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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 18, 2014 | 讻壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讚

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 7

讛砖谞讬转 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讬讻转讘 讘讻诇 砖谞讛 讜砖谞讛 讚讗讬 诪讘讻诇 砖谞讛 讜砖谞讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 拽讜砖讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛砖谞讬转 讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛砖谞讬转 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘转讞讬诇讛 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜讘砖谞讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讘讻诇 砖谞讛 讜砖谞讛

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.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讗讬 讛砖谞讬转 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讘转讞讬诇讛 拽讘注讜讛 讘砖讜砖谉 讜诇讘住讜祝 讘讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 砖诇讞讛 诇讛诐 讗住转专 诇讞讻诪讬诐 拽讘注讜谞讬 诇讚讜专讜转 砖诇讞讜 诇讛 拽谞讗讛 讗转 诪注讜专专转 注诇讬谞讜 诇讘讬谉 讛讗讜诪讜转 砖诇讞讛 诇讛诐 讻讘专 讻转讜讘讛 讗谞讬 注诇 讚讘专讬 讛讬诪讬诐 诇诪诇讻讬 诪讚讬 讜驻专住

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.

专讘 讜专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 诪转谞讜 讘讻讜诇讬讛 住讚专 诪讜注讚 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讝讜讙讗 讞诇讜驻讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诪注讬讬诇 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 砖诇讞讛 诇讛诐 讗住转专 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讻转讘讜谞讬 诇讚讜专讜转 砖诇讞讜 诇讛 讛诇讗 讻转讘转讬 诇讱 砖诇讬砖讬诐 砖诇讬砖讬诐 讜诇讗 专讘注讬诐

It was related that Rav and Rabbi 岣nina and Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rav 岣viva taught the statement cited below. The Gemara comments: Throughout the order of Moed, wherever this latter pair of Sages is mentioned, exchange Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淗ave I not written for you three times鈥 (Proverbs 22:20), indicating that Israel鈥檚 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鈥16; Deuteronomy 25:17鈥19; I聽Samuel 15), there is no need to add a fourth source.

注讚 砖诪爪讗讜 诇讜 诪拽专讗 讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛 讻转讘 讝讗转 讝讻专讜谉 讘住驻专 讻转讘 讝讗转 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讻讗谉 讜讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 讝讻专讜谉 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘谞讘讬讗讬诐 讘住驻专 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘诪讙诇讛

The Sages did not accede to Esther鈥檚 request until they found a verse written in the Torah: 鈥淲rite 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鈥 (Exodus 17:14). The Sages interpreted the verse: 鈥淲rite this,鈥 that which is written in the Torah here in Exodus, and in Deuteronomy; 鈥渁 memorial,鈥 that which is written in the Prophets, i.e., in I聽Samuel, on this matter; 鈥渋n the book,鈥 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.

讻转谞讗讬 讻转讘 讝讗转 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讻讗谉 讝讻专讜谉 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 讘住驻专 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘谞讘讬讗讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诪讜讚注讬 讗讜诪专 讻转讘 讝讗转 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讻讗谉 讜讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 讝讻专讜谉 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘谞讘讬讗讬诐 讘住驻专 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘诪讙讬诇讛

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

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗住转专 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐

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.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗住转专 诇讗讜 讘专讜讞 讛拽讜讚砖 谞讗诪专讛 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗住转专 讘专讜讞 讛拽讜讚砖 谞讗诪专讛 谞讗诪专讛 诇拽专讜转 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专讛 诇讬讻转讜讘

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鈥檛 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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 拽讛诇转 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 讜诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讬专 讛砖讬专讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖讬专 讛砖讬专讬诐 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 讜诪讞诇讜拽转 讘拽讛诇转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 拽讛诇转 诪拽讜诇讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诪讞讜诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讘诇 专讜转 讜砖讬专 讛砖讬专讬诐 讜讗住转专 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

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.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜诪专 拽讛诇转 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讞讻诪转讜 砖诇 砖诇诪讛 讛讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讜讻讬 讝讜 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讬讚讘专 砖诇砖转 讗诇驻讬诐 诪砖诇 讜讗讜诪专 讗诇 转讜住祝 注诇 讚讘专讬讜

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鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淎nd he spoke three thousand proverbs, and his poems were a thousand and five鈥 (I聽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: 鈥淎dd you not unto his words鈥 (Proverbs 30:6).

诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讬诪专 讟讜讘讗 讗诪专 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讗讬讻转讬讘 讜讚讗讬 讘注讬 诇讗 讗讬讻转讬讘 转讗 砖诪注 讗诇 转讜住祝 注诇 讚讘专讬讜

The Gemara asks: What is added by the proof introduced with the phrase: And it says? Why wasn鈥檛 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.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗住转专 讘专讜讞 讛拽讜讚砖 谞讗诪专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讗诪专 讛诪谉 讘诇讘讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗住转专 讘专讜讞 讛拽讜讚砖 谞讗诪专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜转讛讬 讗住转专 谞砖讗转 讞谉 讘注讬谞讬 讻诇 专讜讗讬讛

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: 鈥淎nd Haman thought in his heart鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd Esther obtained favor in the sight of all those who looked upon her鈥 (Esther 2:15); this could have been known only through divine inspiration.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗住转专 讘专讜讞 讛拽讜讚砖 谞讗诪专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讜讚注 讛讚讘专 诇诪专讚讻讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讚讜专诪住拽讬转 讗讜诪专 讗住转专 讘专讜讞 讛拽讜讚砖 谞讗诪专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讘讘讝讛 诇讗 砖诇讞讜 讗转 讬讚诐

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: 鈥淎nd the thing became known to Mordecai鈥 (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: 鈥淏ut they did not lay their hands on the plunder鈥 (Esther 9:15). The only way that could have been stated with certainty is through divine inspiration.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬 讛讜讗讬 讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪诇转讗 讚注讚讬驻讗 诪讻讜诇讛讜 砖谞讗诪专 拽讬诪讜 讜拽讘诇讜 拽讬诪讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 砖拽讬讘诇讜 诇诪讟讛

Shmuel said: Had I been there among the tanna鈥檌m, I would have stated a matter that is superior to them all, as it is stated: 鈥淭hey confirmed, and took upon themselves鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讗讬转 诇讛讜 驻讬专讻讗 诇讘专 诪讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻讬专讻讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讞砖讬讘 诇诪诇讻讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讻讬 拽讗 诪驻讬砖 讟讜讘讗 讜讗诪专 讗讚注转讬讛 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗诪专

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: 鈥淟et the royal apparel be brought鈥 (Esther 6:8), he said it with himself in mind.

讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚诇诪讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 诪诇诪讚 砖讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 谞讚诪转讛 诇讜 讻讗讜诪转讜

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.

讜讛讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚诇诪讗 讻专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 讘讙转谉 讜转专砖 砖谞讬 讟专砖讬讬诐 讛讬讜

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 岣yya 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.

讜讛讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讚讜专诪住拽讬转 讚诇诪讗 驻专讬住转拽讬 砖讚讜专 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜讚讗讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻讬专讻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讟讘讗 讞讚讗 驻诇驻诇转讗 讞专讬驻转讗 诪诪诇讬 爪谞讬 拽专讬

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 taste is more significant than the quantity of the pumpkins.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜讬诪讬 讛驻讜专讬诐 讛讗诇讛 诇讗 讬注讘专讜 诪转讜讱 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讜诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜讝讻专诐 诇讗 讬住讜祝 诪讝专注诐

Rav Yosef said: Proof that the book of Esther was divinely inspired may be cited from here: 鈥淎nd these days of Purim shall not cease from among the Jews鈥 (Esther 9:28), an assertion that could have been made only with divine inspiration. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: Proof may be cited from here, at the end of that verse: 鈥淣or the memorial of them perish from their seed鈥 (Esther 9:28).

