻诇讬诐 砖诇 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 注诇 讻讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讞砖讬讘 砖讘注讬诐 砖谞讬谉 讜诇讗 讗讬驻专讜拽 讜诪讛 讛讙讬注 讗诇讬讛诐 讚拽讟诇 讜砖转讬

Rav Huna continued: The one who said that the Megilla must be read in its entirety explains the verse as follows: 鈥淭hey saw鈥 refers to what Ahasuerus saw, in that he used the vessels of the Temple. 鈥淐oncerning this matter鈥 was because he had calculated seventy years from the Babylonian exile and the Jews were still not redeemed, and he consequently thought that they would never enjoy deliverance. 鈥淎nd that which had befallen them鈥 is referring to the fact that he had killed Vashti. Since the Megilla was written and continues to be read in order to inform future generations of all these events and what had happened to the people who were involved, and these are detailed at the beginning of the Megilla, it must be read in its entirety.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讗讬砖 讬讛讜讚讬 诪讛 专讗讛 诪专讚讻讬 讚讗讬拽谞讬 讘讛诪谉 注诇 讻讻讛 讚砖讜讬 谞驻砖讬讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜诪讛 讛讙讬注 讗诇讬讛诐 讚讗转专讞讬砖 谞讬住讗

And the one who said that the Megilla needs to be read from 鈥淭here was a certain Jew鈥 interprets this verse as follows: That which Mordecai 鈥渟aw鈥 in that he acted so zealously concerning Haman. 鈥淐oncerning this matter鈥 was because Haman had made himself an object of idol worship. 鈥淎nd that which had befallen them鈥 is referring to the fact that a miracle took place. Therefore one must read the Megilla from 鈥淭here was a certain man,鈥 where all this is recounted.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讗讞专 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诇讛 诪讛 专讗讛 讛诪谉 砖谞转拽谞讗 讘讻诇 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐 注诇 讻讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪专讚讻讬 诇讗 讬讻专注 讜诇讗 讬砖转讞讜讛 讜诪讛 讛讙讬注 讗诇讬讛诐 讜转诇讜 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讬讜 注诇 讛注抓

And the one who said that it needs to be read from 鈥淎fter these things鈥 interprets the verse in this way: That which Haman 鈥渟aw鈥 in that he became incensed with all the Jews. 鈥淐oncerning this matter鈥 was because 鈥淢ordecai did not bow down, nor prostrate himself before him鈥 (Esther 3:2). 鈥淎nd that which had befallen them鈥 is referring to the fact that 鈥渉e and his sons were hanged on the gallows鈥 (Esther 9:25). Accordingly, the Megilla must be read from the first mention of Haman.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讘诇讬诇讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讛 专讗讛 讗讞砖讜专讜砖 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 住驻专 讛讝讻专讜谞讜转 注诇 讻讻讛 讚讝诪讬谞转讬讛 讗住转专 诇讛诪谉 讘讛讚讬讛 讜诪讛 讛讙讬注 讗诇讬讛诐 讚讗转专讞讬砖 谞讬住讗

And the one who said that the Megilla must be read from 鈥淥n that night鈥 offers the following explanation: That which Ahasuerus 鈥渟aw鈥 in that he commanded to bring the book of chronicles before him. 鈥淐oncerning this matter鈥 was because Esther had invited Haman along with him to the banquet she made. 鈥淎nd that which had befallen them鈥 is referring to the fact that a miracle took place. And therefore one must read the Megilla from 鈥淥n that night the king could not sleep and he commanded to bring the book of chronicles.鈥

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讻讜诇讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讗讬砖 讬讛讜讚讬 爪专讬讻讛 砖转讛讗 讻转讜讘讛 讻讜诇讛

Rabbi 岣lbo said that Rav 岣ma 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. And moreover, even according to the one who said that it need be read only from 鈥淭here was a certain Jew鈥 and onward, the Megilla itself must nevertheless be written in its entirety.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讙讬诇讛 谞拽专讗转 住驻专 讜谞拽专讗转 讗讙专转 谞拽专讗转 住驻专 砖讗诐 转驻专讛 讘讞讜讟讬 驻砖转谉 驻住讜诇讛 讜谞拽专讗转 讗讙专转 砖讗诐 讛讟讬诇 讘讛 砖诇砖讛 讞讜讟讬 讙讬讚讬谉 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讜 诪砖讜诇砖讬谉

And Rabbi 岣lbo said further that Rav 岣ma bar Gurya said that Rav said: The Megilla is referred to as a 鈥渂ook鈥 (Esther 9:32), and it is also referred to as a 鈥渓etter鈥 (Esther 9:29). It is called a book, indicating a comparison to the book of the Torah, i.e., to a Torah scroll, to teach us that if one sewed its parchment sheets together with flax threads the Megilla is unfit, just as a Torah scroll sewn in this manner is unfit. And it is called a letter to teach us that if one stitched the Megilla sheets together with only three threads of sinew, in the manner of a letter, the Megilla is fit for use, as it does not have to be completely stitched like a Torah scroll. Rav Na岣an said: This is true provided that the stitches are made in three parts.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛拽讜专讗 讘诪讙讬诇讛 讛讻转讜讘讛 讘讬谉 讛讻转讜讘讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 诪讞住专讗 讜诪讬讬转专讗 驻讜专转讗 讗讘诇 诪讞住专讗 讜诪讬讬转专讗 驻讜专转讗 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If one reads from a Megilla that was written together with the rest of the Writings he has not fulfilled his obligation, as it must be evident that one is reading specifically from the Megilla rather than simply reading ordinary passages from the Bible. Rava said: We said this only in a case where the parchment of the Megilla is not a little shorter or longer than the parchment of the other biblical books on the scroll and are consequently not plainly discernible among them. But if it is a little shorter or longer than the other sheets of parchment of the other biblical books, we have no problem with it, and one may read from such a scroll.

