Megillah 7a (ז.) — the Talmud in English

And it was necessary to write

the verse of

“the second,” and it was necessary to write the verse of

“every year and year,”

from which we also derive above

that we must observe it in the second Adar.

For had the verse “every year and year” been stated, I would have said that the difficulty is

as in our question: on the contrary, it is preferable to observe it in the first Adar, since one may not pass over mitzvot

—it teaches us the verse of

“the second,”

that we observe it in the second.

that we observe it in the second Adar.

And had it taught us only

the verse of

“the second,” I would have said

that we must observe it

initially

at the outset,

in

Adar

the first and

also

in

Adar

the second; it teaches us the verse of

“every year and year”

that specifically in the second Adar do we observe it—and not in the first.

that we observe it specifically in the second Adar—and not in the first.

And Rabbi Eliezer ben Rabbi Yosei,

who says that we observe it in the first Adar, what does he do with

this verse of

“the second”

?

He requires it to

derive

in accordance with the statement of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda.

For Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said: Initially they established it,

to read the Purim letter

in Shushan, and ultimately

throughout the entire world.

And this is what is written: “to establish this second Purim letter,” meaning that they established it a second time for the entire world.

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said: Esther sent word to the Sages

in the second year:

Establish me

from now on as an obligation

for future generations,

to observe a Festival and read the Megilla, so that I may be commemorated through me!

They sent word to her,

the Sages: If we do so,

you will arouse jealousy against us among the nations!

They will say that we rejoice in recalling their downfall.

She sent word to them:

Is it not the case that

I am already recorded in the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia!

If so, they already see there their downfall, and there is no longer concern about establishing rejoicing and the reading of the Megilla for future generations.

Rav and Rav Ḥanina and Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rav Ḥaviva taught

this following matter.

We interrupt the matter and say that

throughout the entire Order of Moed, every

place where it is taught

like this group—

these four Sages mentioned above—

we must

replace Rabbi Yoḥanan,

who was mentioned there erroneously,

and insert

in his place

Rabbi Yonatan.

And this is what they taught: After the Sages accepted Esther’s words and established the reading of the Megilla for future generations,

Esther sent word to the Sages

again:

Write me down for future generations

in the Books of the Writings!

They sent word to her:

Solomon already said: “Incline your ear and hear the words of the Sages.” This refers to Hanukkah and Purim, which are not included among the written mitzvot transmitted through divine inspiration; rather, they are the words of the Sages. And the verse concludes:

“Have I not written for you threefold

and not fourfold.” And this is its meaning:

“Threefold”

specifically—for in three places we are required to mention the war against Amalek: in the Book of Exodus, in the Book of Deuteronomy, and in the Book of Samuel.

But not “fourfold,”

for we are not permitted to add another.

Until the Sages found for it

a basis for including it among the Writings, from

a verse

of

the Torah.

For it is written concerning the war against Amalek:

“Write this as a memorial in the book.”

And they expound the verse as follows:

“Write this”—

what is written here

in the Book of Exodus

and in Deuteronomy,

for everything written in the Torah is referred to by the verse as a single Scripture.

“A memorial”—

that is,

what is written in the Prophets

in the Book of Samuel.

“In the book”—

what is written in the Megilla.

And this is why they established it among the Writings, for we count the Megilla as one of the “threefold.”

And this matter—whether we establish the Megilla as part of the Writings—

is subject to a dispute between tannaim

.

For it was taught in a beraita:

“Write this”—

what is written here,

in the Book of Exodus.

“A memorial”—

what is written in Deuteronomy.

“In the book”—

what is written in the Prophets. The statement of Rabbi Yehoshua.

We see that Rabbi Yehoshua is of the opinion that the Megilla should not be established among the Writings.

Rabbi Elazar HaModa'i says: “Write this”—

what is written here and in Deuteronomy.

“A memorial”—

what is written in the Prophets.

“In the book”—

what is written in the Megilla.

If so, he is of the opinion that it has a basis in the Torah.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

The Scroll of

Esther does not render the hands impure.

It is unlike the other sacred Writings, concerning which Beit Shammai decreed that if one touches them, his hands become impure with regard to eating teruma.

The reason for the decree is that people used to store teruma food beside the sacred Writings. They would say: This is sacred, and this too is sacred.

Once the books were being damaged, as the mice that were always found near food would eat the books, they decreed impurity upon them, so that people would not store teruma food beside them.

And we challenge this:

Does this mean that Shmuel holds

that the Scroll of

Esther was not said through divine inspiration,

and therefore it is not considered like the other sacred Writings?

But Shmuel said: The Scroll of

Esther—

Esther—

was said through divine inspiration!?