讜诪转谞讜转 诇讗讘讬讜谞讬诐 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诪砖诇讜讞 诪谞讜转 讗讬砖 诇专注讛讜 砖转讬 诪谞讜转 诇讗讬砖 讗讞讚 讜诪转谞讜转 诇讗讘讬讜谞讬诐 砖转讬 诪转谞讜转 诇砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

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

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 砖讚专 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗讟诪讗 讚注讬讙诇讗 转诇转讗 讜讙专讘讗 讚讞诪专讗 砖诇讞 诇讬讛

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:

拽讬讬诪转 讘谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讜诪砖诇讜讞 诪谞讜转 讗讬砖 诇专注讛讜 讜诪转谞讜转 诇讗讘讬讜谞讬诐

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

专讘讛 砖讚专 诇讬讛 诇诪专讬 讘专 诪专 讘讬讚 讗讘讬讬 诪诇讗 讟住拽讗 讚拽砖讘讗 讜诪诇讬 讻住讗 拽诪讞讗 讚讗讘砖讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛砖转讗 讗诪专 诪专讬 讗讬 讞拽诇讗讛 诪诇讻讗 诇讬讛讜讬 讚讬拽讜诇讗 诪爪讜讗专讬讛 诇讗 谞讞讬转

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 [kim岣 de鈥檃vshuna]. 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.

讛讚专 砖讚专 诇讬讛 讗讬讛讜 诪诇讗 讟住拽讗 讚讝谞讙讘讬诇讗 讜诪诇讗 讻住讗 讚驻诇驻诇转讗 讗专讬讻讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛砖转讗 讗诪专 诪专 讗谞讗 砖讚专讬 诇讬讛 讞讜诇讬讗 讜讗讬讛讜 砖讚专 诇讬 讞讜专驻讗

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 谞驻拽讬 诪讘讬 诪专 讛讜讛 砖讘注谞讗 讻讬 诪讟讗讬 诇讛转诐 拽专讬讘讜 诇讬 砖讬转讬谉 爪注讬 讚砖讬转讬谉 诪讬谞讬 拽讚讬专讛 讜讗讻诇讬 讘讛讜 砖讬转讬谉 驻诇讜讙讬 讜讘讬砖讜诇讗 讘转专讬讬转讗 讛讜讜 拽专讜 诇讬讛 爪诇讬 拽讚专 讜讘注讗讬 诇诪讬讻住 爪注讗 讗讘转专讛

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讻驻讬谉 注谞讬讗 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讗讬 谞诪讬 专讜讜讞讗 诇讘住讬诪讗 砖讻讬讞

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鈥檚 house. Alternatively, there is another appropriate, popular expression: Room in the stomach for sweets can always be found.

讗讘讬讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪讞诇驻讬 住注讜讚转讬讬讛讜 诇讛讚讚讬

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

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讬谞讬砖 诇讘住讜诪讬 讘驻讜专讬讗 注讚 讚诇讗 讬讚注 讘讬谉 讗专讜专 讛诪谉 诇讘专讜讱 诪专讚讻讬

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.

专讘讛 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 注讘讚讜 住注讜讚转 驻讜专讬诐 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗讬讘住讜诐 拽诐 专讘讛 砖讞讟讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇诪讞专 讘注讬 专讞诪讬 讜讗讞讬讬讛 诇砖谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讬转讬 诪专 讜谞注讘讬讚 住注讜讚转 驻讜专讬诐 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讘讻诇 砖注转讗 讜砖注转讗 诪转专讞讬砖 谞讬住讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 住注讜讚转 驻讜专讬诐 砖讗讻诇讛 讘诇讬诇讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬诪讬 诪砖转讛 讜砖诪讞讛 讻转讬讘 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 拽诪讬讛 (讚专讘 讻讛谞讗) 谞讙讛 讜诇讗 讗转讜 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗转讜 专讘谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讟专讬讚讬 讘住注讜讚转 驻讜专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讜讛 讗驻砖专 诇诪讬讻诇讛 讘讗讜专转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诇诪专 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 住注讜讚转 驻讜专讬诐 砖讗讻诇讛 讘诇讬诇讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 (讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬) [讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉] 转谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗专讘注讬谉 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讜讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讚诪谞讞 讘讻讬住讬讛

Rava said: A Purim feast that one ate at night did not fulfill his obligation. What is the reason? 鈥淒ays of feasting and gladness鈥 (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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 讘诇讘讚

mishna The previous mishna concluded with the formula: The difference between鈥s 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.