诇讜讬 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讛 拽讗 拽专讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讙讬诇讛

It was related that Levi bar Shmuel was once reading before Rav Yehuda from a Megilla

讛讻转讜讘讛 讘讬谉 讛讻转讜讘讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讛拽讜专讗 讘诪讙讬诇讛 讛讻转讜讘讛 讘讬谉 讛讻转讜讘讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗

that was written together with the rest of the Writings. Rav Yehuda said to him: The Sages have said: If one reads from a Megilla that was written together with the rest of the Writings he has not fulfilled his obligation.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛拽讜专讗 讘诪讙讬诇讛 讛讻转讜讘讛 讘讬谉 讛讻转讜讘讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜诪讞讜 诇讛 讗诪讜讞讗 讘爪讘讜专 砖谞讜

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If one reads from a Megilla that was written together with the rest of the Writings he has not fulfilled his obligation. But they hit this halakha on its head, i.e., immediately after reporting this ruling they added a qualification that removed much of its force: They taught this halakha only with respect to reading the Megilla for a congregation. An individual who reads the Megilla in private fulfills his obligation even if the Megilla was written together with the rest of the Writings. Only when it is read in public must it be from a Megilla that is a separate scroll.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讬讜专 讛转驻专 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讜诪讞讜 诇讛 讗诪讜讞讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬拽专注

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba also said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The halakha of leaving a space without stitches, i.e., that the parchment sheets of a Torah scroll must not be sewn all the way to the edge, but rather a small margin must be left at the top and at the bottom, is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, i.e., it was not written in the Torah but was received in the framework of the Oral Law. But they immediately hit this halakha on its head, explaining that this halakha is not due to the special sanctity of a Torah scroll; rather, they said that it is only so that it not rip. If the scroll is wound too forcefully, the sheets of parchment will begin to spread apart since they are not sewn together at their extremities, and the one who is winding will cease to wind it so forcefully. If the stitching went all the way to the end there would be no such warning and the stitches would cause the parchment to rip.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇诪诇讬 谞砖转讬讬专 讘诪注专讛 砖注诪讚 讘讛 诪砖讛 讜讗诇讬讛讜 讻诪诇讗 谞拽讘 诪讞讟 住讚拽讬转 诇讗 讛讬讜 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇注诪讜讚 诪驻谞讬 讛讗讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 诇讗 讬专讗谞讬 讛讗讚诐 讜讞讬

And Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba also said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Had there been left open a crack so much as the size of small sewing needle in the cave in which Moses and Elijah stood when God鈥檚 glory was revealed to them, as it is written: 鈥淎nd it shall come to pass, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in a cleft of the rock鈥 (Exodus 33:22), and: 鈥淎nd he came there to a cave鈥nd, behold, the Lord passed by鈥 (I Kings 19:9鈥11), they would not have been able to endure due to the intense light that would have entered that crack, as it is stated: 鈥淔or no man shall see Me and live鈥 (Exodus 33:20).

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜注诇讬讛诐 讻讻诇 讛讚讘专讬诐 讗砖专 讚讘专 讛壮 注诪讻诐 讘讛专 诪诇诪讚 砖讛专讗讛讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇诪砖讛 讚拽讚讜拽讬 转讜专讛 讜讚拽讚讜拽讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讜诪讛 砖讛住讜驻专讬诐 注转讬讚讬谉 诇讞讚砖 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪拽专讗 诪讙讬诇讛

And Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba further said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淎nd the Lord delivered to me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words which the Lord spoke with you in the mountain鈥 (Deuteronomy 9:10)? This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, showed Moses on the mountain all the inferences that can be derived from the words of the Torah; and all the inferences that can be derived from the words of the Scribes, the early Sages; and also all the new halakhot that the Scribes were destined to introduce in the future in addition to the laws of the Torah. And what is it specifically that the Scribes would introduce in addition to the laws of the Torah? The reading of the Megilla.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇拽专讜转 讗转 讛诪讙讬诇讛 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘拽讟谉

MISHNA: Everyone is fit to read the Megilla, except for a deaf person, an imbecile, and a minor. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says that a minor is fit to read the Megilla.

