Megillah 19a (יט.) — the Talmud in English

Kankantum –

shoemakers’ blacking,

a substance used to dye shoes black.

Diftara –

leather that has been salted and floured

in water,

but not treated with gallnuts,

meaning that it has not been processed with gallnuts.

Paper –

meḥaka,

a type of grass, made by means of glue.

We learned in our Mishna:

until it is written in Ashurit.

From where do we derive this?

As it is written: “According to their writing and according to their appointed time,”

meaning that it must be written as it was written in their time, when it was written in Ashurit.

We learned in our Mishna: Until it is written, etc.,

on parchment and with ink, etc.

From where do we derive this?

The term “writing” is derived by means of a verbal analogy from

“writing.”

It is written here: “And Esther the queen wrote,”

and it is written there: “And Baruch said to them: He dictated all these words to me from his mouth, and I wrote them in the scroll with ink.”

Mishna:

A resident of an unwalled town ,

whose time for reading the Megilla is on the fourteenth,

who went to a walled city

whose time is on the fifteenth,

and

likewise,

a resident of a walled city who went to an unwalled town,

when does he read the Megilla?

If he is destined to return to his place [

the Gemara explains when he is destined to return ],

he reads according to the practice of his place .

But if not –

he reads with them,

with the residents of the place where he is now.

From where does a person read the Megilla and fulfill his obligation through it?

Rabbi Meir says:

He must read

all of it.

Rabbi Yehuda says: From “There was a Jewish man.”

Rabbi Yosei says: From “After these events

the king promoted Haman.”

Gemara:

Rava said:

The matter we said—that a resident of a walled city who went to an unwalled town and is destined to return to his place reads on the fifteenth—

was taught only

when he

is destined to return

to the walled city

on the night of the fourteenth,

so that he leaves the town before dawn. In that case he need not read with them on the night of the fourteenth, even though he is still there, since he is not considered an unwalled-town resident even for one day, as he will no longer be there during the day.

But

if

he is not destined to return on the night of the fourteenth,

even though he is destined to return during the day, he is an unwalled-town resident for one day and is considered an unwalled-town resident; therefore

he reads with them

on the night of the fourteenth and during the day of the fourteenth.

The same applies conversely to a resident of an unwalled town who went to a walled city. If he is destined to return on the night of the fifteenth, so that he will not be there at all during the day of the fifteenth, he is not considered a resident of a walled city even for one day; therefore he reads in the walled city according to the practice of his place, on the fourteenth. But if he is not destined to return on the night of the fifteenth, he does not read on the fourteenth. Rather, he waits and reads with the residents of the walled city on the fifteenth, since he is considered a resident of a walled city for one day.

Rava said: From where do I say this

regarding an unwalled-town resident or a walled-city resident for one day—that he reads with them?

As it is written: “Therefore the unwalled Jews who dwell in unwalled towns.” Since it is already written

“the unwalled Jews,”

why do I need it to write

again:

“who dwell in unwalled towns”?

Rather,

this teaches us that an unwalled-town resident for one day is

called an unwalled-town resident .

We have found the source for an unwalled-town resident. A walled-city resident

for one day, who is considered a walled-city resident—

from where do we know this?

We answer:

It is logical. Since an unwalled-town resident for one day

is called an unwalled-town resident, a walled-city resident for one day

also

is called a walled-city resident.

And Rava said: A village resident,

whose rule is that he advances his reading to the day of assembly and has already read at his proper time ,

who went to a town

whose rule is to read on the fourteenth, and was there on the night of the fourteenth,

in either case,

whether he is destined to return before daybreak or is not destined to return—

he reads with them

at night.

What is the reason?

Because

this

village resident, according to the basic law,

must read like the residents of the town,

since he is an unwalled-town resident;

and it was the Sages who were lenient with

the

villages,

allowing them to read on the day of assembly

in order that they could provide water and food for their brethren in the walled cities .

Accordingly,

these words

that they were lenient with them, so that they need not read on the fourteenth, apply

when he is in his place

on the night of the fourteenth.

But when he is in the town

on the night of the fourteenth,

like the

residents of

the town, he must read,

since he is there in any event and the enactment is not relevant.

Abaye raised an objection to him: A resident of a walled city who went to an unwalled town –

in either case he reads according to the practice of his place.

There is room to question this beraita:

Can you possibly understand it as referring to a resident of a walled city—

that in either case he reads according to the practice of his place? But

if he is destined to return

to his place before daybreak,

the matter depends on that,

as we said above!