讙诪壮 讛讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪讻砖讬专讬 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉

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.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讗祝 诪讻砖讬专讬 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖

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 is preparing food. Rabbi Yehuda permits even actions that facilitate preparation of food on Festivals.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 诪讻砖讬专讬讜 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 (讗诪专) 诇讻诐 诇讻诐 诇讻诇 爪讜专讻讬讻诐

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

讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 诇讻诐 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讙讜讬诐 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讘讬诐

The Gemara asks: And for the other, first, tanna too, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淔or you鈥? 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.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讛讜讗 讻转讬讘 讛讜讗 讜讻转讬讘 诇讻诐 讻讗谉 讘诪讻砖讬专讬谉 砖讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转谉 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讻讗谉 讘诪讻砖讬专讬谉 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转谉 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara asks further: And for the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, too, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭hat,鈥 which is a restrictive term that limits the application of a particular halakha? The Gemara answers: It is written: 鈥淭hat,鈥 which is restrictive, and it is written: 鈥淔or you,鈥 which is inclusive. Rabbi Yehuda resolves the conflict between the two: Here, the word: 鈥淭hat,鈥 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: 鈥淔or you,鈥 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 砖讘转 诇讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗诇讗 砖讝讛 讝讚讜谞讜 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讜讝讛 讝讚讜谞讜 讘讻专转

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.

讙诪壮 讛讗 诇注谞讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉

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鈥檚 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.

诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 讗转 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讻砖讘转 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诪讛 砖讘转 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 讜驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗祝 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 讜驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬谉

The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion is the mishna taught? The Gemara answers: It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣nya ben HaKana, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ne岣nya 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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 砖诇拽讜 谞驻讟专讜 诪讬讚讬 讻专讬转转谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞拽诇讛 讗讞讬讱 诇注讬谞讬讱 讻讬讜谉 砖诇拽讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讗讞讬讱 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讞讘讬专讬讜 注诇 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

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: 鈥淭hen your brother shall be dishonored before you鈥 (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 岣nanya ben Gamliel. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Rabbi 岣nanya ben Gamliel鈥檚 colleagues disagree with him on this issue.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 转谞讬谞讗 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇砖讘转 讗诇讗 砖讝讛 讝讚讜谞讜 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讜讝讛 讝讚讜谞讜 讘讛讬讻专转 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讛讬讗

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 岣nanya ben Gamliel is so, in both this case, Shabbat, and that case, Yom Kippur, the punishment is at the hand of Man.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪诇拽讜转 讘讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 诇讬讻讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讜诪专 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讘讻诇诇 讛讬讜 讜诇诪讛 讬爪讗转 讻专转 讘讗讞讜转讜 诇讚讜谞讛 讘讻专转 讜诇讗 讘诪诇拽讜转

Rav Na岣an said: There is no proof from here that Rabbi 岣nanya ben Gamliel鈥檚 colleagues disagree with him, as in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k, who said: There are no lashes in cases of those liable to receive karet, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitz岣k says: All those liable to receive karet in cases of incest were included in the principle: 鈥淔or whoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the persons that commit them shall be cut off from among their people鈥 (Leviticus 18:29). And why was karet administered to one鈥檚 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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讝讛 注讬拽专 讝讚讜谞讜 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讜讝讛 注讬拽专 讝讚讜谞讜 讘讛讬讻专转

Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that the mishna is according to the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yitz岣k and hold that there are lashes even in cases where there is liability for karet, there is no proof that Rabbi 岣nanya ben Gamliel鈥檚 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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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: 2-9 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

The holiday of Purim is celebrated on the 14th of Adar. Walled cities from the time of Joshua celebrate it...
talking talmud_square

Megillah 7: The Year Rabbi Zeira Woke Up Dead after Purim

Establishing Purim as a holiday for the generations, and Esther as a book to be read. Plus, including the Book...
Megilla with Dr. Ayelet Hoffmann Libson

Introduction to Megillah

Watch the video introduction or listen to the podcast below. https://youtu.be/fwTrNOQA0To Podcast: https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/hadran/IntroMegilla.mp3

