מגילה 6 — parallel

6:1

and it was found that I was right: [I said:] Hamath is Tiberias. And why was it called Hamath? On account of the hot springs [hamme] of Tiberias. Rakath is Sepphoris, And why was it called Rakath? Because it slopes down like the bank [raktha] of a river. Kinnereth is Gennesaret. And why was it called Kinnereth? Because its fruits are sweet like the music of a harp [kinnor]. Raba said: Is there anyone who can maintain that Rakath is not Tiberias, seeing that when a man dies here [in Babylonia] they mourn for him there [in Tiberias] as follows: ‘Great was he in Sheshach and he has a name in Rakath’, and when the coffin is taken there they mourn for him thus: ‘Ye lovers of the remnants, dwellers in Rakath, go forth and receive the slaughtered of the depths’. When R. Zera departed, a certain mourner opened his dirge thus: ‘The land of Shinar conceived and bore him, the beauteous land brought up her delight. Woe to me, saith Rakath, for her precious instrument is lost’! No, said Raba. Hamath is the hot springs of Gerar; Rakath is Tiberias; and Kinnereth is Gennesaret. Why is it called Rakath? Because even the least worthy of its inhabitants are full of religious performances like a pomegranate. R. Jeremiah said: Rakath is its proper name. And why is it called Tiberias? Because it is situated in the very centre of the land of Israel. Rabbah said: Rakath is its name. And why is it called Tiberias? Because its aspect is good. Zeira said: Kitron is Sepphoris. And why is it called Sepphoris? Because it is perched on the top of a mountain like a bird [zippor]. But is Kitron Sepphoris? Now Kitron was in the territory of Zebulun, as it is written, Zebulun drove not out the inhabitants of Kitron nor the inhabitants of Nahalol. Now Zebulun complained of his portion, as it says, Zebulun was a people which shamed his soul to death. Why? Because Naphtali was on the high places of the field. Zebulun complained to the Holy One, blessed be he, saying: Sovereign of the Universe, to my brethren Thou hast given fields and vineyards and to me Thou hast given hills and mountains; to my brethren Thou hast given lands, and to me Thou hast given lakes and rivers. [God] replied: They will all require thee for the hilazon, as it says, and the hidden treasures of the sand, and R. Joseph learnt: ‘Hidden’ indicates the hilazon; ‘treasures’ indicates the tunny fish; ‘sand’ indicates white glass. Zebulun then said: Sovereign of the Universe, who will inform me? He replied: There they shall offer sacrifices of righteousness. This shall be thy sign: whoever takes of thee without payment will not prosper in his business. Now if you assume that Kitron is Sepphoris, why did Zebulun complain of his portion, seeing that Sepphoris is an excellent spot? Nor can you say that it is not ‘flowing with milk and honey’. For Resh Lakish has said: I have myself seen the trail of milk and honey round Sepphoris, and it is sixteen miles by sixteen miles. Nor can you say that [even so] his is not as good as his brothers, since Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: I have myself seen the trail of milk and honey of the whole land of Israel, and it extends [altogether] about as far as from Be Kubi to the Fort of Tulbanke, twenty-two parasangs in length and six parasangs in breadth? Even so, he preferred fields and vineyards. This is also indicated by the language of the text, as it says, ‘Naphtali upon the high places of the field’. This is a proof. R. Abbahu said: [It is written], Ekron shall be rooted up; this is Kisri the daughter of Edom, which is situated among the sands, and which was a thorn in the side of Israel in the days of the Greeks. When the House of the Hasmoneans grew powerful and conquered them, they called it ‘the capture of the tower of Shir’. R. Jose b. Hanina said: What is meant by the text, And I will take away his blood out of his mouth and his detestable things from between his teeth, and he also shall be a remnant for our God? ‘And I will take away his blood out of his mouth’: this refers to their sacrificial shrines. ‘And his detestable things from between his teeth’: this refers to their oracles. ‘And he also shall be a remnant for our God’: these are the synagogues and houses of learning in Edom. And he shall be as a chief in Judah, and Ekron as a Jebusite: these are the theatres and circuses in Edom in which one day the chieftains of Judah shall publicly teach the Torah. R. Isaac said: Leshem is Pamias. Ekron shall be rooted out: this is Caesarea, the daughter of Edom, which was a metropolis of kings. Some say that this means that kings were brought up there, and others that kings were appointed from there. Caesarea and Jerusalem [are rivals]. If one says to you that both are destroyed, do not believe him; if he says that both are flourishing, do not believe him; if he says that Caesarea is waste and Jerusalem is flourishing, or that Jerusalem is waste and Caesarea is flourishing, you may believe him, as it says, I shall be filled, she is laid waste; if this one is filled, that one is laid waste, and if that one is filled, this one is laid waste. R. Nahman b. Isaac derived the same lesson from here: and the one people shall be stronger than the other people. R. Isaac also said: What is the meaning of the verse, Let favour be shown to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness? Isaac said in the presence of the Holy One, blessed be He: Sovereign of the Universe, let mercy be shown to Esau. He replied: He is wicked. He said to Him; He has not learnt righteousness. He replied: In the land of uprightness will he deal wrongfully. He said: If so, let him not behold the majesty of the Lord. R. Isaac also said: What is meant by the verse, Grant not, O Lord, the desires of the wicked, draw not out his bit, so that they exalt themselves, selah? Jacob said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Sovereign of the Universe, grant not to Esau the wicked the desire of his heart, draw not out his bit:

—

6:2

this refers to Germamia of Edom, for should they but go forth they would destroy the whole world. R. Hama b. Hanina said: There are three hundred crowned heads in Germamia of Edom and three hundred and sixty-five chieftains in Rome, and every day one set go forth to meet the other and one of them is killed, and they have all the trouble of appointing a king again. R. Isaac also said: If a man says to you, I have laboured and not found, do not believe him. If he says, I have not laboured but still have found, do not believe him. If he says,I have laboured and found, you may believe him. This is true in respect of words of Torah, but in respect of business, all depends on the assistance of heaven. And even for words of Torah this is true only of penetrating to the meaning, but for remembering what one has learnt, all depends on the assistance of heaven. R. Isaac also said: If you see a wicked man being favoured by fortune, do not contend with him, as it says, Do not contend with evildoers. Nor is this all, but he may even prosper in his undertakings, as it says, His ways prosper at all times. Nor is this all, but he may even be declared right, as it says, Thy judgments are far above out of his sight. Nor is this all, but he may even triumph over his enemies, as it says, As for all his adversaries, he puffeth at them. Is this so? Has not R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: It is permitted to contend with the wicked in this world, as it says, They that forsake the law praise the wicked, but such as keep the law contend with them. Also it has been taught: R. Dosethai b. Mathon says: It is permitted to contend with the wicked in this world. And if one should whisper to you saying, [As for the text] Do not contend with evildoers, neither be thou envious against them that work unrighteousness, one whose conscience smites him speaks thus, and the meaning is, Do not contend with the evildoer to be like evildoers, neither be envious of such as work unrighteousness; and so it says also, Let not thy heart envy sinners? — There is no contradiction; the one [piece of advice] refers to one's own affairs the other to religious matters. Or if you like I may say that both refer to one's own affairs, and still there is no contradiction: the one is addressed to a man who is wholly righteous, and the other to one who is not wholly righteous, as R. Huna said: What is the meaning of the verse, Wherefore lookest thou when they deal treacherously, and holdest thy peace when the wicked swalloweth up the man that is more righteous than he? He can swallow up one that is more righteous than himself, he cannot swallow up one that is completely righteous. Or if you like I can say that when fortune is smiling on him, the case is different. ‘Ulla said: ‘Greek Italy’ is the great city of Rome, which covers an area of three hundred parasangs by three hundred. It has three hundred markets corresponding to the number of days of the solar year. The smallest of them is that of the poultry sellers, which is sixteen mil by sixteen. The king dines every day in one of them. Everyone who resides in the city, even if he was not born there, receives a regular portion of food from the king's household, and so does everyone who was born there, even if he does not reside there. There are three thousand baths in it, and five hundred windows the smoke from which goes outside the wall. One side of it is bounded by the sea, one side by hills and mountains, one side by a barrier of iron, and one side by pebbly ground and swamp. MISHNAH. IF THE MEGILLAH HAS BEEN READ IN THE FIRST ADAR AND THE YEAR HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN PROLONGED, IT IS READ AGAIN IN THE SECOND ADAR. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIRST ADAR AND THE SECOND ADAR SAVE ONLY IN THE READING OF THE MEGILLAH AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF GIFTS TO THE POOR. GEMARA. This [last statement] implies that in respect of the series of special portions they are on the same footing. Which authority does the Mishnah follow? [It would seem], neither the First Tanna nor R. Eliezer son of R. Jose nor R. Simon b. Gamaliel [in the following Baraitha], as it has been taught: ‘If the Megillah has been read in the first Adar and the year has then been prolonged,it is read in the second Adar, since all the precepts which are to be performed in the second Adar can be performed in the first, except the reading of the Megillah’. R. Eliezer son of R. Jose says that it is not to be read [again] in the second Adar, because all precepts that are to be performed in the second Adar may be performed in the first. R. Simon b. Gamaliel says in the name of R. Jose that it is to be read again in the second, because precepts which are to be performed in the second Adar may not be performed in the first. They all however agree in regard to mourning and fasting, that they are forbidden on [the fourteenth and fifteenth of] both. Does not R. Simon b. Gamaliel here repeat the First Tanna? — R. Papa replied: They differ on the question of the series of special portions — the First Tanna holding that these should in the first instance be read in the second [Adar], but if they have been read in the first, this suffices. [But he also] excludes from this ruling the reading of the Megillah, [holding that], even though it has been read in the first [Adar], it must be read again in the second. R. Eliezer son of R. Jose on the other hand held that even the Megillah may in the first instance be read in the first [Adar], and R. Simon b. Gamaliel held that even the series of special portions, if they have been read in the first [Adar], must be read again in the second. Which authority then [does our Mishnah follow]? If [you say] the First Tanna, there is the difficulty of gifts. If [you say] R. Eliezer son of R. Jose, there is the difficulty of the reading of the Megillah also. If [you say] R. Simon b. Gamaliel, there is the difficulty of the series of special portions! — In fact it is the First Tanna, and when he mentioned the reading of the Megillah, we suppose the same to apply to the gifts of the poor, since one depends on the other. Or if you like, I can say that in fact it is R. Simon b. Gamaliel, and there is an omission in our Mishnah and what it means is this: ‘There is no difference between the fourteenth of the first Adar and the fourteenth of the second Adar save in the matter of reading the Megillah and gifts to the poor’. from which we infer that in regard to mourning and fasting they are on the same footing, while in regard to the special portions no ruling is given. R. Hiyya b. Abin said in the name of R. Johanan: The halachah is as laid down by R. Simon b. Gamaliel, who gave it in the name of R. Jose. R. Johanan said: Both of them [R. Simon and R. Eliezer son of R. Jose] based their opinions on the same text, in every year. R. Eliezer son of Jose reasoned: ‘In every year’; just as in most years [we think of] Adar as the month which adjoins Shebat, so here [we keep the precepts] in the Adar which adjoins Shebat. R. Simon b. Gamaliel again reasoned: Just as in most years [we think of] Adar as adjoining Nisan, so here [we keep the precepts] in the Adar which adjoins Nisan. Now we understand R. Eliezer son of R. Jose taking the view he did, because it is inherently probable, it being a rule that we do not postpone the performance of religious precepts. But what is the reason of R. Simon b. Gamaliel? — R. Tabi said: The reason of R. Simon b. Gamaliel is that more weight is to be attached to bringing one period of redemption close to another. R. Eleazar said: The reason of R. Simon b. Gamaliel is derived from this verse: to confirm this second letter of Purim. And it was necessary for the text to write

—