Megillah 10b (י:) — the Talmud in English

And we raise a difficulty: Why did they

sanctify them again

")

now? They say

later, at the end of this very beraita, that any city for 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

there is no need to sanctify it?!

Rather,

say this:

They found these cities—and

listed them.

And

in truth,

these alone are not

considered walled cities;

rather, any city for which you have a tradition from your ancestors that it was surrounded by a wall

is

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

that apply in walled cities—that is, sending away a leper, reading the Megilla on the fifteenth of Adar, and the law of houses in walled cities—

apply there. Because the first sanctity

with which they were sanctified when Israel entered the Land

sanctified it for its time—

and sanctified it for the future.

This implies that according to the one who says that the first sanctity did not sanctify the Land for the future, there is no reading of the Megilla on the fifteenth in walled cities of Eretz Yisrael. The Turei Even asked: How are walled cities in the Diaspora different, where there was never any sanctity? [There is an apparent contradiction in Rashi’s words: here he explained that the matter also concerns reading the Megilla, whereas above it seems that he holds that even walled cities in the Diaspora read on the fifteenth]?

This is what we said above: whether the Land was sanctified for the future or not is a dispute among the tannaim, and these baraitot disagree on this very matter.

And we raise a difficulty: Both baraitot were stated in the name of Rabbi Yishmael. If so,

there is a difficulty between the statements of Rabbi Yishmael—

between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yishmael!?

We answer:

They are two tannaim,

and they each state the view

according to Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yosei.

One of them said that Rabbi Yishmael said this, while the other said that Rabbi Yishmael said that.

And if you wish, say:

the latter beraita, which says that the sanctity applies even for the future,

was stated by Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei.

For we have heard him say this elsewhere [above].

As it was taught: Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yosei said:

It is written concerning houses in walled cities:

“Which has no wall.”

Since the verse can be read as implying both “which has a wall” and “which has no wall,” we expound:

Even though it does not have a wall now,

it

had one previously,

it is considered a house in a walled city.

We see that he holds that the first sanctity sanctified the Land for its time—and sanctified it for the future, even after the city’s wall was destroyed.

Thus, the tannaim disagree about this. Rabbi Yishmael holds that they did not sanctify it for the future, whereas Rabbi Elazar holds that they did sanctify it for the future.

It is written at the beginning of the Megilla:

“And it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus.”

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

that follows

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

That is,

every place where it says, “And it came to pass”—

is nothing other than an expression

of

distress,

as follows:

It is written:

“And it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus”—

this means that

Haman was present,

causing distress to Israel.

“And it came to pass in the days when the judges judged”—

this means that

there was a famine

at that time.

“And it came to pass when man began to multiply”—

it is written immediately afterward:

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

It is written concerning the people of Babylonia:

“And it came to pass when they journeyed from the east”—

it is written immediately afterward:

“Come, let us build for ourselves a city

and so on.”

“And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel”—

it is written immediately afterward:

“They made war

and so on.”

“And it came to pass when Joshua was by Jericho”—“

And behold, a man stood opposite him

with his sword drawn in his hand,”

and we expounded above that the angel rebuked him for neglecting Torah study or for neglecting the daily afternoon offering.

“And the Lord was with Joshua”—

“And the Children of Israel committed a trespass.”

“And there was one man from Ramathaim”—

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

“And it came to pass 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 toward David,”

because of his success.

“And it came to pass 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.”

We challenge this: Is this indeed a general rule—that wherever “and it came to pass” is written, it is nothing other than an expression of distress?

But it is written

concerning the days of the inauguration of the Tabernacle:

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

On

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

For

it is written here: “And it came to pass on the eighth day,” and it is written there

concerning the creation of the world:

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

This shows that “and it came to pass” is written even where there was no distress!

We answer:

On that day,

on the same day,

Nadab and Abihu died,

and there was distress.

We challenge this further: Is it still the rule that wherever “and it came to pass” is written, it is nothing other than an expression of distress?

But it is written: “And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year

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

and it is written: “And it came to pass when Jacob saw Rachel”;

The Rashash asked: Is it not written there, “And he lifted his voice and wept”? See Genesis Rabbah, section 70, where several reasons are given for his weeping. From here the Maharsha proved that when we say that “and it came to pass” is an expression of distress, this applies specifically when the distress is mentioned nearby. For here we do not say that it is an expression of distress because Rachel was barren, as we say concerning Hannah. Rather, the reason is that the verse interrupts the phrase with other matters.

But it is written: “And there was evening and there 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 others,

and in all these verses there was no distress!?

Rav Ashi said:

This is the general principle:

Every

place where

“and it came to pass” is written, there are instances like this

in which it is an expression of distress,

and there are instances like this

in which it is not an expression of distress.

However, wherever

“and it came to pass in the days of”

is written, it is nothing other than an expression of distress.

There are five

verses in which

“and it came to pass in the days of” appears:

“And it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus”; “And it came to pass in the days when the judges judged”; “And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel”; “And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz”; “And it came to pass in the days of Jehoiakim.”

In Esther Rabbah, in the eleventh opening section, the distress that occurred in each of these cases is explained.

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

it is:

Amoz

who was the father of Isaiah the prophet, and

Amaziah

who was king of Judah, of the descendants of the House of David—

were brothers.

What does

Rabbi Levi teach us by stating this?

It is like that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Na h mani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: Any bride who is modest in her father-in-law’s house—

merits that kings and prophets descend from her.

From where do we know this?

From Tamar.

As 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.”

But is it

because she had covered her face

that

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,

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

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

she merited that kings and prophets descended from her.