Megillah 7

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Megillah 7

讛砖谞讬转 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讬讻转讘 讘讻诇 砖谞讛 讜砖谞讛 讚讗讬 诪讘讻诇 砖谞讛 讜砖谞讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 拽讜砖讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛砖谞讬转 讜讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛砖谞讬转 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘转讞讬诇讛 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜讘砖谞讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讘讻诇 砖谞讛 讜砖谞讛

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.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讗讬 讛砖谞讬转 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讘转讞讬诇讛 拽讘注讜讛 讘砖讜砖谉 讜诇讘住讜祝 讘讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 砖诇讞讛 诇讛诐 讗住转专 诇讞讻诪讬诐 拽讘注讜谞讬 诇讚讜专讜转 砖诇讞讜 诇讛 拽谞讗讛 讗转 诪注讜专专转 注诇讬谞讜 诇讘讬谉 讛讗讜诪讜转 砖诇讞讛 诇讛诐 讻讘专 讻转讜讘讛 讗谞讬 注诇 讚讘专讬 讛讬诪讬诐 诇诪诇讻讬 诪讚讬 讜驻专住

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.

专讘 讜专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 诪转谞讜 讘讻讜诇讬讛 住讚专 诪讜注讚 讻诇 讻讬 讛讗讬 讝讜讙讗 讞诇讜驻讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜诪注讬讬诇 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 砖诇讞讛 诇讛诐 讗住转专 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讻转讘讜谞讬 诇讚讜专讜转 砖诇讞讜 诇讛 讛诇讗 讻转讘转讬 诇讱 砖诇讬砖讬诐 砖诇讬砖讬诐 讜诇讗 专讘注讬诐

It was related that Rav and Rabbi 岣nina and Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rav 岣viva taught the statement cited below. The Gemara comments: Throughout the order of Moed, wherever this latter pair of Sages is mentioned, exchange Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淗ave I not written for you three times鈥 (Proverbs 22:20), indicating that Israel鈥檚 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鈥16; Deuteronomy 25:17鈥19; I聽Samuel 15), there is no need to add a fourth source.

注讚 砖诪爪讗讜 诇讜 诪拽专讗 讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛 讻转讘 讝讗转 讝讻专讜谉 讘住驻专 讻转讘 讝讗转 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讻讗谉 讜讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 讝讻专讜谉 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘谞讘讬讗讬诐 讘住驻专 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘诪讙诇讛

The Sages did not accede to Esther鈥檚 request until they found a verse written in the Torah: 鈥淲rite 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鈥 (Exodus 17:14). The Sages interpreted the verse: 鈥淲rite this,鈥 that which is written in the Torah here in Exodus, and in Deuteronomy; 鈥渁 memorial,鈥 that which is written in the Prophets, i.e., in I聽Samuel, on this matter; 鈥渋n the book,鈥 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.

讻转谞讗讬 讻转讘 讝讗转 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讻讗谉 讝讻专讜谉 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 讘住驻专 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘谞讘讬讗讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诪讜讚注讬 讗讜诪专 讻转讘 讝讗转 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讻讗谉 讜讘诪砖谞讛 转讜专讛 讝讻专讜谉 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘谞讘讬讗讬诐 讘住驻专 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘诪讙讬诇讛

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

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗住转专 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐

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.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗住转专 诇讗讜 讘专讜讞 讛拽讜讚砖 谞讗诪专讛 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗住转专 讘专讜讞 讛拽讜讚砖 谞讗诪专讛 谞讗诪专讛 诇拽专讜转 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专讛 诇讬讻转讜讘

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鈥檛 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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 拽讛诇转 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 讜诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讬专 讛砖讬专讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖讬专 讛砖讬专讬诐 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 讜诪讞诇讜拽转 讘拽讛诇转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 拽讛诇转 诪拽讜诇讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜诪讞讜诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讘诇 专讜转 讜砖讬专 讛砖讬专讬诐 讜讗住转专 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

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.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜诪专 拽讛诇转 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讗转 讛讬讚讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讞讻诪转讜 砖诇 砖诇诪讛 讛讬讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讜讻讬 讝讜 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讬讚讘专 砖诇砖转 讗诇驻讬诐 诪砖诇 讜讗讜诪专 讗诇 转讜住祝 注诇 讚讘专讬讜

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鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淎nd he spoke three thousand proverbs, and his poems were a thousand and five鈥 (I聽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: 鈥淎dd you not unto his words鈥 (Proverbs 30:6).

