Megillah 7b — the Talmud in English

He sent word to him

:

“You have fulfilled for us, our teacher,

the verse:

‘And sending portions, each man to his fellow, and gifts to the poor,’ since you sent us two portions—and “sending portions” has been fulfilled, and it is also “gifts to the poor,” because Rabbi Oshaya was poor [and Rabbi Oshaya came to say that it is possible to fulfill the two mitzvot through that one sending]].

For you sent us two portions, and thereby fulfilled “the sending of portions”; and you also fulfilled “gifts to the poor,” since Rabbi Oshaya was poor. [This is what Rabbi Oshaya meant: It is possible to fulfill both mitzvot through the same delivery.]

Rabba sent Mar bar Mar through Abaye,

a full sack of dates,

[a sack full of dates],

and a full cup of long pepper,

[flour made from wheat that was dried in an oven while still in the stage of karmel, and its flour remains sweet forever].

Abaye said

to Rabba:

Now,

once he had received this sending,

Mar

[should]

say

this proverb about you:

“If a peasant becomes king,

if the villager becomes king,

the basket—

the basket that he was accustomed to carry on his head in order to feed his animal when he was a villager, even now that he has become king—

does not descend from his neck.”

So too you: although you have become king and head in Pumbedita, you send Mar only things that are available to everyone.

Afterward he sent him

[Mar] to Rabba

a full sack of ginger and a full cup of long pepper.

Abaye said: Now the master says

[Abaye]:

I

sent him sweetness,

[something sweet],

and he sent me pungency

[something sharp].

Abaye said: When I went out

[when I left]

from the master’s house

[Rabba] to go to Mar’s house,

I was satiated.

[I had eaten my fill].

When I arrived

[when I reached]

there,

to Mar’s house,

they brought me sixty bowls

[they served me sixty bowls]

of sixty types of cooked dishes, and I ate sixty portions from them

[pieces].

And the last dish

[the last cooked dish that they served me]—

they called it: “pot-roast.”

And

after all this, still

I desired to drink a bowl after it

[and I wanted to drink the bowl as well after it].

Abaye said: This is what people say: “Hungry

[starving]

is the poor man—

and he does not know!”

So too I: I thought that I was satiated, but in truth I was hungry.

Alternatively,

this is the same matter that people say:

“Room for sweetness”—

is common.

That is, there is always room in the intestines for something sweet.

Abaye bar Avin and Rabbi Hanina bar Avin,

were

exchanging their Purim meals

of Purim

with one another.

One would dine at the other’s place in one year, and in the other year they would exchange [places].

Rava said: A person is obligated to become intoxicated

[to become drunk with wine]

on Purim, until he does not know

to distinguish

between “Cursed is Haman”—

and “Blessed is Mordecai.”

Rabba and Rabbi Zeira made a Purim feast together.

They became intoxicated,

[they became drunk],

Rabba arose—

and slaughtered

Rabbi Zeira. The next day,

Rabba wanted

Rabba concerning Rabbi Zeira

mercy—

and he revived him

[and brought him back to life].

The following year

the next year,

he said to him

Rabba to Rabbi Zeira:

“Let the master come, and let us make a Purim feast together!”

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira:

“A miracle does not occur at every hour,

and I am concerned lest a miracle not be performed for me as it was the previous year.”

Rava said: If one ate the Purim feast at night,

that is, on the night of Purim,

he has not fulfilled his obligation.

What is the reason?

Because

“days of feasting and joy” is written.

It implies that the feasting and joy must be performed specifically during the day.

Rav Ashi was sitting before Ameimar

in the beit-midrash on the day of Purim.

It grew late

[the day became late]

and the Sages did not come

to the beit-midrash.

He said to him

Ameimar to Rav Ashi:

“Why have the Sages not come?”

Rav Ashi said to him:

“Perhaps they are occupied with the Purim feast,

and therefore they are not coming.”

He said to him

Ameimar:

“And

if

it was not possible

for them

to eat it

the Purim feast

in the evening

[the previous evening], and through this they could have been free during the day to study?

He said to him

Rav Ashi: Surely

has the master not heard that which Rava said: ‘If one ate the Purim feast at night’—

‘he has not fulfilled his obligation?!’

He said to him:

And is it really so?

Did Rava say this?

He said to him: Yes!

The tanna

Amemar repeated this statement

from him

of Rav Ashi —

forty times, and it seemed to him as though it were placed in his pocket [like something placed in his pocket].

[as something placed in his pocket].

Mishna:

There is no

difference

between a Festival and Shabbat

with regard to prohibition and permission,

except

for work required for

food for a person alone .

For on Shabbat it is forbidden to perform work for food for a person, whereas on a Festival it is permitted. [But with regard to punishments, there are many differences between them, for on Shabbat its punishment is stoning and karet, whereas on a Festival it is merely a prohibition].

Gemara:

Since it teaches that only work for food for a person was permitted on a Festival, it follows

that with regard to

work

for preparing food,

such as making a knife for the purpose of food for a person —

this and that are the same,

for both on Shabbat and on a Festival it is forbidden.

If so,

the Mishna

is not according to Rabbi Judah

and is understood accordingly.

For it was taught in a beraita: There is no difference between a Festival and Shabbat —

except for food for a person

alone, for on Shabbat it is forbidden, whereas on a Festival it is permitted.

Rabbi Judah permits

making

even preparations for food for a person

on a Festival.

And now we explain their dispute: What is the reason of the first tanna,

who holds that only work for food for a person was permitted on a Festival?

For

the verse says

concerning the matter of the Festival: “Only that which shall be eaten by every person — that alone may be done for you.” And we derive: specifically

“that”

— food for a person itself — may be done for you,

but not its preparations!

