Megillah 10b — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection: But why

did they sanctify them

again?

Now? For they say

below, at the end of this beraita, that any city concerning which you have a tradition from your ancestors that it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua is considered a walled city, and

does it not need sanctification?

Rather,

say this:

They found these—

and counted them.

And

in truth

not these alone

are considered walled cities,

but any city concerning which you have a tradition in your possession from your ancestors that it was surrounded by a wall

it is

from the days of Joshua son of Nun—all these mitzvot

that apply in walled cities, namely: sending away the leper, reading the Megilla on the fifteenth, and the law of houses of walled cities—

apply there. Because the first sanctification

with which they sanctified it when Israel entered the Land

sanctified it for its time—

and sanctified it for the future.

And this is what we said above: that the issue of whether it was sanctified for the future or not is a dispute among tannaim, for these beraitot disagree on this matter.

And we raise an objection: But both beraitot were stated in the name of Rabbi Ishmael, and if so,

there is a difficulty concerning Rabbi Ishmael—

against Rabbi Ishmael!?

And we answer:

They are two tannaim

and

according to the view of Rabbi Ishmael son of Rabbi Yose.

One of them said that Rabbi Ishmael said this, and the other said that Rabbi Ishmael said this.

And if you wish, say:

this latter beraita, which says that it was sanctified even for the future,

was stated by Rabbi Elazar bar Yose.

For we hear him say this elsewhere [above].

For it was taught: Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yose said:

It is written concerning houses of walled cities:

“Which has no wall.”

And since “which has” can be understood as “which does not have,” we expound:

even though it does not have a wall now,

a wall,

but it had one previously,

it is considered a house of a walled city.

We see that he holds that the first sanctification sanctified it for its time—and sanctified it for the future, even after the wall of the city was destroyed.

And this is the dispute among the tannaim: Rabbi Ishmael holds that they did not sanctify them for the future, whereas Rabbi Elazar holds that they sanctified them for the future.

It is written at the beginning of the Megilla:

“And it was in the days of Ahasuerus.”

Rabbi Levi said, and some say Rabbi Yonatan: This matter

below

is a tradition in our hands from the members of the Great Assembly.

And this means that

every place where “and it was” is stated—

it is only an expression

of

distress ,

as follows:

It is written

“And it was in the days of Ahasuerus”—

this means

Haman existed,

who caused distress to Israel.

“And it was in the days when the judges judged”—

this means

there was a famine

at that time.

“And it was when man began to multiply”—

it is written immediately afterward:

“And the Lord saw that the evil of man was great.”

It is written concerning the people of Babylon:

“And it was when they journeyed from the east”—

it is written immediately afterward:

“Come, let us build for ourselves a city

and so on.”

“And it was in the days of Amraphel”—

it is written immediately afterward:

“They waged war

and so on.”

“And it was when Joshua was in Jericho”—“

And behold, a man was standing opposite him

with his sword drawn in his hand,”

and we expounded above [3a] that the angel rebuked him for neglect of Torah study, or for neglect of the daily offering between the evenings.

“And the Lord was with Joshua”—

“And the children of Israel acted treacherously.”

“And there was one man from Ramathaim”—

“For he loved Hannah, but the Lord had closed her womb.”

“And it was when Samuel grew old”—

“And his sons did not walk in his ways.”

“And David was successful in all his ways, and the Lord was with him”—

“And Saul was hostile to David,”

because of his success.

“And it was when the king sat in his house”—

it is written immediately afterward that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him:

“Only you shall not build the House.”

And we challenge this: Is it an absolute rule—that wherever “and it was” is written, it is only an expression of distress?

But it is written

concerning the days of the inauguration:

“And it was on the eighth day,” and it was taught:

On

that day, there was joy before the Holy One, blessed is He, like the day on which heaven and earth were created.

For

it is written here: “And it was on the eighth day,” and it is written there

concerning the creation of the world:

“And it was evening, and it was morning, one day.”

Thus “and it was” is written even where there was no distress?

And we answer:

Nadab and Abihu died

on that day,

and

there was distress.

And we challenge: But still, wherever “and it was” is written, it is only an expression of distress?

But it is written: “And it was in the four hundred and eightieth year

and so on, “and he built the House for the Lord,”

and it is written: “And it was when Jacob saw Rachel” ;

And it is written: “And it was evening, and it was morning, one day,”

and there is

this expression on the

second

day of the creation of the world,

and there is the third, and there are many,

and in all these verses there was no distress!?

Rav Ashi said:

This is the general rule of the matter:

every

place where

“and it was” is written, there is this—

that it was an expression of distress—

and there is this—

that it is not an expression of distress.

But wherever

“and it was in the days”

is written, it is only an expression of distress.

There are five

verses in which

“and it was in the days” is written:

“And it was in the days of Ahasuerus,” “And it was in the days when the judges judged,” “And it was in the days of Amraphel,” “And it was in the days of Ahaz,” “And it was in the days of Jehoiakim.”

And Rabbi Levi said: This matter is a tradition in our hands from our ancestors:

it is

Amotz

[who was the father of Isaiah the prophet]

and Amatziah

[who was king of Judah, of the line of the House of David]—

they were brothers.

What does

Rav Levi teach us by this matter?

As Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: Every bride who is modest in her father-in-law’s house—

merits that kings and prophets emerge from her.

From where do we know it?

From Tamar.

For it is written

in the account of Judah and Tamar:

“And Judah saw her and thought her to be a prostitute, because she had covered her face.”

And is it

because she had covered her face—

therefore

he thought her to be a prostitute?

Rather, because she had covered her face in her father-in-law’s house and Judah did not know her,

therefore he did not recognize her when he saw her on the road, and thought her to be a prostitute.