讙诪壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讞专砖 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛拽讜专讗 讗转 砖诪注 讜诇讗 讛砖诪讬注 诇讗讝谞讜 讬爪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬爪讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna that taught that the reading of a deaf person, even after the fact, no, it is not valid? Rav Mattana said: It is Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in a mishna elsewhere (Berakhot 15a): If one recites the Shema but does not make it audible to his ears, he has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei said: He has not fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement implies that one who does not hear what he is saying does not fulfill his obligation. Presumably the halakhot for Shema recitation and Megilla reading are equivalent.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讜讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讻转讞诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讗 讚讬注讘讚 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

The Gemara questions the assumption on which the previous discussion is based: But from where do you know that the mishna, which states that a deaf person may not read the Megilla, reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and that it means to say that even after the fact, no, one does not fulfill his obligation if the Megilla is read by a deaf person? Perhaps the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and it should be understood as saying that a deaf person may not read ab initio, but after the fact his reading is valid.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚拽转谞讬 讞专砖 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 诪讛 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗祝 讞专砖 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

The Gemara rejects this proposal: This should not enter your mind, as the mishna teaches the halakha of a deaf person, an imbecile, and a minor together, implying that a deaf person is similar to an imbecile or a minor. Therefore, it may be inferred that just as the readings of an imbecile and a minor are not valid even after the fact, so too, even after the fact, no, the reading of a deaf person is not valid.

讜讚诇诪讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘拽讟谉 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: But perhaps it is not so that all three cases are equivalent. Perhaps with regard to the imbecile and the minor, this halakha is as it is, and with regard to a deaf person, that halakha is as it is. Although all three cases are taught together, this may be merely because in all three cases he may not read ab initio; there may be a difference between them with regard to their status after the fact. It is possible that the mishna means that the reading of a deaf person is valid after the fact, and is citing the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara rejects this: It is impossible to say that the anonymous first tanna of the mishna is Rabbi Yehuda, as from the fact that the latter clause teaches: Rabbi Yehuda says that a minor is fit, it may be inferred that the first clause of the mishna was not taught by Rabbi Yehuda.

讜讚诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 诪讬 讚诪讬 专讬砖讗 诇驻住讜诇讛 讜住讬驻讗 诇讻砖讬专讛

The Gemara continues to ask: But perhaps the mishna in its entirety was taught by Rabbi Yehuda after all, but the first clause of the mishna was taught anonymously, whereas the latter clause was taught explicitly in the name of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara rejects this argument: Are the two parts of the mishna comparable, that they can be associated with a single Sage? The first clause of the mishna comes to disqualify the reading of a minor, whereas the latter clause comes to declare a minor fit. These two contradictory opinions therefore cannot be understood as the statement of a single Sage.

讜讚诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 拽讟谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇拽专讜转 讗转 讛诪讙讬诇讛 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘拽讟谉 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 诇讞讬谞讜讱 讗讘诇 讘拽讟谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讞讬谞讜讱 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 砖专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘拽讟谉

The Gemara asks: But perhaps the mishna in its entirety expresses the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda after all. And it is teaching the halakha concerning two different types of minors, and the mishna is incomplete, lacking some words of elaboration, and is teaching the following: Everyone is fit to read the Megilla except for a deaf person, an imbecile, and a minor. In what case is this statement said? Only with regard to a minor who has not reached the age of training in mitzvot. But a minor who has reached the age of training in mitzvot may read the Megilla even ab initio, as Rabbi Yehuda says that a minor who has reached that requisite age is fit to read the Megilla.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讚讬注讘讚

The Gemara raises a difficulty with this interpretation of the mishna: In what manner did you establish the mishna? You established it as being in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and you understand the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda to be that a deaf person is disqualified from reading the Megilla ab initio, but after the fact his reading is valid.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬 (专讘讬) 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讞专砖 讛诪讚讘专 讜讗讬谞讜 砖讜诪注 转讜专诐 诇讻转讞诇讛 诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

But then that which Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, taught will present a difficulty, as he taught a baraita: A deaf person who can speak but cannot hear may set aside teruma even ab initio, although he cannot hear himself reciting the blessing that is recited before setting aside teruma. Upon whose opinion is this baraita based? If you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that cannot be, as you have established that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that if one recites something and does not hear it, after the fact, yes, his action is valid, but he should not do so ab initio. And if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, this is even more difficult, as he maintains that even after the fact, no, his action is not valid. Who, then, is the Sage who would say that a deaf person may set aside teruma even ab initio?

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讘专讱 讗讚诐 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讘诇讘讜 讜讗诐 讘讬专讱 讬爪讗 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

The Gemara rejects this reasoning: Rather, what then do you propose to say, that this baraita is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda and that Rabbi Yehuda permits a deaf person to read even ab initio, whereas Rabbi Yosei would disqualify him even after the fact? But then whose is the opinion that is represented in that which is taught in a baraita: A person should not recite the Grace after Meals in his heart, i.e., inaudibly, but if he recited it in this manner, he has fulfilled his obligation. It is the opinion of neither Rabbi Yehuda nor Rabbi Yosei. As, if it follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it should be permitted even ab initio, and if it follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, then even after the fact, no, this should not be valid.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Megillah: 17-23 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the entire second chapter of Masechet Megillah. This chapter deals with the laws of reading...
alon shvut women

Megillah 7

Megillah, Daf 7, Yehudit Epstein & Dena Rock https://youtu.be/TcMOAfTnSeg  

Megillah 19

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Megillah 19

拽谞拽谞转讜诐 讞专转讗 讚讗讜砖讻驻讬 讚讬驻转专讗 讚诪诇讬讞 讜拽诪讬讞 讜诇讗 注驻讬抓 谞讬讬专 诪讞拽讗

Kankantom is what is called in Aramaic 岣rta de鈥檜shkafei, a black dye used by shoemakers. Diftera is hide that was processed with salt and flour, but not with gallnuts. Neyar is known in Aramaic as ma岣ka, paper made from reeds.