And Rabbi Judah said: The verse says: “for you.”

And we derive:

for you

— for all your needs,

even preparations.

And we challenge this:

But the other one [the first tanna]

[the first tanna]

also has “for you” written,

and what does he derive from it?

And we explain: He expounds this verse as follows: “May be done

for you” —

it comes to exclude. Specifically, for you —

and not for gentiles; for you

specifically —

and not for dogs .

But the other one [Rabbi Judah]

[Rabbi Yehuda]

also has “that” written,

and what does he derive from it?

And we explain that Rabbi Judah expounds as follows: For seemingly there is a difficulty:

“that” is written

— which implies exclusion,

and “for you” is written

— which implies inclusion!

Rather, this is how we establish these verses:

Here —

this “that” which is written, which implies that specifically the food for a person itself, and not preparations,

concerns preparations that can be made on the eve of the Festival.

For example, a knife that became notched on the eve of the Festival, and he was able to repair it while it was still daytime. Such preparations are forbidden to perform on a Festival.

Here —

this “for you” which is written, which implies that it is permitted for all your needs,

concerns preparations that cannot be made on the eve of the Festival,

such as a knife that became notched on the Festival itself .

Mishna:

There is no

difference

between Shabbat and the Day of Atonement

with regard to performing work,

except that this —

Shabbat — its punishment for

its deliberate violation [the desecration of Shabbat that he performed deliberately]

is given

into the hands of man,

that is, death by a court,

whereas this —

the Day of Atonement —

its deliberate violation is karet,

which is in the hands of Heaven .

Gemara:

Since it teaches that they differ only with regard to the punishment for performing work, it follows

that with regard to

the obligation of

payments,

such as when he set fire to his fellow’s grain heap on Shabbat or on the Day of Atonement,

this and that are the same —

and he is exempt, because there is no obligation of payments together with an obligation of death.

And we derive this from what is written concerning one who strikes a pregnant woman and her children emerge: “And there shall be no fatality — he shall surely be punished,” meaning that he is punished monetarily. It follows that if there is a fatality, meaning that the woman died, he is not punished monetarily, since he is liable for death.

Who is the author of the Mishna?

It must be that it is according to the view of

Rabbi Nehunya ben HaKana.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Nehunya ben HaKana treated the Day of Atonement like Shabbat —

with

regard to

payments.

For we say as follows:

Just as

with regard to

Shabbat,

one who performs work

becomes liable with his life,

for he is punished by death by a court,

and is exempt from payments,

if he injured his fellow while performing the work, so too

even

one who performs work on the

Day of Atonement becomes liable with his life,

for he is punished by karet —

and is exempt from payments.

We learned there,

in tractate Makkot:

All those liable for karet —

who were flogged,

such as when witnesses warned them concerning a prohibition whose punishment is karet, and they were flogged —

were released from their liability for karet,

and the Heavenly court no longer exacts retribution from them.

As it is stated: “And your brother shall be degraded before your eyes,”

and we derive:

once he has been flogged, he is

clean of this transgression —

like your brother .

These are the words of Rabbi Hanania ben Gamaliel.

Rabbi Yohanan said: His colleagues disagreed with him —

with Rabbi Hanania ben Gamaliel,

and they hold that even though he was flogged, he remains liable for karet. Rabbi Yohanan did not explain who those who disagreed with him were, nor where they disagreed.

Rava said, they said in the academy of Rav: We have learned

this matter, that his colleagues disagreed with him, in our Mishna.

For we learned:

There is no difference between the Day of Atonement and Shabbat, except that this one’s deliberate violation is in the hands of man, and that one’s deliberate violation is by karet.

And if it is so

with regard to this law, that when they are flogged they are released from their liability for karet, then

this and that are in the hands of man,

for on the Day of Atonement too they receive lashes and are not liable for karet?

It must be that the tanna of the Mishna disagrees with Rabbi Hanania ben Gamaliel and holds that those liable for karet who were flogged are not released from their liability for karet.

Rav Nahman said:

There is no proof from the Mishna that his colleagues disagreed with him. For it can be said that the Mishna —

who is its author? It is Rabbi Yitzhak, who said: There are no lashes for those liable for karet —

there are none,

even if he was warned. For a prohibition given for warning of karet is not subject to lashes. Therefore it properly teaches: This one’s deliberate violation is in the hands of man, and that one’s deliberate violation is by karet.

For it was taught: Rabbi Yitzhak says:

All

those liable for karet

for forbidden sexual relations

were included

in the verse “And all the souls that perform them shall be cut off” [written in the passage of forbidden sexual relations in Aharei Mot].

And why was karet for his sister singled out,

and written again in the passage of Kedoshim: “And if a man takes his sister, and so forth, and they shall be cut off, and so forth,” when it had already been written in the verse that their punishment is karet?

Rather, it was singled out for this purpose:

to judge her

only

by karet —

and not by lashes,

even if they warned her [and from her this is derived for the other cases of those liable for karet].

Rav Ashi said: Even

if

you say

that the Mishna

is the Rabbis,

who hold that there are lashes for those liable for karet, even so there is no basis to infer from it that his colleagues disagreed with Rabbi Hanania ben Gamaliel.

For even though if they warned him, he will indeed receive lashes and be released from karet, still,

this one,

Shabbat,

the principal

punishment of

its deliberate violation is in the hands of man, and

whereas

this one,

the Day of Atonement,

the principal punishment for its deliberate violation is karet,

if they did not warn him. But in truth, if they warned him, it can be said that he will be liable for lashes and will be released from karet.