Megillah 2
Summary
- A new *Masekhet Megillah* opens with the question of why Purim receives its own tractate while Chanukah does not, and Rav Mirsky quotes his father that *Torah she’ba’al peh* can only expand from *Torah she’bichtav*, so the existence of *Megillat Esther* enables a tractate while Chanukah, not being in Tanach, does not. The introduction frames *Megillat Esther* as uniquely saturated with *derash* and unusually flexible *halakhot* of writing and reading, suggesting it serves as a transition between *Torah she’bichtav* and *Torah she’ba’al peh*, and it notes the tractate’s structure with the first two *perakim* focused on Purim and the last two on *Keri’at haTorah*. The Mishnah’s opening rule that the Megillah may be read on five possible dates is explained through the calendar of villages, towns, and walled cities, with major *Rishonim* debating what it means that villages read earlier and with later *halakhic* applications like travelers reading without a *berakhah*. The Gemara then seeks textual hints for these extra dates, links “remembering” and “doing” Purim, and debates why walled cities follow the standard of *Yehoshua bin Nun* rather than *Achashverosh*, while also recording interpretive and historical rationales and *chidushim* such as Rabbeinu Tam’s linkage of “*zman kehillah*” to *Ta’anit Esther* and the *Binyan Shlomo*’s claim that nighttime Megillah reading is a later enactment.
- A question is raised why Purim has a tractate while Chanukah does not, even though both are rabbinic holidays, and Chanukah appears mainly through *baraitot* in *Masekhet Shabbat* with only scattered Mishnah allusions and many *halakhot* relegated to *baraitot*. Rav Mirsky quotes his father that a tractate of *Torah she’ba’al peh* can exist only when rooted in *Torah she’bichtav*, so the presence of *Megillat Esther* functions as the *matir* for a tractate, while Chanukah’s absence from Tanach prevents such a *masekhet*. An additional question is posed why Chanukah is not part of *Torah she’bichtav*, with suggested explanations including that canonization was already complete in *Bayit Sheni* and that Esther entered “under the gun” via *כתבוני לדורות*, while *Sefer Chashmonaim* did not.
- A framing claim is made that more than any other book in Tanach, *Megillat Esther* is expounded through *derash*, with the first *perek* going through large stretches and almost every *pasuk*. A related idea is offered that the *halakhot* of *Megillat Esther* differ from those of other *Sifrei Tanach* and from *Sefer Torah*, *tefillin*, and *mezuzah* in writing requirements and reading rules, including that missing some words can still be acceptable and that *sirtut* and other details will be addressed. A thesis is proposed that *Megillat Esther* is itself the segue and model between *Torah she’bichtav* and *Torah she’ba’al peh*, containing elements associated with the Oral Torah despite being in *Kitvei haKodesh*, and this explains both its distinctive laws and the unusually extensive *derashot*, while Chanukah is characterized as a purely *Torah she’ba’al peh* holiday after this transition. Rav Zolty’s *Mishnat Yaavetz* is cited as having a treatment of the *halakhic* differences between *Megillat Esther* and the other *Megillot*.
- The Mishnah states that the Megillah is read on the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th of Adar, “*lo pachot ve’lo yoter*,” and the presence of full *Rishonim* on the tractate is highlighted, including Rashi, Ramban, Rashba, Ritva, Ran, and others. The Ritva asks why the Mishnah uses the passive “*nikreit*” rather than “*korin*,” and he explains that “*nikreit*” signals that one person can read and others fulfill through listening via *shome’a ke’oneh*, unlike *Keri’at Shema* where reliance on *shome’a ke’oneh* is presented as improper due to *kabbalat ol malchut shamayim*. The *Turei Even* also addresses “*nikreit*,” proposing that the passive form reflects flexibility across multiple days rather than an imperative “read now,” while adding that one should not over-derive from grammatical precision because other sources alternate passive and active forms and later the tractate itself uses “*hakore et haMegillah*.”
- A practical question is raised about someone traveling before the 11th–15th who expects to have no Megillah, and the Shulchan Aruch is cited (תרפ"ח) that a sailor or caravan traveler who cannot bring a Megillah reads on the 13th, 12th, or 11th without a *berakhah*. A second opinion is quoted that one may read even from the beginning of the month, and the Rema states “*ve’hachi nahug*,” while requiring that if the person later obtains a Megillah on Purim the reading must be repeated on the 14th with a *berakhah*. A framing is given that such early readings are not the full fulfillment of the core obligation and function more like an auxiliary practice, potentially *shelo tishkach torat Megillah*.