From where is it demonstrated that kings and prophets descended from her?

Kings—

from David,

who descended from her.

Prophets—

from this,

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

that

Amoz and Amaziah—

were brothers.

Amaziah was one of the kings of Judah, a descendant of David,

and

his brother Amoz was the father of Isaiah the prophet, as

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

The Gemara says later that whenever both a person’s name and his father’s name are mentioned in connection with prophecy, it is certain that he is a prophet the son of a prophet. Thus Isaiah and his father were prophets, and these are the prophets who descended from Tamar. Turei Even. See the Maharsha, who asked: Were David and Solomon not also prophets, since the Gemara later lists them among the forty-eight prophets? See there. See also the Turei Even.

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 did not diminish the measurement of the floor of the Holy of Holies at all. For the Ark stood in the center of the Holy of Holies, and a beraita teaches that there were ten cubits of empty space on every side, while the entire Holy of Holies was only twenty cubits wide. Where, then, did the Ark itself stand!?

Rather, learn from this that the Ark itself was not included in the measurement.

It was taught likewise: The Ark that Moses made—

had ten cubits of space on every side,

because it stood in the center of the Holy of Holies, with ten cubits between it and the wall on each side.

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

that is, the interior space of the Holy of Holies, which was before the Sanctuary [the Sanctuary was the partition separating the Holy 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? Learn from this—

it stood there miraculously.

This is Rashi’s explanation. The Tosafot of Rabbi Isaac of Dampierre explained it differently: The verse there states, “And before the Sanctuary was twenty cubits in length, twenty cubits in width, and twenty cubits in height.” Yet the height of the Sanctuary was thirty cubits. How, then, do I understand “twenty cubits”? It must mean from the tops of the cherubs upward, for the cherubs made by Solomon were ten cubits high. The verse compares length and width to height: Just as the cherubs did not obstruct those twenty cubits of height, so too the twenty cubits of length and width of the Sanctuary were not obstructed at all. The place of the Ark was not included in the measurement.

Rabbi Yonatan,

when he wished to expound concerning the Purim letter, would

open an introduction to this passage

from here

as it is written concerning the punishment of Babylonia:

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

And this is how he expounds the verse:

“Name”—

this is writing,

for they have no script of their own, only that of another nation.

“Remnant”—

this is language.

“She’er” is an expression of kinship, and the bond between people who are close to one another is through language. Maharsha, see there. Tosafot asked: Do the people of Babylonia not still speak Aramaic? They answered that “remnant” here refers to the language used by kings, which the rest of the people do not understand.

“Offspring”—

this is kingship.

“Nin” is an expression of governance, as it is written in Psalms: “His name shall be Yannai,” meaning that he will rule and grow. Rashi.

“And descendant”—

this is Vashti,

who was the granddaughter of Belshazzar, king of Babylonia.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Na h mani opened an introduction to this

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

The Megillat Setarim explained that the Throne is not complete as long as Amalek exists. Therefore, only after the thornbush withers will the cypress rise. This is why Haman was elevated, for before his downfall he was arrogant—and this was the beginning of his fall.

And this is how he expounds the verse:

“Instead of the thornbush”—

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

Idolatry is called a “thornbush,”

as it is written: “And among all the thornbushes and all the sacred groves.”

The Iyei Hayam wrote that “thornbushes” may be an expression of counsel. That is, those who worship that idolatry regard it as possessing will, and through their worship they consult it. “Sacred groves” is an expression of praise, for they praise the idolatry.

“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 the finest spices, pure myrrh,” and we translate: “mara dakya,”

which resembles “Mordecai.”

“Instead of the brier”—

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

And the House of the Lord is called a lining,

as it is written: “Its lining was gold.”

The Temple is called this because it was the dwelling place of the Holy One, blessed be He, who dwells upon the gold cover. Rashi there.

“The myrtle shall rise”—

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

“And it shall be for the Lord as a name” –

this is the reading of the Megilla .

“It shall not be cut off as an everlasting sign” –

these are the days of Purim .

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi opened the discussion of this passage

from here,

as it is written:

“And just as the Lord rejoiced over you to benefit you and multiply you, so shall He rejoice over you to harm you.”

And here too, in the episode of Haman, the Holy One, blessed be He, caused the nations of the world to rejoice in harming Israel .

And we challenge this:

Does He rejoice

rejoice

in the downfall of the wicked?!

But is it not written

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

“When they went out before the army, they 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 in the downfall of the wicked!

And

further

Rabbi Yohanan said: What is the meaning of

this

that is written

concerning the splitting of the Red Sea:

“And the one did not draw near the other all night”?

The ministering angels sought

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

to them:

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

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

Rabbi Elazar said: He,

the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself,

does not rejoice

in the downfall of the wicked.

But He causes others

to rejoice .

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

This indicates that He causes others to rejoice, but He Himself does not rejoice.

Learn from this.

Rabbi Abba bar Kahana opened the discussion of this passage from here,

as it is written: “For

to the person who is good in His sight He gave wisdom, knowledge, and joy” –

this is Mordecai the righteous ,

for the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him a heart with which 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 gave

the task of gathering and amassing” –

this is Haman,

who gathered and amassed great wealth.

“To give it to one who is good in the sight of God” –

this is Mordecai and Esther, as it is written: “And Esther placed Mordecai over Haman’s house.”

That is, the sinner gathers and amasses wealth so that it will ultimately be given to the righteous .

Rabba bar Ufran opened the discussion of this passage from here,

as it is written:

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

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 expounded 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.