And we answer: It

was said

indeed through divine inspiration

to be read

orally, but

it was not said to be written

in a book, and therefore it does not render the hands impure.

Meytivi

against Shmuel:

Rabbi Meir says: The Book of

Ecclesiastes

does not render the hands impure. And the dispute

between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai

concerns the

Book of

Song of Songs,

whether it renders the hands impure or not.

Rabbi Yosei says: Song of Songs

according to everyone

renders the hands impure. And the dispute

concerns the

Book of

Ecclesiastes.

Rabbi Shimon says: Ecclesiastes

is among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel,

as they disputed whether it renders the hands impure or not.

But Ruth, Song of Songs, and Esther

render the hands impure.

We see, then, that the Scroll of Esther does render the hands impure?!

We answer:

He—

Shmuel—

stated his opinion in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua,

who said above that there is no basis in the Torah for writing the Megilla; rather, it was given only to be read orally. We see that Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees with these tannaim and holds that it does not render the hands impure, since it is not among the sacred Writings.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Ecclesiastes does not render the hands impure, because it is Solomon’s wisdom,

and it was not written through divine inspiration. It is considered like oral teachings, which were not given to be written.

They said to him: Was it only this—

the words written in the Book of Ecclesiastes—

that

Solomon

said?

For concerning Solomon it has already been said:

“And he spoke three thousand proverbs”!

Rather, since all those proverbs were not written in the Book of Ecclesiastes, it necessarily follows that what was written was said through divine inspiration. If so, it should render the hands impure!?

And he says

in the Book of Proverbs:

“Do not add to his words.”

Since Solomon prohibited adding to his words, infer from this that they were said through divine inspiration.

And we wonder:

Why “and he says”?

Why was this verse necessary? They challenged him adequately from the first verse!?

And we explain:

And if you would say

that in fact he

said—

many

things,

as it is written: “And he spoke three thousand proverbs.” Rather,

if he wished, he

would have written them

in the book;

and if he wished, he

would not have written them.

And these too, which are written in the Book of Ecclesiastes, are merely proverbs that Solomon wished to write, and not the words of the Holy One, blessed be He?

Come and hear: “Do not add to his words,”

for since he prohibited adding to his words, it necessarily follows that those in the Book of Ecclesiastes were said through divine inspiration!

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says:

The Scroll of

Esther

was said through divine inspiration, as it is stated: “And Haman said in his heart.”

How did the writers of the Megilla know what was in his heart? Rather, certainly it was said through divine inspiration.

Rabbi Akiva says:

From here it can be demonstrated that

Esther

was said through divine inspiration, as it is stated: “And Esther found favor in the eyes of all who saw her.”

How do we know that she found favor in everyone’s eyes? It necessarily follows that we know this through divine inspiration!

Rabbi Meir says: Esther was said through divine inspiration, as it is stated

concerning Bigthan and Teresh:

“And the matter became known to Mordekhai.”

How did their plot become known to him? Rather, certainly divine inspiration rested upon him.

Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit says: Esther was said through divine inspiration, as it is stated: “And they did not lay their hands on the spoil.”

How do we know that even in the distant places they did not lay their hands on the spoil? It necessarily follows that it was said through divine inspiration.

Shmuel said: Had I been there

when they debated this matter,

I would have said something superior to all of them,

for from here it can be demonstrated that it was said through divine inspiration:

As it is stated: “They established and accepted,”

and we expound:

“They established above,

in Heaven”—

what they accepted

Israel

accepted below.

And to know that they accepted it in Heaven, we certainly require divine inspiration!

Rava said: For all of them

the proofs brought above by the amoraim to demonstrate that Esther was said through divine inspiration

there is a refutation, except for

this one

of Shmuel,

which has no refutation.

And this is how their proofs can be refuted:

This one

of Rabbi Eliezer,

who derives it from “And Haman said in his heart,” can be refuted as follows: Perhaps it was not actually said through divine inspiration, but

it is a logical inference

that this is what Haman said in his heart,

for

he

was the only person of such stature before the king. And when he elaborated greatly and said: “Let them bring the royal garment ...,”

thereby greatly magnifying the honor of the man whom the king desired to honor, certainly

he was speaking with himself in mind,

intending to bring this honor upon himself.

And the proof

of Rabbi Akiva can be refuted as follows:

Perhaps

the reason

that it is written: “And Esther found favor in the eyes of all who saw her”

is in accordance with Rabbi Elazar,

who

said: It teaches that each and every person

saw her

Esther

as belonging to his own nation,

and they all said aloud: “She is one of us!” We see from here that she found favor in the eyes of all who saw her, and divine inspiration is not needed for this.