诪讗讬 讜讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讬诪专 讟讜讘讗 讗诪专 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讗讬讻转讬讘 讜讚讗讬 讘注讬 诇讗 讗讬讻转讬讘 转讗 砖诪注 讗诇 转讜住祝 注诇 讚讘专讬讜

The Gemara asks: What is added by the proof introduced with the phrase: And it says? Why wasn鈥檛 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.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗住转专 讘专讜讞 讛拽讜讚砖 谞讗诪专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讗诪专 讛诪谉 讘诇讘讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗住转专 讘专讜讞 讛拽讜讚砖 谞讗诪专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜转讛讬 讗住转专 谞砖讗转 讞谉 讘注讬谞讬 讻诇 专讜讗讬讛

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: 鈥淎nd Haman thought in his heart鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd Esther obtained favor in the sight of all those who looked upon her鈥 (Esther 2:15); this could have been known only through divine inspiration.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗住转专 讘专讜讞 讛拽讜讚砖 谞讗诪专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讜讚注 讛讚讘专 诇诪专讚讻讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讚讜专诪住拽讬转 讗讜诪专 讗住转专 讘专讜讞 讛拽讜讚砖 谞讗诪专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讘讘讝讛 诇讗 砖诇讞讜 讗转 讬讚诐

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: 鈥淎nd the thing became known to Mordecai鈥 (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: 鈥淏ut they did not lay their hands on the plunder鈥 (Esther 9:15). The only way that could have been stated with certainty is through divine inspiration.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬 讛讜讗讬 讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪诇转讗 讚注讚讬驻讗 诪讻讜诇讛讜 砖谞讗诪专 拽讬诪讜 讜拽讘诇讜 拽讬诪讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 砖拽讬讘诇讜 诇诪讟讛

Shmuel said: Had I been there among the tanna鈥檌m, I would have stated a matter that is superior to them all, as it is stated: 鈥淭hey confirmed, and took upon themselves鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讗讬转 诇讛讜 驻讬专讻讗 诇讘专 诪讚砖诪讜讗诇 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻讬专讻讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专讗 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讞砖讬讘 诇诪诇讻讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讜讛讗讬 讻讬 拽讗 诪驻讬砖 讟讜讘讗 讜讗诪专 讗讚注转讬讛 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗诪专

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: 鈥淟et the royal apparel be brought鈥 (Esther 6:8), he said it with himself in mind.

讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚诇诪讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 诪诇诪讚 砖讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 谞讚诪转讛 诇讜 讻讗讜诪转讜

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.

讜讛讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚诇诪讗 讻专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 讘讙转谉 讜转专砖 砖谞讬 讟专砖讬讬诐 讛讬讜

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 岣yya 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.

讜讛讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讚讜专诪住拽讬转 讚诇诪讗 驻专讬住转拽讬 砖讚讜专 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讜讚讗讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻讬专讻讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讟讘讗 讞讚讗 驻诇驻诇转讗 讞专讬驻转讗 诪诪诇讬 爪谞讬 拽专讬

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 taste is more significant than the quantity of the pumpkins.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜讬诪讬 讛驻讜专讬诐 讛讗诇讛 诇讗 讬注讘专讜 诪转讜讱 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讜诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜讝讻专诐 诇讗 讬住讜祝 诪讝专注诐

Rav Yosef said: Proof that the book of Esther was divinely inspired may be cited from here: 鈥淎nd these days of Purim shall not cease from among the Jews鈥 (Esther 9:28), an assertion that could have been made only with divine inspiration. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: Proof may be cited from here, at the end of that verse: 鈥淣or the memorial of them perish from their seed鈥 (Esther 9:28).

