Megillah 7b (ז:) — the Talmud in English

He sent word to him

Rabbi Oshaya:

“You have fulfilled for us, our master,”

the verse:

“And the sending of portions each man to his fellow, and gifts to the poor,” for you sent us two portions—and thereby fulfilled “the sending of portions,” and you also fulfilled “gifts to the poor,” because Rabbi Oshaya was poor [and Rabbi Oshaya intended to say that it is possible to fulfill both mitzvot with the same delivery].

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 Rav Ashi, through Abaye,

a sackful of dates

[a sack full of dates],

and a cupful of dried-grain flour

[flour made from wheat kernels that had been dried in an oven while still in the karmel stage, whose flour remains sweet].

Abaye said

to Rabba:

Now,

having received this delivery,

Mar

[will say]

of you

this proverb:

“If a villager becomes king,

[if the villager becomes king],

the basket

—the basket that he used 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 come down from his neck.”

So too, you: although you have become king and leader in Pumbedita, you send Mar nothing but things that are available to everyone.

He then sent him [

Mar] to Rabba

a sackful of ginger and a cupful of long pepper .

Abaye said: Now Mar says

[Abaye]:

I

sent him something sweet

[sweet],

and he sent me something sharp

[sharp] .

Abaye said: When I departed

[when I left]

from Mar’s house

[Rabba’s house] in order to go to Mar’s house,

I was satiated

[I was full].

When I arrived

[when I reached]

there,

at Mar’s house,

they brought me sixty trays

[they served me sixty bowls]

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

[pieces].

And the final dish

[the last cooked dish that they served me]—

they called it: “pot-roasted meat.”

And

after all this, still

I desired to eat the bowl after it

[and I wanted to consume the bowl as well, after eating what was in it] .

Abaye said: This is what people say: “The poor man is hungry

[hungry]

and does not know!”

That is, I thought I was satiated, but in truth I was hungry.

Alternatively,

this is the same matter as the saying of the people:

“There is always room for something sweet”—

it is common.

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

Abaye bar Avin and Rabbi Hanina bar Avin,

were

exchanging their Purim meals

of Purim

with each other.

One of them would dine at the other’s home one year, and in the following year they would exchange roles .

Rava said: A person is obligated to become intoxicated

[with wine]

on Purim, until he does not know

how to distinguish

between “Cursed is Haman”—

and “Blessed is Mordecai.”

Rabba and Rabbi Zeira held the Purim meal together.

They became intoxicated,

[they became drunk],

Rabba arose—

and slaughtered

Rabbi Zeira .

The next day, Rabba sought

mercy for Rabbi Zeira

and revived him

[and brought him back to life] .

[and revived him].

The following year

the next year,

he said to him

Rabba said to Rabbi Zeira:

“Let the master come, and let us hold the Purim meal together!”

Rabbi Zeira said to him

Rabbi Zeira:

“A miracle does not occur on every occasion,

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

Rava said: If one ate the Purim meal 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.

This indicates that the feast and joy must be held specifically during the day.

Rav Ashi was sitting before Ameimar

in the study hall on Purim.

The day grew late

[the day had advanced],

but the Sages did not come

to the study hall.

Ameimar said to him

Ameimar said to Rav Ashi:

“Why did the Sages not come ?”

Rav Ashi said to him:

“Perhaps they are occupied with the Purim meal,

and therefore they are not coming.”

Ameimar said to him

Ameimar:

And

if

it was not possible

for them

to eat it

the Purim meal

in the evening

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

Rav Ashi said to him

Rav Ashi: Did

the master not hear what Rava said: “If one ate the Purim meal at night”—

he has not fulfilled his obligation?!”

He said to him:

But is it really so that

Rava said this?

He said to him: Yes!

The tannai

Ameimar learned this statement

from

Rav Ashi

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

[as something placed in his pocket].

Mishna:

There is no

distinction

between a Festival and Shabbat with regard to what is prohibited and permitted,

with regard to the prohibition and permission of labor,

except

for labor required for the preparation of food,

alone.

For on Shabbat it is prohibited to perform labor for the preparation of food, whereas on a Festival it is permitted. [But with regard to punishments, there are many differences between them, since on Shabbat its punishment is stoning and karet, whereas on a Festival it is merely a prohibition carrying lashes].

Gemara:

Since it teaches that only labor for the preparation of food is permitted on a Festival, it follows

that with regard to

labor involving

preparatory requirements for food,

such as making a knife for the preparation of food,

the two are identical,

since it is prohibited both on Shabbat and on a Festival.

If so,

the Mishna

is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda

and was taught accordingly.

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

except with regard to the preparation of food

alone: On Shabbat it is prohibited, whereas on a Festival it is permitted.

Rabbi Yehuda permits

performing

even preparatory work for food

on a Festival.

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

who holds that only labor for the preparation of food is permitted on a Festival?

As

the verse states in the passage concerning a Festival: “However, whatever is eaten by every person—that alone may be prepared for you.” And we expound: specifically

in the passage concerning a Festival: “However, whatever is eaten by every person—that alone may be prepared for you.” And we expound it as follows: specifically,

“that”

the food itself may be prepared for you,

but not its preparations!