注讚 砖转讛讗 讻转讜讘讛 讗砖讜专讬转 讚讻转讬讘 讻讻转讘诐 讜讻讝诪谞诐

搂 It was taught in the mishna: He does not fulfill his obligation unless the Megilla is written in Ashurit. The Gemara explains the reason for this: As it is written concerning the Megilla: 鈥淎ccording to their writing and according to their time鈥 (Esther 9:27), i.e., the way it was originally written.

注诇 讛住驻专 讜讘讚讬讜 讜讻讜壮 诪谞诇谉 讗转讬讗 讻转讬讘讛 讻转讬讘讛 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜转讻转讘 讗住转专 讛诪诇讻讛 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讜讬讗诪专 诇讛诐 讘专讜讱 诪驻讬讜 讬拽专讗 讗诇讬 讗转 讻诇 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讜讗谞讬 讻讜转讘 注诇 讛住驻专 讘讚讬讜

The mishna concludes: He does not fulfill his obligation unless the Megilla is written upon parchment and with ink.鈥 The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers: It is derived by way of a verbal analogy between one instance of writing and another instance of writing. It is written here in the book of Esther: 鈥淭hen Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote all the acts of power, to confirm this second letter of Purim鈥 (Esther 9:29), and it is written there: 鈥淭hen Baruch answered them: He pronounced all these words to me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink on the parchment鈥 (Jeremiah 36:18). Just as there the writing was with ink on parchment, so too here, a Megilla must be written with ink on parchment.

诪转谞讬壮 讘谉 注讬专 砖讛诇讱 诇讻专讱 讜讘谉 讻专讱 砖讛诇讱 诇注讬专 讗诐 注转讬讚 诇讞讝讜专 诇诪拽讜诪讜 拽讜专讗 讻诪拽讜诪讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 拽讜专讗 注诪讛谉

MISHNA: With regard to a resident of an unwalled town who went to a walled city, where the Megilla is read on the fifteenth of Adar, and conversely, a resident of a walled city who went to an unwalled town where it is read on the fourteenth, the following distinction applies: If he is destined to return to his original place, he reads it according to the halakha governing his own place, and if not, i.e., if he is not destined to return to his place, he reads with them, the residents of his current location.

讜诪讛讬讻谉 拽讜专讗 讗讚诐 讗转 讛诪讙讬诇讛 讜讬讜爪讗 讘讛 讬讚讬 讞讜讘讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讗讬砖 讬讛讜讚讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪讗讞专 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诇讛

Beginning from where must a person read the Megilla in order to fulfill his obligation? Rabbi Meir says: He must read all of it. Rabbi Yehuda says: He need read only from 鈥淭here was a certain Jew鈥 (Esther 2:5). Rabbi Yosei says: From 鈥淎fter these things鈥 (Esther 3:1).

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖注转讬讚 诇讞讝讜专 讘诇讬诇讬 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 注转讬讚 诇讞讝讜专 讘诇讬诇讬 讗专讘注讛 注砖专 拽讜专讗 注诪讛谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 注诇 讻谉 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐 讛驻专讝讬诐 讛讬讜砖讘讬诐 讘注专讬 讛驻专讝讜转 诪讻讚讬 讻转讬讘 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐 讛驻专讝讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬讻转讘 讛讬讜砖讘讬诐 讘注专讬 讛驻专讝讜转 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚驻专讜讝 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 谞拽专讗 驻专讜讝

GEMARA: Rava said: They taught the mishna that one who is destined to return to his own place reads according to the halakha governing his own place only with regard to one who is destined to return to his own place on the night of the fourteenth of Adar. But if he is not destined to return on the night of the fourteenth, although he does intend to return to his own place eventually, he reads with the residents of his current location. Rava said: From where do I say this? As it is written: 鈥淭herefore the Jews of unwalled towns, who dwell in the unwalled towns, make the fourteenth day of the month Adar a day of gladness and feasting鈥 (Esther 9:19). Since it is already written: 鈥淭he Jews of unwalled towns,鈥 why do I need it to write further, 鈥渨ho dwell in the unwalled towns鈥? It comes to teach us this: That one who is in an unwalled town even for the day is also called one who lives in an unwalled town.