And as for the proof that

Rabbi

Meir

brought—that Mordekhai knew the plot of Bigthan and Teresh—it too can be refuted:

Perhaps it is in accordance with Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba

below,

who said: Bigthan and Teresh were two Tarsians,

and they spoke in the Tarsian language. Therefore, they thought that no one understood their words. But Mordekhai, who was head of the Sanhedrin, knew seventy languages and therefore understood their language.

And as for the proof that

Rabbi

Yosei ben Durmaskit

brought from the fact that the Megilla states that they did not lay their hands on the spoil in the distant places—it too is not a proof,

perhaps messengers

[emissaries]

were sent

[sent] by the inhabitants of the distant places to Mordekhai and Esther, telling them that they had not touched the spoil, so that the king would not be displeased.

But this one

of Shmuel—

certainly has no refutation.

For to know the conduct of Heaven, we certainly require divine inspiration.

Ravina said: This is what people say: One sharp peppercorn—

is better than baskets full of pumpkins

[a single good peppercorn is better than baskets full of pumpkins].

Rav Yosef said: From here

we derive that it was said through divine inspiration, for it is written:

“And these days of Purim shall not pass from among the Jews.”

How do we know that they will not pass in the future? Rather, certainly it was said through divine inspiration.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: From here

we derive it, for it is written:

“And their remembrance

[of the days of Purim]

shall not cease from their descendants”.

[For from the verse “And these days of Purim shall not pass from among the Jews,” it is proven only with regard to the Jews of that generation, Tosafot.]

We learned in our Mishna:

and gifts to the poor.

Rav Yosef taught:

That which is written,

“and the sending

of portions, a man

to his fellow,” means that one must give

two portions

to one person .

And that which is written:

“and gifts to the poor,”

means that one must give

two gifts

to two people.

To each poor person—one gift .

For each poor person, one gift. The Maharetz Chajes wrote that one could say that the reason is like the reason given by the Rashba regarding the mitzva of charity: no blessing is recited over it because its fulfillment is not entirely in the giver’s control, if the poor person is not prepared to accept it. [The later authorities explained that this does not mean that we are concerned that perhaps the poor person will ultimately refuse to accept it, making the blessing a blessing in vain—for why should we be concerned about such a minority case? Rather, for a mitzva of this kind, whose purpose is only to fulfill another person’s wishes, the Sages did not institute a blessing. See the Chatam Sofer responsa, Orach Chayim, section 54.] Accordingly, one can say that the same applies here, to sending portions. The Pri Megadim wrote likewise in section 694. However, the Rema [section 695, subsection 4] states that if one sends portions to his fellow, and the fellow does not wish to accept them, the sender has fulfilled the obligation. [The Mishna Berura there [subsection 24] cites that the Pri Chadash disagrees, and the Chatam Sofer likewise questioned this ruling. See the Chatam Sofer responsa, section 196, which wrote that this depends on the reason for sending portions. According to the reason of the Manot HaLevi, the purpose of sending portions is to increase peace and friendship, the opposite of the intention of Haman, who said that the Jewish people were scattered and divided. Therefore, once he sent portions, he has already demonstrated his affection, and what difference does it make that the recipient waived them? But according to the reason of Terumat HaDeshen, that the purpose is to provide relief for the joy of Purim, he certainly has not fulfilled the obligation if the recipient waived them.] The Chatan Sofer responsa [section 72] wrote that the reason the Sages did not institute a blessing over sending portions is that this mitzva was instituted to express the mitzva of love between friends. In truth, it is a mitzva practiced at all times; but on this day, because of the publicizing of the miracle, they established a fixed practice for the mitzva of love between friends. Therefore, it is not appropriate to recite a blessing over it. The Arugat HaBosem responsa [Orach Chayim, section 207] wrote, based on the words of the Magen Avraham [Orach Chayim, section 692], that it appears appropriate to establish a major principle: the Sages instituted a blessing only where the act itself shows that it is being performed for the sake of the mitzva. But where the act itself provides no indication that it was performed for the sake of the mitzva, they did not institute a blessing. Therefore, since sending portions and holding a meal are things practiced every day, on Shabbat, and on festivals, the act itself does not show that it was performed for the sake of the mitzva, and in such a case no blessing is recited. See further the Divrei Yisrael responsa [part 1, section 224] for another explanation of this matter.

Rabbi Judah Nesia sent Rabbi Oshaya

on Purim

a thigh of a third-born calf

[the thigh of a calf that was third-born to its mother],

and a wineskin of wine

[a wineskin of wine].