讜诪转谞讜转 诇讗讘讬讜谞讬诐 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诪砖诇讜讞 诪谞讜转 讗讬砖 诇专注讛讜 砖转讬 诪谞讜转 诇讗讬砖 讗讞讚 讜诪转谞讜转 诇讗讘讬讜谞讬诐 砖转讬 诪转谞讜转 诇砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

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

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 砖讚专 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗讟诪讗 讚注讬讙诇讗 转诇转讗 讜讙专讘讗 讚讞诪专讗 砖诇讞 诇讬讛

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:

拽讬讬诪转 讘谞讜 专讘讬谞讜 讜诪砖诇讜讞 诪谞讜转 讗讬砖 诇专注讛讜 讜诪转谞讜转 诇讗讘讬讜谞讬诐

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

专讘讛 砖讚专 诇讬讛 诇诪专讬 讘专 诪专 讘讬讚 讗讘讬讬 诪诇讗 讟住拽讗 讚拽砖讘讗 讜诪诇讬 讻住讗 拽诪讞讗 讚讗讘砖讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛砖转讗 讗诪专 诪专讬 讗讬 讞拽诇讗讛 诪诇讻讗 诇讬讛讜讬 讚讬拽讜诇讗 诪爪讜讗专讬讛 诇讗 谞讞讬转

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 [kim岣 de鈥檃vshuna]. 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.

讛讚专 砖讚专 诇讬讛 讗讬讛讜 诪诇讗 讟住拽讗 讚讝谞讙讘讬诇讗 讜诪诇讗 讻住讗 讚驻诇驻诇转讗 讗专讬讻讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛砖转讗 讗诪专 诪专 讗谞讗 砖讚专讬 诇讬讛 讞讜诇讬讗 讜讗讬讛讜 砖讚专 诇讬 讞讜专驻讗

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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 谞驻拽讬 诪讘讬 诪专 讛讜讛 砖讘注谞讗 讻讬 诪讟讗讬 诇讛转诐 拽专讬讘讜 诇讬 砖讬转讬谉 爪注讬 讚砖讬转讬谉 诪讬谞讬 拽讚讬专讛 讜讗讻诇讬 讘讛讜 砖讬转讬谉 驻诇讜讙讬 讜讘讬砖讜诇讗 讘转专讬讬转讗 讛讜讜 拽专讜 诇讬讛 爪诇讬 拽讚专 讜讘注讗讬 诇诪讬讻住 爪注讗 讗讘转专讛

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讻驻讬谉 注谞讬讗 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讗讬 谞诪讬 专讜讜讞讗 诇讘住讬诪讗 砖讻讬讞

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鈥檚 house. Alternatively, there is another appropriate, popular expression: Room in the stomach for sweets can always be found.

讗讘讬讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪讞诇驻讬 住注讜讚转讬讬讛讜 诇讛讚讚讬

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

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讬谞讬砖 诇讘住讜诪讬 讘驻讜专讬讗 注讚 讚诇讗 讬讚注 讘讬谉 讗专讜专 讛诪谉 诇讘专讜讱 诪专讚讻讬

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.

专讘讛 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 注讘讚讜 住注讜讚转 驻讜专讬诐 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗讬讘住讜诐 拽诐 专讘讛 砖讞讟讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇诪讞专 讘注讬 专讞诪讬 讜讗讞讬讬讛 诇砖谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讬转讬 诪专 讜谞注讘讬讚 住注讜讚转 驻讜专讬诐 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讘讻诇 砖注转讗 讜砖注转讗 诪转专讞讬砖 谞讬住讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 住注讜讚转 驻讜专讬诐 砖讗讻诇讛 讘诇讬诇讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬诪讬 诪砖转讛 讜砖诪讞讛 讻转讬讘 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 拽诪讬讛 (讚专讘 讻讛谞讗) 谞讙讛 讜诇讗 讗转讜 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗转讜 专讘谞谉 讚诇诪讗 讟专讬讚讬 讘住注讜讚转 驻讜专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讜讛 讗驻砖专 诇诪讬讻诇讛 讘讗讜专转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诇诪专 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 住注讜讚转 驻讜专讬诐 砖讗讻诇讛 讘诇讬诇讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 (讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬) [讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉] 转谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗专讘注讬谉 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讜讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讻诪讗谉 讚诪谞讞 讘讻讬住讬讛

Rava said: A Purim feast that one ate at night did not fulfill his obligation. What is the reason? 鈥淒ays of feasting and gladness鈥 (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鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 讘诇讘讚

mishna The previous mishna concluded with the formula: The difference between鈥s 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.