讗砖讻讞谉 驻专讜讝 诪讜拽祝 诪谞讗 诇谉 住讘专讗 讛讜讗 诪讚驻专讜讝 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 拽专讜讬 驻专讜讝 诪讜拽祝 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 拽专讜讬 诪讜拽祝

The Gemara asks: We have found proof for a resident of a walled city who is temporarily located in an unwalled town. But from where do we derive the opposite case, that one from an unwalled town who is temporarily in a walled city is governed by a similar halakha? The Gemara answers: It is based on logical reasoning: Since one who is in an unwalled town for the day is called someone from an unwalled town, so too conversely, one who is in a walled city for a day is called someone from a walled city.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讘谉 讻驻专 砖讛诇讱 诇注讬专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 拽讜专讗 注诪讛谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讗讬 讻讘谞讬 讛注讬专 讘注讬 诇诪拽专讬 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讗拽讬诇讜 注诇 讛讻驻专讬诐 讻讚讬 砖讬住驻拽讜 诪讬诐 讜诪讝讜谉 诇讗讞讬讛诐 砖讘讻专讻讬谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讻讬 讗讬转讬讛 讘讚讜讻转讬讛 讗讘诇 讻讬 讗讬转讬讛 讘注讬专 讻讘谞讬 注讬专 讘注讬 诇诪拽专讬

And Rava said further: Someone from a village, where the Megilla is read on the Monday or Thursday prior to Purim (2a), who went to a town, reads the Megilla with the residents of the town, even if he had already read it in his own place. He does so in all circumstances, whether or not he will be returning to his own village. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this ruling? This villager should actually have read at the same time as the residents of the towns, but the Sages showed leniency toward the people of the villages and allowed them to advance their reading of the Megilla to the previous 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. This, however, applies only when the villager is in his place, in the village, but when he is in a town, he is required to read like the residents of the town, and not like the villagers.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘谉 讻专讱 砖讛诇讱 诇注讬专 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 拽讜专讗 讻诪拽讜诪讜 讘谉 讻专讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘讗诐 注转讬讚 诇讞讝讜专 转诇讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘谉 讻驻专

Abaye raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: A resident of a walled city who went to an unwalled town, in all circumstances, whether or not he will be returning to his own city, reads the Megilla according to the halakha governing his permanent place. The Gemara first questions the text of the baraita as it is currently worded: Can it enter your mind that the resident of a walled city always reads in accordance with the halakha governing his own place, even if he is currently situated in an unwalled town? But doesn鈥檛 the matter depend on whether or not he will be returning on Purim to his hometown, as stated in the mishna? Therefore, it is clear that the baraita must be emended. Rather, is it not to be changed to: A resident of a village who went to an unwalled town? The baraita therefore teaches that a resident of a village who is visiting in a town must read the Megilla according to the halakha governing his own place, the village, unlike Rava鈥檚 teaching.

讜诇讗讜 转专讜爪讬 诪转专爪转 转谞讬 拽讜专讗 注诪讛谉

The Gemara rejects this: But did you not emend the reading in the baraita? Since you admit that the baraita in any event requires revision, change it further and teach: He reads the Megilla with the residents of the town. This wording in the baraita would then support the opinion of Rava.

诪讛讬讻谉 拽讜专讗 讗讚诐 讗转 讛诪讙讬诇讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 讬讜讞讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪讘诇讬诇讛 讛讛讜讗

搂 The mishna teaches that three Sages disagree about the question: Beginning from where must a person read the Megilla in order to fulfill his obligation? It is taught in a baraita that there is a fourth opinion as well: Rabbi Shimon bar Yo岣i says: One must start to read from 鈥淥n that night鈥 (Esther 6:1).

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 诪拽专讗 讗讞讚 讚专砖讜 讜转讻转讘 讗住转专 讛诪诇讻讛讜诪专讚讻讬 讛讬讛讜讚讬 讗转 讻诇 转讜拽祝 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 转讜拽驻讜 砖诇 讗讞砖讜专讜砖

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: And all of these tanna鈥檌m, in arriving at their respective opinions, were expounding the same verse. As it is stated: 鈥淭hen Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote about all the acts of power to confirm this second letter of Purim鈥 (Esther 9:29). The one who said that the Megilla must be read in its entirety interprets 鈥渁cts of power鈥 as referring to the power of Ahasuerus, and so the Megilla must be read from the beginning, where the power of Ahasuerus is recounted.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讗讬砖 讬讛讜讚讬 转讜拽驻讜 砖诇 诪专讚讻讬 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讗讞专 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诇讛 转讜拽驻讜 砖诇 讛诪谉 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讘诇讬诇讛 讛讛讜讗 转讜拽驻讜 砖诇 谞住

And the one who said that it needs to be read from 鈥淭here was a certain Jew鈥 explains that 鈥渁cts of power鈥 is referring to the power of Mordecai. And the one who said that it needs to be read from 鈥淎fter these things鈥 maintains that 鈥渁cts of power鈥 is referring to the power of Haman. And the one who said that it needs to be read from 鈥淥n that night鈥 understands that the expression is referring to the power of the miracle, which began on that night when Ahasuerus could not sleep, and therefore one must begin reading the Megilla from there.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜诪讛 专讗讜 注诇 讻讻讛 讜诪讛 讛讙讬注 讗诇讬讛诐

Rav Huna said: The four Sages derived their respective opinions from here: 鈥淭herefore, because of all the words of this letter, and of that which they saw concerning this matter, and that which had befallen them, the Jews ordained…that they would keep these two days鈥 (Esther 9:26鈥27).