Rather, is it not

a

village resident

that the beraita is discussing? And we see that a village resident always reads according to the practice of his place!?

We answer:

And

if

you have indeed explained

the wording of the beraita and said that it is not discussing a resident of a walled city but a village resident, then change it as well and

teach

in the beraita

“he reads with them,”

rather than “he reads according to the practice of his place.”

We learned in our Mishna:

From where does a person read the Megilla, etc.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai says: From “On that night

the king’s sleep was disturbed.”

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And all of them,

all these tannaim who disagreed about from where one reads the Megilla,

expounded one verse.

For it is written:

“And Esther the queen and Mordecai the Jew wrote all the might,”

demonstrating that Scripture took care to mention all the might.

And they disagreed over this:

The one who says

that one must read

all of it

holds that “all the might” means

the might of Ahasuerus,

for his might is mentioned from the beginning of the Megilla to its end.

And the one who says, “From ‘There was a Jewish man’” –

the might of Mordecai.

And the one who says, “From ‘After these events’” –

the might of Haman.

And the one who says, “From ‘On that night’” –

the might of the miracle .

Rav Huna said: From here,

they disagreed over this verse. For it is written:

“And what did they see that brought this about, and what happened to them?”

The meaning of this verse is that the Megilla is written and read to inform future generations “what they saw” at that time that led them to do what they did; and it explains “what brought this about” and “what happened to them”—to those who acted, in the end.

And they disagreed over this:

The one who says the entire Megilla

expounds the verse as follows:

What

did Ahasuerus see that he used the vessels of the Temple? “What brought this about” –

because he calculated that seventy years had passed and Israel had not been redeemed

from its exile [as above, 11b].

And what happened to them –

that

he became drunk and

killed

Vashti .

And the one who says, “From ‘There was a Jewish man’”

expounds it as follows:

What did Mordecai see that he became hostile toward Haman? “What brought this about” –

because he made

Haman

into idolatry .

And what happened to them –

that a miracle occurred.

And the one who says, “From ‘After these events’”

expounds it as follows:

What did Haman see that he became jealous of all the Jews? “What brought this about” –

because Mordecai would neither kneel nor prostrate himself. And what happened to them –

they hanged him and his sons on the gallows.

And the one who says, “From ‘On that night’”

expounds it as follows:

What did Ahasuerus see that he brought out the book of records? “What brought this about” –

because he thought: What is this

that Esther invited

Haman together with him

to the feast [as above, 15b]?

And what happened to them –

that a miracle occurred.

Rabbi Helbo said that Rav Hama bar Gurya said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who says

that one must read

all of it.

And even according to the one who says

that it is sufficient to read

from “There was a Jewish man,”

in any event,

it must be written in its entirety

before him.

And Rabbi Helbo said that Rav Hama bar Gurya said that Rav said: The Megilla is called a “scroll,”

as it is written: “And it was written in a scroll.”

And it is called

also

an “epistle” ,

as it is written: “The epistle of Purim.”

From the fact that it is

called a scroll,

we derive

that if it was sewn with linen threads –

it is invalid.

Rather, it must be sewn specifically with sinews, as is the law for a Torah scroll [as there is an opinion to this effect in tractate Makkot 11a].

And

from the fact that it is

called an epistle,

which indicates that it is not as stringent as a Torah scroll , we derive

that if three sinew threads were inserted into it,

even though the rest of the Megilla was sewn with linen threads,

it is valid .

Rav Naḥman said: This applies only provided that they are

the sinew threads

evenly spaced,

meaning that the distance from the beginning of the scroll to the first sinew sewing is equal to the distance from the first sinew to the second.

And likewise from the second sinew to the third, and from the third sinew –

to the end of the scroll .

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One who reads a Megilla written among other scrolls,

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One who reads a Megillah written among the other writings,

that was attached to other books in the same roll

has not fulfilled his obligation,

because we require it to be an epistle unto itself, since in this manner the miracle is publicized more; for if it is among the other writings, it appears as though he is reading from Scripture.

Rava said: We said

that he has not fulfilled his obligation

only when it is not shorter

[shorter]

or longer

[or longer] than the other sheets of parchment attached to it

by a little; but

if

it is shorter or longer

by a little—

has not fulfilled his obligation,

it is no concern,

for it is recognizable as a separate unit.