And because she was modest in her father-in-law’s house, she

merited, and kings and prophets emerged from her.

And from where is it proven that kings and prophets emerged from her?

Kings—

from David,

who emerged from her.

Prophets—

from this,

as Rabbi Levi said: It is a tradition in our hands from our ancestors,

that

Amotz and Amatziah—

were brothers.

And Amatziah was one of the kings of Judah, of the line of David,

and

his brother Amotz was the father of Isaiah the prophet , for

it is written: “The vision of Isaiah son of Amotz.”

And Rabbi Levi said: This matter is a tradition in our hands from our ancestors: The place of the Ark—

is not included in the measurement .

That is, it does not subtract anything from the measurement of the floor of the Holy of Holies. For the Ark stood in the middle of the Holy of Holies, and it is taught in a beraita that it had ten cubits of open space on every side, while the entire House of the Holy of Holies was only twenty cubits; and where, then, did the Ark itself stand!?

Rather, conclude from this that the Ark itself is not included in the measurement.

It was taught likewise: The Ark that Moses made—

had ten cubits on every side,

for it stood in the middle of the Holy of Holies , and between it and the wall there were ten cubits on each of its sides.

And it is written: “And before the inner sanctuary was twenty cubits in length,”

that is, the space of the Holy of Holies, which was before the inner sanctuary [the inner sanctuary is the partition separating the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies], was twenty cubits long.

And it is written: “The wing of one cherub was ten cubits, and the wing

of the other cherub was ten cubits.” .

If so,

where did the Ark itself stand?

Rather, is it not so? Conclude from this—

it stood by means of a miracle .

Rabbi Yonatan,

when he wished to expound concerning the Purim letter, would

open an opening for this passage

from here

for it is written concerning the punishment of Babylon:

“And I shall rise against them, and so on, and I shall cut off from Babylon name and remnant, descendant and offspring, says the Lord.”

And this is how he expounds the verse:

“Name”—

this is the script,

for they have no script except that of another nation.

“Remnant”—

this is the language .

“Descendant”—

this is kingship .

“And offspring”—

this is Vashti,

who was the granddaughter of Belshazzar, king of Babylon.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani opened an opening for this

passage from here: “Instead of the thornbush the cypress shall rise, and instead of the brier the myrtle shall rise.”

And this is how he expounds the verse:

“Instead of the thornbush”—

instead of the wicked Haman, who made himself an object of idolatry.

And idolatry is called “thornbush,”

as it is written: “And among all the thornbushes and among all the high places.”

“The cypress shall rise”—

this is Mordecai, who is called the chief of all spices .

As it is stated: “And you shall take for yourself chief spices, pure myrrh,” and we translate: “mori dekhya,”

for it resembles “Mordecai” .

“Instead of the brier”—

instead of the wicked Vashti, the daughter of the son of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, who burned the couch of the House of the Lord.

And the House of the Lord is called “a couch,”

as it is written: “Its couch is gold.”

“The myrtle shall rise”—

this is Esther the righteous, who is called Hadassah. As it is stated: “And he had raised Hadassah.”

“And it shall be for the LORD a name” —

this is the reading of the Megilla .

“As an everlasting sign, it shall not be cut off” —

these are the days of Purim .

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi opened an opening for this

passage from here,

as it is written:

“And it shall be, just as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, so shall He make others rejoice to do you harm.”

And here too, in the passage of Haman, the Holy One, blessed be He, rejoiced the nations of the world in order to do harm to Israel .

And we ask:

Does He rejoice [

rejoice ]

the Holy One, blessed be He, at the downfall of the wicked?!

But is it not written

concerning Jehoshaphat, when he went out to wage war against the Ammonites and the Gibeonites who had come against him:

“As they went out before the army and said, Give thanks to the LORD, for His kindness is everlasting.”

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Why was it not said “

Give thanks to the LORD

for He is good” in this thanksgiving?

Because the Holy One, blessed be He, does not rejoice at the downfall of the wicked!

And

further

Rabbi Yohanan said: What is this

that

is written

concerning the splitting of the Sea:

“And this one did not approach that one all night”?

The ministering angels sought

to recite song. The Holy One, blessed be He, said

to them:

“The work of My hands is drowning in the sea, and you are reciting song?!”

We see that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not rejoice at the downfall of the wicked!?

Rabbi Eleazar said: He,

the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself,

does not rejoice

at the downfall of the wicked.

But others —

He causes to rejoice .

And this too is precise, for it is written, “so shall He make others rejoice,” and it is not written, “He shall rejoice” .

This indicates that He makes others rejoice, and that He Himself does not rejoice.

Infer from it.

Rabbi Abba bar Kahana opened an opening for this passage from here,

as it is written: “For

to the person who is good before Him He has given wisdom, knowledge, and joy” —

this is Mordecai the righteous ,

for the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him a heart to engage in Torah and mitzvot, and to rejoice in his portion [Rashi there].

And that which is written at the end of the verse:

“And to the sinner He has given

the task of gathering and collecting” —

this is Haman,

who gathered and collected much money.

“To give it to the one who is good before God” —

this is Mordecai and Esther. For it is written: “And Esther placed Mordecai over the house of Haman.”

And that is to say, the sinner gathers and collects money so that in the end it will be given to the righteous .

Rabba bar Ofran opened an opening for this passage from here,

as it is written:

“And I shall place My throne in Elam, and I shall destroy from there king and ministers.”

And Shushan the capital was in Elam, as it is written in the book of Daniel: “In Shushan the capital, which is in the province of Elam.”

And this is how he expounds the verse:

“King” —

this is Vashti.

“And ministers” —

this is Haman and his ten sons,

for his sons too were ministers in the kingdom of Ahasuerus.