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讻讜诇讛 诪讛 专讗讛 讗讞砖讜专讜砖 砖谞砖转诪砖 讘讻诇讬诐 砖诇 讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 注诇 讻讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讞砖讬讘 砖讘注讬诐 砖谞讬谉 讜诇讗 讗讬驻专讜拽 讜诪讛 讛讙讬注 讗诇讬讛诐 讚拽讟诇 讜砖转讬

Rav Huna continued: The one who said that the Megilla must be read in its entirety explains the verse as follows: 鈥淭hey saw鈥 refers to what Ahasuerus saw, in that he used the vessels of the Temple. 鈥淐oncerning this matter鈥 was because he had calculated seventy years from the Babylonian exile and the Jews were still not redeemed, and he consequently thought that they would never enjoy deliverance. 鈥淎nd that which had befallen them鈥 is referring to the fact that he had killed Vashti. Since the Megilla was written and continues to be read in order to inform future generations of all these events and what had happened to the people who were involved, and these are detailed at the beginning of the Megilla, it must be read in its entirety.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讗讬砖 讬讛讜讚讬 诪讛 专讗讛 诪专讚讻讬 讚讗讬拽谞讬 讘讛诪谉 注诇 讻讻讛 讚砖讜讬 谞驻砖讬讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜诪讛 讛讙讬注 讗诇讬讛诐 讚讗转专讞讬砖 谞讬住讗

And the one who said that the Megilla needs to be read from 鈥淭here was a certain Jew鈥 interprets this verse as follows: That which Mordecai 鈥渟aw鈥 in that he acted so zealously concerning Haman. 鈥淐oncerning this matter鈥 was because Haman had made himself an object of idol worship. 鈥淎nd that which had befallen them鈥 is referring to the fact that a miracle took place. Therefore one must read the Megilla from 鈥淭here was a certain man,鈥 where all this is recounted.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讗讞专 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诇讛 诪讛 专讗讛 讛诪谉 砖谞转拽谞讗 讘讻诇 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐 注诇 讻讻讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪专讚讻讬 诇讗 讬讻专注 讜诇讗 讬砖转讞讜讛 讜诪讛 讛讙讬注 讗诇讬讛诐 讜转诇讜 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讬讜 注诇 讛注抓

And the one who said that it needs to be read from 鈥淎fter these things鈥 interprets the verse in this way: That which Haman 鈥渟aw鈥 in that he became incensed with all the Jews. 鈥淐oncerning this matter鈥 was because 鈥淢ordecai did not bow down, nor prostrate himself before him鈥 (Esther 3:2). 鈥淎nd that which had befallen them鈥 is referring to the fact that 鈥渉e and his sons were hanged on the gallows鈥 (Esther 9:25). Accordingly, the Megilla must be read from the first mention of Haman.

讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讘诇讬诇讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讛 专讗讛 讗讞砖讜专讜砖 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 住驻专 讛讝讻专讜谞讜转 注诇 讻讻讛 讚讝诪讬谞转讬讛 讗住转专 诇讛诪谉 讘讛讚讬讛 讜诪讛 讛讙讬注 讗诇讬讛诐 讚讗转专讞讬砖 谞讬住讗

And the one who said that the Megilla must be read from 鈥淥n that night鈥 offers the following explanation: That which Ahasuerus 鈥渟aw鈥 in that he commanded to bring the book of chronicles before him. 鈥淐oncerning this matter鈥 was because Esther had invited Haman along with him to the banquet she made. 鈥淎nd that which had befallen them鈥 is referring to the fact that a miracle took place. And therefore one must read the Megilla from 鈥淥n that night the king could not sleep and he commanded to bring the book of chronicles.鈥

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讻讜诇讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讗讬砖 讬讛讜讚讬 爪专讬讻讛 砖转讛讗 讻转讜讘讛 讻讜诇讛

Rabbi 岣lbo said that Rav 岣ma 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. And moreover, even according to the one who said that it need be read only from 鈥淭here was a certain Jew鈥 and onward, the Megilla itself must nevertheless be written in its entirety.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪讗 讘专 讙讜专讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪讙讬诇讛 谞拽专讗转 住驻专 讜谞拽专讗转 讗讙专转 谞拽专讗转 住驻专 砖讗诐 转驻专讛 讘讞讜讟讬 驻砖转谉 驻住讜诇讛 讜谞拽专讗转 讗讙专转 砖讗诐 讛讟讬诇 讘讛 砖诇砖讛 讞讜讟讬 讙讬讚讬谉 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讜 诪砖讜诇砖讬谉

And Rabbi 岣lbo said further that Rav 岣ma bar Gurya said that Rav said: The Megilla is referred to as a 鈥渂ook鈥 (Esther 9:32), and it is also referred to as a 鈥渓etter鈥 (Esther 9:29). It is called a book, indicating a comparison to the book of the Torah, i.e., to a Torah scroll, to teach us that if one sewed its parchment sheets together with flax threads the Megilla is unfit, just as a Torah scroll sewn in this manner is unfit. And it is called a letter to teach us that if one stitched the Megilla sheets together with only three threads of sinew, in the manner of a letter, the Megilla is fit for use, as it does not have to be completely stitched like a Torah scroll. Rav Na岣an said: This is true provided that the stitches are made in three parts.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛拽讜专讗 讘诪讙讬诇讛 讛讻转讜讘讛 讘讬谉 讛讻转讜讘讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 诪讞住专讗 讜诪讬讬转专讗 驻讜专转讗 讗讘诇 诪讞住专讗 讜诪讬讬转专讗 驻讜专转讗 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If one reads from a Megilla that was written together with the rest of the Writings he has not fulfilled his obligation, as it must be evident that one is reading specifically from the Megilla rather than simply reading ordinary passages from the Bible. Rava said: We said this only in a case where the parchment of the Megilla is not a little shorter or longer than the parchment of the other biblical books on the scroll and are consequently not plainly discernible among them. But if it is a little shorter or longer than the other sheets of parchment of the other biblical books, we have no problem with it, and one may read from such a scroll.

