Megillah 6
Summary
- Rab Asi reads the Megillah in Hutzal on both the 14th and the 15th out of doubt whether it is a *mukefet ḥomah* from the days of Yehoshua bin Nun, and the Rashba rules that this two-day practice applies only in Eretz Yisrael while in *ḥutz la’aretz* a doubtful city reads only on the 14th. Rabbi Yoḥanan identifies biblical place-names with later cities and explains their names, but Rava rejects one identification by citing established eulogies that call Tverya “Rakkat” and reinterprets the name as praise for its residents’ mitzvot, followed by further explanations of why Tverya is called Tverya and why Tzipori is elevated. The sugya then moves to Zevulun’s complaint about its territory and *ḥilazon*, prophecies about Kesariyah and Edom, and teachings about the inverse fortunes of Kesariyah and Yerushalayim, the danger of *Germamya shel Edom*, and principles like *yaga‘ti u-matzati*. The daf concludes by returning to halakhah: if the Megillah is read in Adar I and the year is intercalated, it must be read again in Adar II, and the Mishnah and baraita debate which Purim obligations differ between Adar I and Adar II, with Rabbi Yoḥanan ruling like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
- Rab Asi reads the Megillah in Hutzal on both the 14th and the 15th because he is unsure whether it is *mukefet ḥomah mi-yemot Yehoshua bin Nun* or not, and he makes the berakhot on the 14th because most of *Klal Yisrael* reads then.A second version has Rab Asi stating definitively that “hai Hutzal d’beit Binyamin” is walled from the time of Yehoshua and therefore reads only on the 15th. The Rashba says this stringency of reading both days in a doubtful place applies only in Eretz Yisrael, because at the time of the enactment the walled cities there were known and accepted, while in *ḥutz la’aretz* the enactment was that any doubtful place reads only on the 14th, so “kol vadai *mukef* sheb’ḥutz la’aretz” reads on the 15th and “kol safek sheb’ḥutz la’aretz” reads on the 14th.
- Rabbi Yoḥanan says that as a youth he asserted an identification that his elders confirmed, and he explains that Ḥammat is really Tverya and is called Ḥammat because of “*ḥamei Tverya*.” The Ben Yehoyada says the name highlights a unique סימן מובהק because no other hot spring exists in all Eretz Yisrael besides that of Tverya. Rabbi Yoḥanan says that Rakkat is really Tzipori and is called Rakkat because it is elevated like a riverbank, and he links this elevation to the idea that Tzipori sits high while Tverya lies low. Rabbi Yoḥanan says that Kinneret is really Ginosar and is called Kinneret because its fruit is sweet “like the sound of a harp.”
- Rava challenges the claim that Rakkat is not Tverya and brings eulogies used in Eretz Yisrael for Babylonian sages that describe them as great in “Sheshakh” and renowned in Rakkat, and calls on “yoshvei Rakkat” to receive those who died in the “*‘omek*.” Rava cites the eulogy for Rabbi Zeira—“Eretz Shinar harah veyaldah… oy lah, amrah Rakkat”—as further proof that Rakkat is Tverya. Rava therefore concludes that Ḥammat is *ḥamei Gader*, Rakkat is Tverya, and Kinneret is Ginosar, and he explains that Tverya is called Rakkat because even the “*reikanin*” of the city are full of mitzvot like a pomegranate.
- The Seridei Eish asks why Rava uses the astonished formulation “mi ika leman de’amar” rather than simply disagreeing, because the prior statement is attributed to Rabbi Yoḥanan who lived in Eretz Yisrael and sat in Tverya and asked its elders. The Ru’aḥ Ḥayyim of Ḥayyim Volozhin explains the phrase “*naḥ nafshei*” for the death of sages as meaning that life is a constant battle with the *yetzer*, and death is “menucha” from that struggle.
- The Maharsha explains that the Gemara records three kinds of eulogies corresponding to three kinds of relationship to Eretz Yisrael: a תלמיד חכם who never merits coming even after death, one who comes only after death when the coffin is brought, and Rabbi Zeira who merits entering in his lifetime. The Torah Even asks why the Gemara applies “full of mitzvot like a pomegranate” specifically to Tverya when it is said about all of Israel, and the Chida in Petaḥ Einayim ties it to Tverya’s early acceptance of Shabbat. The יסוד שורש העבודה says the timing of a person’s Shabbat observance shapes the heavenly “end of Shabbat” for that person, so one who extends Shabbat gains extended Shabbat in the future.
- Rabbi Yirmeya says Rakkat is its true name, and Tverya is called Tverya because it sits at the “*ṭibura*” of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbah says Rakkat is its name and Tverya is called Tverya because “*ṭovah re’iyatah*,” and the Maharsha connects “seeing” either to the beauty of the place or to the presence of sages and the Sanhedrin there. Ze’ira says Kattaron is Tzipori and Tzipori is called Tzipori because it sits atop a mountain like a bird.
- The Gemara questions whether Kattaron can be Tzipori because Kattaron is in Zevulun’s portion, and Zevulun complains upon seeing Naphtali’s “*meromei sadeh*.” Zevulun says its brothers receive fields and vineyards while it receives mountains, hills, seas, and rivers, and Hashem answers that all will need Zevulun for the *ḥilazon* for *tekhelet*, as well as other resources hidden in the sand, including *terit* and “*zekhukhit levanah*.” Zevulun asks “mi modi‘eni,” and Hashem answers that those who take without payment will not succeed in their commerce, serving as a sign.