And Rabbi Yehuda said: The verse states: “for you.”

And we expound:

“for you”

for all your needs,

even preparatory requirements.

And we ask:

But the other one

the first tanna

also has “for you” written in the verse;

what does he expound from it?

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

for you”—it comes to exclude. “For you” specifically—

—for you specifically—

but not for gentiles; for you

specifically—

but not for dogs.

But the other one

Rabbi Yehuda

also has “that” written in the verse;

what does he expound from it?

And we explain that Rabbi Yehuda expounds as follows: Apparently, there is a difficulty:

“that” is written—which implies exclusion,

—which implies exclusion—

and “for you” is written—which implies inclusion!

—which implies inclusion!

Rather, we establish these verses as follows:

Here—the verse that says “that,” implying that specifically the food itself, but not its preparations, may be made—

—the word “that” is written, implying that specifically the food itself may be prepared, but not its implements—

refers to preparations that can be made on the eve of the Festival.

For example, a knife that became nicked before the Festival, when it was possible to repair it during the day before the Festival. Such preparations are prohibited on the Festival.

Here—the verse that says “for you,” implying that it is permitted for all your needs—

—the word “for you” is written, implying that it is permitted for all your needs—

refers to preparations that cannot be made on the eve of the Festival,

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

Mishna:

There is no

distinction

between Shabbat and Yom Kippur

with regard to performing labor,

except that this—

Shabbat—its punishment for

intentional

[desecration of Shabbat performed intentionally] is

at the hands of man,

namely, execution by a court,

whereas this—

Yom Kippur—

its intentional violation is punished by karet,

which is at the hands of Heaven.

Gemara:

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

that with regard to the obligation of

monetary

recompense,

for example, if one kindled another person's grain stack on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur,

the two are identical—

and he is exempt, because a monetary obligation does not apply together with an obligation of death.

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

In accordance with whom is the Mishna?

It must be that it is in accordance with the view of

Rabbi Nehunya ben HaKana.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Nehunya ben HaKana treated Yom Kippur like Shabbat

with

regard to

monetary recompense.

For he reasoned as follows:

Just as

with regard to

Shabbat,

one who performs labor

becomes liable for his life,

as he is liable to execution by a court,

and is exempt from monetary recompense

if he damaged another person while performing the labor, so too

even

one who performs labor on

Yom Kippur becomes liable for his life,

as he is liable to karet—

and is exempt from monetary recompense.

We learned there,

in tractate Makkot:

All those liable to karet—

who received lashes,

for example, witnesses warned them that they were committing a prohibition whose punishment is karet, and they received lashes—

are released from their liability to karet,

and the heavenly court no longer exacts punishment from them.

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

and we expound:

Once he has been lashed, he is

clean of this transgression

like your brother.

This is the statement of Rabbi Hananya ben Gamliel.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: His colleagues disputed his view—

that of Rabbi Hananya ben Gamliel,

and they hold that even after receiving lashes one remains liable to karet. Rabbi Yoḥanan did not specify who those who disagreed with him were, or where they disagreed.

Rava said in the name of the scholars of the academy: We learned

this matter—that his colleagues disputed his view—in our Mishna.

As we learned:

There is no difference between Yom Kippur and Shabbat, except that the intentional violation of this one is at the hands of man, whereas the intentional violation of that one is punished by karet.

And if it is so

that this law is correct—that when one receives lashes he is released from his liability to karet—then

both of these are at the hands of man,

since on Yom Kippur, too, the offender receives lashes and is no longer liable to karet.

It must therefore be that the tanna of the Mishna disagrees with Rabbi Hananya ben Gamliel and holds that those liable to karet who received lashes are not released from their liability to karet.

Rav Naḥman said:

There is no proof from the Mishna that his colleagues disputed his view. For it may be said that the Mishna

is in accordance with whom? It is in accordance with Rabbi Yitzḥak, who said: There are no lashes for those liable to karet—

none,

even if he was warned. A prohibition that serves as a warning for karet is not punishable by lashes. Therefore, the Mishna properly teaches: The intentional violation of this one is at the hands of man, whereas the intentional violation of that one is punished by karet.

As it was taught: Rabbi Yitzḥak says:

All

those liable to 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 concerning forbidden sexual relations in Leviticus 18].

And why was karet stated separately with regard to one's sister,

and written again in the passage of Leviticus 20: “And if a man takes his sister... they shall be cut off,” when it had already been written in the verse that their punishment is karet?

Rather, it was stated separately for this purpose:

to judge her

only

with karet—

and not with lashes,

even if she was warned [and from her this is derived with regard to all those liable to karet].

Rav Ashi said: Even

if

you say that the Mishna

is

the Rabbis’,

who hold that there are lashes for those liable to karet, even so no proof can be derived from it that the colleagues disputed Rabbi Hananya ben Gamliel.

For although, if he was warned, he will in fact receive lashes and be released from karet, nevertheless,

this one,

Shabbat,

the primary

punishment for

intentional violation is at the hands of man, and

whereas

this one,

Yom Kippur,

the primary punishment for intentional violation is karet,

if he was not warned. But in fact, if he was warned, it may be said that he is liable to lashes and is released from karet.