诇讜讬 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜讛 拽讗 拽专讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讙讬诇讛

It was related that Levi bar Shmuel was once reading before Rav Yehuda from a Megilla

讛讻转讜讘讛 讘讬谉 讛讻转讜讘讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讛拽讜专讗 讘诪讙讬诇讛 讛讻转讜讘讛 讘讬谉 讛讻转讜讘讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗

that was written together with the rest of the Writings. Rav Yehuda said to him: The Sages have said: If one reads from a Megilla that was written together with the rest of the Writings he has not fulfilled his obligation.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛拽讜专讗 讘诪讙讬诇讛 讛讻转讜讘讛 讘讬谉 讛讻转讜讘讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜诪讞讜 诇讛 讗诪讜讞讗 讘爪讘讜专 砖谞讜

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If one reads from a Megilla that was written together with the rest of the Writings he has not fulfilled his obligation. But they hit this halakha on its head, i.e., immediately after reporting this ruling they added a qualification that removed much of its force: They taught this halakha only with respect to reading the Megilla for a congregation. An individual who reads the Megilla in private fulfills his obligation even if the Megilla was written together with the rest of the Writings. Only when it is read in public must it be from a Megilla that is a separate scroll.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讬讜专 讛转驻专 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 讜诪讞讜 诇讛 讗诪讜讞讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬拽专注

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba also said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The halakha of leaving a space without stitches, i.e., that the parchment sheets of a Torah scroll must not be sewn all the way to the edge, but rather a small margin must be left at the top and at the bottom, is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, i.e., it was not written in the Torah but was received in the framework of the Oral Law. But they immediately hit this halakha on its head, explaining that this halakha is not due to the special sanctity of a Torah scroll; rather, they said that it is only so that it not rip. If the scroll is wound too forcefully, the sheets of parchment will begin to spread apart since they are not sewn together at their extremities, and the one who is winding will cease to wind it so forcefully. If the stitching went all the way to the end there would be no such warning and the stitches would cause the parchment to rip.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诇诪诇讬 谞砖转讬讬专 讘诪注专讛 砖注诪讚 讘讛 诪砖讛 讜讗诇讬讛讜 讻诪诇讗 谞拽讘 诪讞讟 住讚拽讬转 诇讗 讛讬讜 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇注诪讜讚 诪驻谞讬 讛讗讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 诇讗 讬专讗谞讬 讛讗讚诐 讜讞讬

And Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba also said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Had there been left open a crack so much as the size of small sewing needle in the cave in which Moses and Elijah stood when God鈥檚 glory was revealed to them, as it is written: 鈥淎nd it shall come to pass, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in a cleft of the rock鈥 (Exodus 33:22), and: 鈥淎nd he came there to a cave鈥nd, behold, the Lord passed by鈥 (I Kings 19:9鈥11), they would not have been able to endure due to the intense light that would have entered that crack, as it is stated: 鈥淔or no man shall see Me and live鈥 (Exodus 33:20).

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜注诇讬讛诐 讻讻诇 讛讚讘专讬诐 讗砖专 讚讘专 讛壮 注诪讻诐 讘讛专 诪诇诪讚 砖讛专讗讛讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇诪砖讛 讚拽讚讜拽讬 转讜专讛 讜讚拽讚讜拽讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讜诪讛 砖讛住讜驻专讬诐 注转讬讚讬谉 诇讞讚砖 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪拽专讗 诪讙讬诇讛

And Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba further said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淎nd the Lord delivered to me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words which the Lord spoke with you in the mountain鈥 (Deuteronomy 9:10)? This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, showed Moses on the mountain all the inferences that can be derived from the words of the Torah; and all the inferences that can be derived from the words of the Scribes, the early Sages; and also all the new halakhot that the Scribes were destined to introduce in the future in addition to the laws of the Torah. And what is it specifically that the Scribes would introduce in addition to the laws of the Torah? The reading of the Megilla.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇拽专讜转 讗转 讛诪讙讬诇讛 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘拽讟谉

MISHNA: Everyone is fit to read the Megilla, except for a deaf person, an imbecile, and a minor. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says that a minor is fit to read the Megilla.

讙诪壮 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讞专砖 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛拽讜专讗 讗转 砖诪注 讜诇讗 讛砖诪讬注 诇讗讝谞讜 讬爪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬爪讗

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna that taught that the reading of a deaf person, even after the fact, no, it is not valid? Rav Mattana said: It is Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in a mishna elsewhere (Berakhot 15a): If one recites the Shema but does not make it audible to his ears, he has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei said: He has not fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement implies that one who does not hear what he is saying does not fulfill his obligation. Presumably the halakhot for Shema recitation and Megilla reading are equivalent.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讜讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚诇诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讻转讞诇讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讗 讚讬注讘讚 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬

The Gemara questions the assumption on which the previous discussion is based: But from where do you know that the mishna, which states that a deaf person may not read the Megilla, reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and that it means to say that even after the fact, no, one does not fulfill his obligation if the Megilla is read by a deaf person? Perhaps the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and it should be understood as saying that a deaf person may not read ab initio, but after the fact his reading is valid.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚拽转谞讬 讞专砖 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 诪讛 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗祝 讞专砖 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

The Gemara rejects this proposal: This should not enter your mind, as the mishna teaches the halakha of a deaf person, an imbecile, and a minor together, implying that a deaf person is similar to an imbecile or a minor. Therefore, it may be inferred that just as the readings of an imbecile and a minor are not valid even after the fact, so too, even after the fact, no, the reading of a deaf person is not valid.

讜讚诇诪讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘拽讟谉 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: But perhaps it is not so that all three cases are equivalent. Perhaps with regard to the imbecile and the minor, this halakha is as it is, and with regard to a deaf person, that halakha is as it is. Although all three cases are taught together, this may be merely because in all three cases he may not read ab initio; there may be a difference between them with regard to their status after the fact. It is possible that the mishna means that the reading of a deaf person is valid after the fact, and is citing the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara rejects this: It is impossible to say that the anonymous first tanna of the mishna is Rabbi Yehuda, as from the fact that the latter clause teaches: Rabbi Yehuda says that a minor is fit, it may be inferred that the first clause of the mishna was not taught by Rabbi Yehuda.

讜讚诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 诪讬 讚诪讬 专讬砖讗 诇驻住讜诇讛 讜住讬驻讗 诇讻砖讬专讛

The Gemara continues to ask: But perhaps the mishna in its entirety was taught by Rabbi Yehuda after all, but the first clause of the mishna was taught anonymously, whereas the latter clause was taught explicitly in the name of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara rejects this argument: Are the two parts of the mishna comparable, that they can be associated with a single Sage? The first clause of the mishna comes to disqualify the reading of a minor, whereas the latter clause comes to declare a minor fit. These two contradictory opinions therefore cannot be understood as the statement of a single Sage.

讜讚诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜转专讬 讙讜讜谞讬 拽讟谉 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛讻诇 讻砖专讬谉 诇拽专讜转 讗转 讛诪讙讬诇讛 讞讜抓 诪讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘拽讟谉 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 诇讞讬谞讜讱 讗讘诇 讘拽讟谉 砖讛讙讬注 诇讞讬谞讜讱 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 砖专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讻砖讬专 讘拽讟谉

The Gemara asks: But perhaps the mishna in its entirety expresses the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda after all. And it is teaching the halakha concerning two different types of minors, and the mishna is incomplete, lacking some words of elaboration, and is teaching the following: Everyone is fit to read the Megilla except for a deaf person, an imbecile, and a minor. In what case is this statement said? Only with regard to a minor who has not reached the age of training in mitzvot. But a minor who has reached the age of training in mitzvot may read the Megilla even ab initio, as Rabbi Yehuda says that a minor who has reached that requisite age is fit to read the Megilla.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讚讬注讘讚

The Gemara raises a difficulty with this interpretation of the mishna: In what manner did you establish the mishna? You established it as being in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and you understand the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda to be that a deaf person is disqualified from reading the Megilla ab initio, but after the fact his reading is valid.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬 (专讘讬) 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讞专砖 讛诪讚讘专 讜讗讬谞讜 砖讜诪注 转讜专诐 诇讻转讞诇讛 诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讬注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讻转讞诇讛 诇讗 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

But then that which Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, taught will present a difficulty, as he taught a baraita: A deaf person who can speak but cannot hear may set aside teruma even ab initio, although he cannot hear himself reciting the blessing that is recited before setting aside teruma. Upon whose opinion is this baraita based? If you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that cannot be, as you have established that Rabbi Yehuda maintains that if one recites something and does not hear it, after the fact, yes, his action is valid, but he should not do so ab initio. And if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, this is even more difficult, as he maintains that even after the fact, no, his action is not valid. Who, then, is the Sage who would say that a deaf person may set aside teruma even ab initio?

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬讘专讱 讗讚诐 讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讘诇讘讜 讜讗诐 讘讬专讱 讬爪讗 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讬注讘讚 谞诪讬 诇讗

The Gemara rejects this reasoning: Rather, what then do you propose to say, that this baraita is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda and that Rabbi Yehuda permits a deaf person to read even ab initio, whereas Rabbi Yosei would disqualify him even after the fact? But then whose is the opinion that is represented in that which is taught in a baraita: A person should not recite the Grace after Meals in his heart, i.e., inaudibly, but if he recited it in this manner, he has fulfilled his obligation. It is the opinion of neither Rabbi Yehuda nor Rabbi Yosei. As, if it follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it should be permitted even ab initio, and if it follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, then even after the fact, no, this should not be valid.

Scroll To Top