讙诪壮 讛讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪讻砖讬专讬 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉

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.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪转讬专 讗祝 诪讻砖讬专讬 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖

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 is preparing food. Rabbi Yehuda permits even actions that facilitate preparation of food on Festivals.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 诪讻砖讬专讬讜 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 (讗诪专) 诇讻诐 诇讻诐 诇讻诇 爪讜专讻讬讻诐

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

讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 诇讻诐 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讙讜讬诐 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讻诇讘讬诐

The Gemara asks: And for the other, first, tanna too, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淔or you鈥? 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.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讛讜讗 讻转讬讘 讛讜讗 讜讻转讬讘 诇讻诐 讻讗谉 讘诪讻砖讬专讬谉 砖讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转谉 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讻讗谉 讘诪讻砖讬专讬谉 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转谉 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara asks further: And for the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, too, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭hat,鈥 which is a restrictive term that limits the application of a particular halakha? The Gemara answers: It is written: 鈥淭hat,鈥 which is restrictive, and it is written: 鈥淔or you,鈥 which is inclusive. Rabbi Yehuda resolves the conflict between the two: Here, the word: 鈥淭hat,鈥 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: 鈥淔or you,鈥 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 砖讘转 诇讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗诇讗 砖讝讛 讝讚讜谞讜 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讜讝讛 讝讚讜谞讜 讘讻专转

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.

讙诪壮 讛讗 诇注谞讬谉 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讝讛 讜讝讛 砖讜讬谉

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鈥檚 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.

诪谞讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讘谉 讛拽谞讛 讛讬讛 注讜砖讛 讗转 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讻砖讘转 诇转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诪讛 砖讘转 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 讜驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗祝 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 讜驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛转砖诇讜诪讬谉

The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion is the mishna taught? The Gemara answers: It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣nya ben HaKana, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ne岣nya 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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讻诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 砖诇拽讜 谞驻讟专讜 诪讬讚讬 讻专讬转转谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞拽诇讛 讗讞讬讱 诇注讬谞讬讱 讻讬讜谉 砖诇拽讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讗讞讬讱 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讞讘讬专讬讜 注诇 专讘讬 讞谞谞讬讛 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

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: 鈥淭hen your brother shall be dishonored before you鈥 (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 岣nanya ben Gamliel. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Rabbi 岣nanya ben Gamliel鈥檚 colleagues disagree with him on this issue.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 转谞讬谞讗 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇砖讘转 讗诇讗 砖讝讛 讝讚讜谞讜 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讜讝讛 讝讚讜谞讜 讘讛讬讻专转 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讛讬讗

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 岣nanya ben Gamliel is so, in both this case, Shabbat, and that case, Yom Kippur, the punishment is at the hand of Man.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪诇拽讜转 讘讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 诇讬讻讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讜诪专 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讘讻诇诇 讛讬讜 讜诇诪讛 讬爪讗转 讻专转 讘讗讞讜转讜 诇讚讜谞讛 讘讻专转 讜诇讗 讘诪诇拽讜转

Rav Na岣an said: There is no proof from here that Rabbi 岣nanya ben Gamliel鈥檚 colleagues disagree with him, as in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k, who said: There are no lashes in cases of those liable to receive karet, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitz岣k says: All those liable to receive karet in cases of incest were included in the principle: 鈥淔or whoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the persons that commit them shall be cut off from among their people鈥 (Leviticus 18:29). And why was karet administered to one鈥檚 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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讝讛 注讬拽专 讝讚讜谞讜 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐 讜讝讛 注讬拽专 讝讚讜谞讜 讘讛讬讻专转

Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that the mishna is according to the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yitz岣k and hold that there are lashes even in cases where there is liability for karet, there is no proof that Rabbi 岣nanya ben Gamliel鈥檚 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.

Scroll To Top