- The Mishnah’s schedule is laid out as walled cities from the days of Yehoshua bin Nun reading on the 15th, large towns reading on the 14th, and villages being allowed to read earlier on *yom hakenisah*. A central dispute among *Rishonim* is presented about why villages advance: Rashi explains that villagers lack a skilled reader and therefore rely on city residents on Monday/Thursday market and *beit din* days, while most *Rishonim* reject this due to the problem of someone not currently obligated that day being *motzi* others. The Ritva and others defend Rashi by asserting the entire institution is *derabbanan* and the flexibility and who may be *motzi* is built into the enactment itself. Tosafot in Yevamot is cited as offering a different reading that villagers gather and read in their own towns on Monday/Thursday because that is when they can assemble, and the theme of *lo titgodedu* is invoked as a pressure point for understanding divergent communal practices.
- A view is reported that villages originally read only by day and not at night, and the difference between daytime and nighttime readings is set up as a recurring theme, with the daytime reading tied to “*yamim ha’eleh*” while nighttime is not explicit there. The *Binyan Shlomo* (Rav Shlomo of Vilna) is cited with a major *chidush* that nighttime reading may have been instituted later by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, supported by the Mishnah on 20b listing daytime mitzvot as valid all day and citing “*kol hayom kasher likri’at haMegillah*” without a parallel nighttime clause. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement is quoted that one must read at night and repeat by day, and the idea is framed as remarkable because it implies a later authority created a new obligation, while an alternative assumption is also stated that nighttime reading is *derabbanan* from the outset but simply not recorded in Mishnah, creating possible *halakhic* differences between day and night.
- A full set of cases is given for when the 14th falls on Monday, Tuesday/Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Shabbat, or Sunday, and each case assigns villages to the nearest Monday/Thursday entry day while towns and walled cities follow their respective 14th/15th pattern subject to Shabbat restrictions. A specific point is made that when the 14th falls on Shabbat, reading the Megillah on Shabbat is barred by a rabbinic decree, so towns advance not by one day but back to Thursday, while walled cities read on Sunday the 15th. A broader discussion is interwoven about whether a *minyan* is required for Megillah, with the claim that on Purim itself one can fulfill even individually though *lechatchilah* public reading is preferred, and with the suggestion that reading *shelo bizmano* may require a *minyan* more to create *pirsumei nisa*.
- A halakhic dilemma is cited about someone who can attend a *minyan* only once, choosing between *Parashat Zachor* and Megillah, and the Rosh in Berakhot is quoted as implying *Parashat Zachor* may require ten at a potentially *de’oraita* level based on the episode of freeing a slave to complete a quorum. The Shulchan Aruch (תרפ"ה) is cited as ruling that settlements without a *minyan* should travel to hear Zachor and Parah because they are *de’oraita* according to some. The *Terumat HaDeshen* is quoted in *Mishnah Berurah* as preferring Zachor with ten over Megillah in public because most authorities allow Megillah *bizmano* privately, while a *Magen Avraham* counter-argument is noted that one can fulfill Zachor through the Torah reading on Purim, alongside the objection that *Beshalach* does not contain “*timche et zecher Amalek*.”
- An observation attributed to Rav Shlomo of Vilna in *Maor HaKohen* and the *Cheshek Shlomo* notes that the word “Purim” appears five times in the Megillah, twice spelled מלא and three times חסר, and this is read as a hint to the five possible Megillah reading dates. Rav Shlomo explains that the two מלא occurrences correspond to the two full Purim days (14th and 15th) when all mitzvot apply, while the three חסר occurrences correspond to the villagers’ earlier days which apply only to Megillah reading and not to *mishteh ve’simchah* and *mishloach manot*. A second explanation attributed to Rav Shlomo addresses the Ran’s question why Purim alone is divided across different days, and it states that Chazal intentionally made Purim unlike Torah holidays to emphasize it is rabbinic and not “*Torah אחת ומשפט אחד*,” even though a *smach* is found for *mikra Megillah* and it does not violate *bal tosif*.
- The Gemara asks “*Megillah nikreit b’Yud Alef menalan*” and clarifies that the question is not a direct verse source but where the allowance is hinted, since otherwise it would imply later rabbis uprooted an enactment of *Anshei Knesset HaGedolah*. The principle from Eduyot is invoked that a later *beit din* cannot annul an earlier one unless greater in wisdom and number, so the Gemara concludes that all five dates were part of the original enactment and seeks a textual *remez* for them. R. Elchanan in *Kovetz He’arot/Kovetz Shiurim* is cited as questioning the Gemara’s framing, arguing that rabbinic power is clearer in forbidding an obligation through a head-on clash than in merely expanding beyond the original stated time, making the addition itself the conceptual difficulty.
- One derivation is given from “*lekayem et yemei haPurim ha’eleh bizmaneihem*,” with the plural and extra form “*bizmaneihem*” treated as adding two earlier days, while the 13th is excluded from needing derivation because “*Yud Gimel zman kehillah lakol hi*,” and “*lo ya’avor*” prevents adding days after the 15th. Rashi interprets “*zman kehillah lakol*” as the day all Jews gathered to fight their enemies in Shushan and elsewhere, making it inherently connected to the miracle. Rabbeinu Tam, quoted via the Rosh, interprets “*zman kehillah*” as the communal fast of *Ta’anit Esther*, when people assemble for *selichot* and *tachanunim* seeking mercy, and it is stated as the only reference in Shas to *Ta’anit Esther* and as grounding its distinctive character as a fast that can be advanced because it is not a fast of calamity. A second derivation is offered from “*kayamim asher nachu*,” reading “*yamim/kayamim*” as adding two days, again excluding the 13th as “*zman kehillah*” and excluding later dates via “*lo ya’avor*.”
- A statement of Rabbi Yochanan is cited that the Mishnah follows Rabbi Akiva *setimata* who derives the extra days, while Chachamim restrict reading to the proper time, and an objection from a baraita of Rabbi Yehudah distinguishes between an ideal era of proper calendrical conditions in the Land and the present era where people “look at it,” leading to reading only at the standard time. Rashi explains “they look at it” as counting thirty days from Purim to Pesach, so moving the reading earlier risks errors that could lead to eating *chametz* on Pesach. Two versions of the sugya are recorded, one refuting Rabbi Yochanan’s claim that Chachamim never allow early readings and another limiting the dispute to *bizman hazeh*, and Rav Ashi resolves an apparent self-contradiction in Rabbi Yehudah by reattributing one teaching to Rabbi Yosi b’Rabbi Yehudah based on alternate received versions. A doubt is attributed to the Rosh Yosef about whether early reading *bizman hazeh* would be effective *bedieved*, and an example is raised of a boy who read early at age twelve and becomes *bar mitzvah* by Purim, raising whether he must read again.
- The Gemara derives that since open cities read on the 14th, walled cities read on the 15th, rejects the possibility that walled-city Jews would be exempt, and uses “*et yom arba’ah asar ve’et yom chamishah asar*” along with “*bizmaneihem*” to establish that each place has its own time. A question is raised about why the Mishnah defines walled cities as those from the days of Yehoshua bin Nun, with the Yerushalmi explanation reported that this grants honor to *Eretz Yisrael* because the Purim story occurs in exile and the land was desolate then. The Gemara links “remembering” to “doing” through “*ve’hayamim ha’eleh nizkarim ve’na’asim*,” creating a *hekesh* that extends the variable dates to Megillah reading as well, while noting via the Ritva that “*zekhirah*” and “*asiyah*” are not identical across all details such as day and night.
- A baraita of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah holds that walled cities from the time of Achashverosh read on the 15th by modeling all walled cities on Shushan. The Mishnah’s view is defended through a *gezeirah shavah* “*perazi perazi*” from “*haYehudim haPerazim*” to “*arei haPerazi harbeh me’od*,” yielding the standard of “from the days of Yehoshua bin Nun,” and the Ramban is cited that this is not a classic Torah-to-Torah *gezeirah shavah* but is still weighty enough to override the purely historical logic. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah may simply not have received this *gezeirah shavah*, and it resolves the anomaly of Shushan not matching the Yehoshua-era definition by stating Shushan is unique because the miracle occurred there.
- The verse “*medinah u’medinah, ir u’ir*” is read as supporting distinctions such as between Yehoshua-era and Achashverosh-era walled cities and between Shushan and other cities, but the Gemara concludes the phrase is primarily for *derash* in line with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi states that a *kerakh* and anything adjacent to it or visible with it, “*kol hasamukh lo ve’khol hanir’eh imo*,” is judged like the *kerakh*. The sugya ends with the intention to return to defining “*samukh*” and “*nir’eh*” and their practical implications.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions