מגילה 10

¹ THE HIGH PLACES COULD AGAIN BECOME PERMITTED, BUT AFTER THE SANCTIFICATION OF JERUSALEM THERE CAN BE NO SUCH PERMISSION. GEMARA. R. Isaac said: I have heard that sacrifices may be offered in the Temple of Onias at the present day. He was of opinion that the Temple of Onias is not an idolatrous shrine, and that the first holiness [of Jerusalem] was conferred on it for the time being but not for all time, as it is written, For ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance. ‘Rest’ here means Shiloh and ‘inheritance’ means Jerusalem, and ‘inheritance’ is put on the same footing as ‘rest’, [to show that] just as after the [destruction of the] ‘rest’ the high places were again permitted, so after the [destruction of the] ‘inheritance’ they will be permitted. They said to him: Do you really say so? He replied, No. Said Raba: By God! he did say it and I learnt it from him. Why then did he retract? On account of the difficulty raised by R. Mari. For R. Mari adduced the following in confutation: AFTER THE SANCTIFICATION OF SHILOH HIGH PLACES CAN AGAIN BE PERMITTED, BUT AFTER THE SANCTIFICATION OF JERUSALEM THERE CAN BE NO SUCH PERMISSION. We have also learnt further: After they [the Israelites] occupied Jerusalem, the high places were forbidden, and they were never permitted again, and it was the ‘inheritance’. — There is a difference of Tannaim on this point, as we have learnt. ‘R. Eliezer said: I have heard that when they were building the hekal [in the second Temple] they made curtains for the hekal and for the courtyard, the difference being that in the hekal they built [the walls] outside [the curtains] and in the courtyard they built [the walls] within [the curtains]. And R. Joshua said: I have heard that sacrifices may be brought even though there is no temple; that the most holy foods may be eaten, even though there are no curtains; and that foods of lesser sanctity and second tithe may be eaten even though there is no wall, because the first holiness was conferred on Jerusalem both for the time being and for all time.’ We infer from this that R. Eliezer was of opinion that it was not [at first] sanctified for all time. Said Rabina to R. Ashi: How can we draw this inference? Perhaps all agree that the first holiness was conferred upon it for the time being and for all time, and one Master reported what he had heard and the other what he had heard. Should you ask, In that case, why were curtains needed according to R. Eliezer, we can answer that they were merely for privacy. Rather it is the following Tannaim who differ on this point as it has been taught: ‘R. Ishmael son of R. Jose said: Why did the Sages enumerate these? Because when the exiles returned they found these cities [still walled] and sanctified them; the others, however, lost their privilege when the land lost its sanctity’. This shows that he was of opinion that the first holiness was conferred for the time being and not for the future. And a contradiction was pointed out with the following: ‘R. Ishmael son of R. Jose said: Were these all? Do we not find it said, Sixty cities, all the region of Argob, and it is written, All these were fortified cities with high walls? Why then did the Sages enumerate these? Because when the exiles returned, they found these [still walled] and sanctified them’. They sanctified then,^{ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒ}

² now, [say you]! Do we not say that they did not require to be sanctified? What [you should say is], they found these and enumerated them. And not only in these alone, but in every one in regard to which you shall find a tradition from your ancestors that it was walled from the days of Joshua son of Nun, all these precepts are to be observed, because the first holiness was conferred for the time being and for all future time. There is thus a contradiction between two statements of R. Ishmael! — Two Tannaim report R. Ishmael son of R. Jose differently.Or if you like, I can say that the latter dictum emanates from R. Eleazar b. Jose, as it has been taught: ‘R. Eleazar b. Jose says: That has [no] wall; even though it has not now, but it had in previous times.’ And it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus. R.Levi, or some say R. Jonathan said: The following remark is a tradition handed down to us from the Men of the Great Assembly: wherever in the Scripture we find the term wa-yehi[and it was, and it came to pass], it indicates [the approach of] trouble. Thus, and it came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus — there was Haman. And it came to pass in the days when the Judges judged — ‘there was a famine’. And it came to pass when man began to multiply — then ‘God Saw that the wickedness of man was great’. And it came to pass, as they journeyed east — then ‘they said, come let us build a city’. And it came to pass in the days of Amrafel — then ‘they made war’. And it came to pass when Joshua was in Jericho — then ‘his [the angel's] sword was drawn in his hand’. And the Lord was [wa-yehi] with Joshua — then, ‘the children of Israel committed a trespass’, And there was a certain man of Ramathaim-Zophim — then, for he loved Hannah but the Lord had shut up her womb’. And it came to pass when Samuel was old — then, ‘his sons walked not in his ways’. And David had [wa-yehi] great success in all his ways — then, ‘And Saul eyed David’. And it came to pass when the king dwelt in his house — then, ‘Nevertheless thou shalt not build the house’. But is it not written, — And it came to pass on the eighth day, and it has been taught, ‘On that day there was joy before the Holy One, blessed be He, as on the day when heaven and earth were created. For it is written, And it came to pass [wa-yehi] on the eighth day, and it is written in the other place, And there was [wa-yehi] one day’? Nadab and Abihu died on that day. But is it not written, And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year, And it came to pass when Jacob saw Rachel, and it is also written, And there there was evening and there was morning one day, and there is the second day and the third, and there are many other cases? — R. Ashi replied: The fact is that ‘wa-yehi’ sometimes has this signification and sometimes not, but the expression ‘and it came to pass in the days of’ always indicated trouble. Five times we find the expression ‘and it came to pass in the days of’; viz., ‘And it came to pass in the days when the Judges judged’, ‘and it came to pass in the days of Amrafel’, ‘and it came to pass in the days of Ahaz’, ‘and it came to pass in the days of Jehoiakim’. R. Levi further said: The following is a tradition that we have from our ancestors, that Amoz and Amaziah were brothers. What does this tell us? — It confirms what was said by R. Samuel b. Nahmani in the name of R. Jonathan: Every bride who is modest in the house of her father-in-law is rewarded by having kings and prophets among her descendants. How do we prove this? From Tamar, as it is written, And Judah saw her and thought her to be a harlot; for she had covered her face. Now because she had covered her face did he think her to be a harlot? Rather, what it means is that because she had covered her face in the house of her father-in-law and he did not know her, she was rewarded by having among her descendants kings and prophets; kings from David, and prophets — as R. Levi said, ‘It is a tradition handed down to us from our ancestors that Amoz and Amaziah were brothers’, and it is written, The vision of Isaiah son of Amoz. R. Levi further said: We have a tradition from our ancestors that the ark took up no room. It has been taught to the same effect: ‘The ark which Moses made had round it an [empty] space of ten cubits on every side’. Now it is written, And in front of the Sanctuary was twenty cubits in length [and twenty cubits in breadth], and it is also written, And the wing of the one cherub was ten cubits and the wing of the other cherub was ten cubits. Where then was the ark itself? We must therefore conclude that it stood by a miracle [without occupying any room]. R. Jonathan prefaced his discourse on this section with the text, And I will rise against them, saith the Lord, and cut off from Babylon name and remnant’, and offshoot and offspring, saith the Lord, [which he expounded as follows]: ‘Name’ means script; ‘remnant is language; ‘offshoot’ is kingdom, and ‘offspring’ is Vashti. R. Samuel b. Nahmani introduced his discourse on this section with the following text: Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle: ‘Instead of the thorn’: instead of the wicked Haman who put himself up as an object of worship, as it is written, and upon all thorns and upon all brambles ‘shall come up the cypress’: this is Mordecai who was called the chief of all spices, as it is said, And do thou take to thee the chief spices,flowing myrrh, which [last words] we translate [in Aramaic], mar deki. ‘Instead of the brier’: instead of the wicked Vashti, the daughter of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar who burnt the ceiling of the house of the Lord; as it is written, its top was gold, ‘the myrtle shall come up’: this is the virtuous Esther who is called Hadassah, as it is said, And he brought up Hadassah. ‘And it shall be to the Lord for a name’: this is the reading of the Megillah; ‘and for an everlasting sign which shall not be cut off’: these are the days of Purim. R. Joshua b. Levi introduced his discourse on this section with the following text: And it shall come to pass that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, so the Lord will rejoice over you to cause you to perish. Now does the Holy One, blessed be He, rejoice in the downfall of the wicked? Is it not written, as they went out before the army, and say, Give thanks unto the Lord, for his mercy endureth for ever’, and R. Johanan said, Why are the words ‘for he is good’ omitted from this thanksgiving? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, does not rejoice in the downfall of the wicked? And R. Johanan further said, What is the meaning of the verse, And one came not near the other all the night? The ministering angels wanted to chant their hymns, but the Holy One, blessed be He, said, The work of my hands is being drowned in the sea, and shall you chant hymns? — R. Eleazar replied: He himself does not rejoice, but he makes others rejoice. This is indicated also by the text, which writes yasis and not yasus; which proves [what we said]. R. Abba b. Kahana introduced his discourse on this section with the following text: For to the man that is good in his sight he giveth wisdom, and knowledge and joy. This, he said, is the righteous Mordecai. But to the sinner He giveth the task, to gather and to heap up; this is Haman. That he may leave it to him, that is good in the sight of God; this refers to Mordecai and Esther, as it is written, And Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman. Rabbah b. ‘Ofran introduced his discourse on this section with the following text: And I will set my throne in Elam, and will destroy from thence king and princes. ‘King’ indicates Vashti, and ‘princes’ indicates Haman and his ten sons. R. Dimi b. Isaac introduced his discourse on this section with the following text:^{ᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣᵃʸᵃᶻᵇᵃᵇᵇᵇᶜᵇᵈᵇᵉᵇᶠᵇᵍᵇʰᵇⁱᵇʲᵇᵏᵇˡᵇᵐᵇⁿᵇᵒ}