- The Gemara argues that if Kattaron is Tzipori then Zevulun’s complaint is puzzling because Tzipori is “milta de’adifa tuva,” and it shows that Zevulun nevertheless prefers fields and vineyards. The Gemara rejects the claim that Tzipori lacks “*zavat ḥalav u-devash*” by citing Reish Lakish’s testimony that he saw such abundance in Tzipori spanning sixteen by sixteen mil. It also cites Rabbah bar bar Ḥanah in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that he saw “*zavat ḥalav u-devash*” across the land in great measure, yet concludes that Zevulun still desires “sadeh v’kherem” as implied by “Naphtali *meromei sadeh*.”
- Rabbi Abahu interprets “Ve‘Ekron te‘aker” as Kesariyah bat Edom, describing it as situated among sands and as a persistent thorn for Israel in Greek times, and he says the Hasmoneans renamed it “Aḥidat Migdal Shir” after defeating it. Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina interprets “V’hasiroti damav mipiv… v’nish’ar gam hu le’Eloheinu” as removing idolatry while leaving “בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות שבאדום,” and interprets “והיה כאלוף ביהודה ועקרון כיבוסי” as the “*ṭarte’ot*” and “*karkesi’ot*” of Edom becoming places where the leaders of Judah will teach Torah publicly.
- Tosafot rejects the explanation that *ṭarte’ot* and *karkesi’ot* are actual בתי עבודה זרה, arguing it is difficult to say Torah will be learned in filthy places, and concludes the statement refers to buildings where idolaters assemble rather than sanctuaries of worship. The later halakhic discussion is framed as a dispute about converting a non-Jewish house of prayer into a synagogue, with the *Magen Avraham* citing the Yere’im to be lenient because the building itself is not worshipped and is attached to the ground, while the Elyah Rabbah is stringent. The discussion also extends to holding prayer gatherings in places “המשמשים למקומות תועבה ופריצות והוללות” and to renting space connected with non-Orthodox institutions, raising issues of propriety and *mar’it ayin*.
- Rav Yitzḥak identifies “Leshem” as Pamyas and repeats “Ekron te‘aker” as Kesariyah bat Edom, describing it as a metropolis associated with kingship. The Gemara states that Kesariyah and Yerushalayim are never both destroyed and never both settled, and one’s building coincides with the other’s desolation, derived from “Emale’ah ha-ḥarevah” and from “Ule’om mile’om ye’ematz.”
- The Gemara reads “Yuḥan rasha‘ bal lamed tzedek” as Yitzḥak asking Hashem to show favor to Esav and Hashem responding that Esav is wicked and will do wrong even in “Eretz Nekhoḥot,” identified as Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara reads “Al titen Hashem ma’avyei rasha‘… zemamo al tafek” as Ya‘akov praying that Hashem restrain Esav, and identifies “zemamo” with “Germamya shel Edom” whose emergence would destroy the entire world.
- Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina says there are three hundred “*ketirei taga*” in Germamya shel Edom and three hundred sixty-five “*marzavnei*” in Rome. The Gemara says they fight constantly, killing among themselves and remaining preoccupied with installing kings, and this leaves Israel undisturbed.
- Rabbi Yitzḥak teaches that one who says “*yaga‘ti v’lo matzati*” is not believed, one who says “*lo yaga‘ti u-matzati*” is not believed, and one who says “*yaga‘ti u-matzati*” is believed, and the Gemara limits this to *divrei Torah*. The Gemara says in *masa u-matan* success depends on “*siyata min shmaya*,” and in Torah it distinguishes between acquiring sharpness (*leḥadudei*) and retaining learning (*le’okmei girsa*), stating that retention also depends on heavenly assistance.
- Rabbi Yitzḥak says that if a wicked person’s time is successful one should not provoke him, describing his success in prosperity, judgment, and dominance over enemies. Rabbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai teaches that it is permitted to provoke the wicked in this world, and a baraita says that the verse “Al tithar ba-mere‘im” means not to become like them rather than not to challenge them. The Gemara resolves the contradiction by distinguishing between *mili d’shmaya* and *mili d’didei*, between a *tzaddik gamur* and one who is not, and by saying “sha‘ah mesacheket lo” is different.
- Ulla describes *Italya shel Yavan* as a vast city of Rome measuring three hundred by three hundred parsah with three hundred sixty-five marketplaces, the smallest of which spans sixteen by sixteen mil. Ulla says the king dines daily in a different market, residents receive stipends from the king even if not born there, and natives receive stipends even if they no longer live there. Ulla describes three thousand bathhouses, five hundred smoke-vent windows beyond the wall, and four sides protected by sea, mountains, iron, and sand with swamp.
- The Mishnah rules that if one reads the Megillah in Adar I and then the year is intercalated, the Megillah is read again in Adar II, and it states that the difference between Adar I and Adar II is only Megillah reading and *matanot la’evyonim*, while the סדר פרשיות is the same in both. A baraita presents three positions: a first view requiring rereading the Megillah in Adar II while other mitzvot practiced in Adar II apply also in Adar I, Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Yosei saying one does not read again in Adar II because all mitzvot of Adar II apply in Adar I, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the name of Rabbi Yosei requiring Adar II practice and holding that mitzvot of Adar II do not apply in Adar I, while all agree that eulogy and fasting are forbidden in both. Rav Pappa says the dispute between the first view and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel turns on סדר פרשיות, and the Gemara aligns the Mishnah either with the first view by folding *matanot la’evyonim* into Megillah as תלוי זה בזה or with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel by reading the Mishnah as *ḥasuri meḥsra* focused only on Purim obligations. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin says Rabbi Yoḥanan rules like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi Yoḥanan says both sides derive their view from “be-khol shanah v’shanah,” with Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Yosei linking Purim to the Adar adjacent to Shevat and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel linking it to the Adar adjacent to Nisan.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions