מגילה 7

¹ ‘the second’ and also to write ‘in every year’. For if I had to base the rule on ‘every year’, I could raise the difficulty stated above: therefore it is written ‘second’. And if I had been told only ‘second’, I might say that the Megillah is properly to be read both in the first and in the second. Therefore it says, in every year. And what does R. Eliezer son of R. Jose make of this second’? — He requires it for the statement enunciated by R. Samuel b. Judah. For R. Samuel b. Judah said: At first they [Mordecai and Esther] decreed the observance of Purim only in Susa, but afterwards throughout the world. R. Samuel b. Judah said: Esther sent to the Wise Men saying, Commemorate me for future generations. They replied, You will incite the ill will of the nations against us. She sent back reply: I am already recorded in the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia. Rab and R. Hanina and R. Johanan and R. Habiba record [the above statement in this form]: (in the whole of the Order Mo'ed, wherever this set of Rabbis is mentioned, R. Johanan is replaced by R. Jonathan): Esther sent to the Wise Men saying, Write an account of me for posterity. They sent back answer, Have I not written for thee three times — three times and not four? [And they refused] until they found a verse written in the Torah, Write this a memorial in a book, [which they expounded as follows]: ‘Write this’, namely, what is written here and in Deuteronomy; ‘for a memorial’, namely, what is written in the Prophets; ‘in a book’, namely, what is written in the Megillah. The difference [between the first and second of these opinions] is also found between two Tannaim. ‘Write this’, what is written here. ‘For a memorial’, namely, what is written in Deuteronomy. ‘In a book’, namely, what is written in the Prophets. So R. Joshua. R. Eliezer of Modi'im says: Write this’, namely, what is written here and in Deuteronomy; for a memorial’, namely, what is written in the Prophets; ‘in a book’, namely, what is written in the Megillah. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel; [The scroll] of Esther does not make the hands unclean. Are we to infer from this that Samuel was of opinion that Esther was not composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit? How can this be, Seeing that Samuel has said that Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit? — It was composed to be recited [by heart], but not to be written. The following objection was raised: ‘R. Meir says that [the scroll of] Koheleth does not render the hands unclean, and that about the Song of Songs there is a difference of opinion. R. Jose says that the Song of Songs renders the hands unclean, and about Koheleth there is a difference of opinion. R. Simeon says that Koheleth is one of those matters in regard to which Beth Shammai were more lenient and Beth Hillel more stringent, but Ruth and the Song of Songs and Esther [certainly] make the hands unclean’! — Samuel concurred with R. Joshua. It has been taught: R. Simeon b. Menasia said: Koheleth does not render the hands unclean because it contains only the wisdom of Solomon. They said to him], Was this then all that he composed? Is it not stated elsewhere, And he spoke three thousand proverbs, and it further says, Add thou not unto his words.? Why this further quotation? — In case you might object that he composed very much, and what it pleased him to write he wrote and what it did not please him he did not write. Therefore it says, Add thou not to his words. It has been taught: R. Eleazar said: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, And Haman said in his heart. R. Akiba says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, And Esther obtained favour in the eyes of all that looked upon her. R. Meir says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, And the thing became known to Mordecai. R.Jose b. Durmaskith said: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, But on the spoil they laid not their hands, Said Samuel: Had I been there, I would have given a proof superior to all, namely, that it says, They confirmed and took upon them, [which means] they confirmed above what they took upon themselves below. Raba said: All the proofs can be confuted except that of Samuel, which cannot be confuted. [Thus,] against that of R. Eleazar it may be objected that it is reasonable to suppose that Haman would think so, because there was no one who was so high in the esteem of the king as he was, and that when he spoke at length, he was only expressing the thought concerning himself. Against the proof of R. Akiba it may be objected that perhaps the fact is as stated by R. Eleazar, who said that these words show that to every man she appeared to belong to his own nation. Against R. Meir it may be objected that perhaps the fact is as stated by R. Hiyya b. Abba who said that Bigthan and Teresh were two men from Tarsis. Against the proof of R. Jose b. Durmaskith it may be objected that perhaps they sent messengers. Against the proof of Samuel certainly no decisive objection can be brought. Said Rabina: This bears out the popular saying, Better is one grain of sharp pepper than a basket full of pumpkins. R. Joseph said: It can be proved from here: And these days of Purim shall not fail from among the Jews. R. Nahman b. Isaac said, From here: Nor the memorial of them perish from their seed. . AND GIFTS TO THE POOR. R. Joseph learnt: And sending portions one to another that means two portions for one man. And gifts to the poor that means two gifts to two men. R. Judah Nesi'ah sent to R. Oshaia the leg of a third-born calf and a barrel of wine. He sent him back word saying,^{ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖ}

² You have fulfilled in our person, O our teacher, the words, and sending portions one to another. Rabbah sent to Mari b. Mar by Abaye a sackful of dates and a cupful of roasted ears of corn. Said Abaye to him: Mari will now say, ‘If a countryman becomes a king, he does not take his basket off his neck’. The other [Mari] sent him [Rabbah] back a sackful of ginger and a cup full of long-stalked pepper. Said Abaye: Now the Master [Rabbah] will say, I sent him sweet and he sends me bitter. Abaye said: When I went out of the Master's [Rabbah's] house, I was already full, but when I reached the other place they set before me sixty dishes of sixty different preparations, and I had sixty pieces from them. The last preparation was called pot-roast, and [I liked it so much that] I wanted to lick the dish after it. Said Abaye: This bears out the popular saying, The poor man is hungry and does not know it, or the other saying, There is always room for sweet things. Abaye b. Abin and R. Hananiah b. Abin used to exchange their meals with one another. Raba said: It is the duty of a man to mellow himself [with wine] on Purim until he cannot tell the difference between cursed be Haman’ and ‘blessed be Mordecai’. Rabbah and R. Zera joined together in a Purim feast. They became mellow, and Rabbah arose and cut R. Zera's throat. On the next day he prayed on his behalf and revived him. Next year he said, Will your honour come and we will have the Purim feast together. He replied: A miracle does not take place on every occasion. Raba said: If one eats his Purim feast on the night [of the fourteenth], he does not thereby fulfil his obligation. What is the reason? It is written, days of feasting and gladness. R. Ashi was sitting before R. Kahana. It grew late, and still the Rabbis did not arrive. He said to him, Why have not the Rabbis come? Perhaps they are busy with the Purim feast. He said to him: Could they not have had it last night? He replied: Is your honour not acquainted with the diction of Raba, ‘If one eats his Purim feast on the night [of the fourteenth], he does not thereby fulfil his obligation’? He said to him; Did Raba really say so? (He replied Yes). He then repeated it after him forty times, until he had safely stored it in his mind. MISHNAH. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FESTIVALS AND SABBATH SAVE ONLY IN THE MATTER OF [PREPARING] FOOD. GEMARA . We can infer from this that in the matter of preliminaries for preparing food they are on the same footing. The Mishnah then does not agree with R. Judah, as it has been taught: ‘There is no difference between festivals and Sabbath save in the matter of [preparing] food’. R. Judah, however, permits [on the festivals] the preliminaries for preparing food. What is the reason of the First Tanna? The Scripture says: [Save that which every man must eat], that only [shall be prepared]: that and not its preliminaries. R. Judah, on the other hand, stresses the word for you: for you, which means, for all your requirements. Why then does not the other also admit this, seeing that it is written, ‘for you’? — [This, he says, means], ‘for you’ and not for non-Jews; ‘for you’ and not for dogs. And [why does not] the other [adopt this view], seeing that it is written, ‘that only’? [He replies]: It is written, ‘that only’, and it is written, ‘for you’; we apply the one to preliminaries which can be attended to on the day before the festival, and the other to preliminaries which cannot be attended to on the day before the festival. MISHNAH. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SABBATH AND THE DAY OF ATONEMENT SAVE ONLY THAT THE DELIBERATE VIOLATION OF THE ONE IS PUNISHED BY A HUMAN COURT AND THE DELIBERATE VIOLATION OF THE OTHER BY KARETH. GEMARA. It is to be inferred from this that in respect of compensation they are on the same footing. Whose view does the Mishnah follow? — That of R. Nehunia b. ha-Kaneh, as it has been taught: R. Nehunia b. ha-Kaneh used to put the Day of Atonement on the same footing as Sabbath in respect of compensation: just as [one who deliberately breaks] Sabbath forfeits his life but is released from the obligation to make compensation, so [one who deliberately breaks] the Day of Atonement forfeits his life but is released from the obligation to make compensation. We have learnt elsewhere: If any who have incurred the penalty of kareth are flogged — they become quit of their kareth, as it says, Then thy brother should be dishonoured in thine eyes; once he has been flogged, he is like thy brother. So R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel. Said R. Johanan: The colleagues of R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel joined issue with him on this point. Raba said, They said in the school of Rab: We have [also] learnt [this]: There is no difference between the Day of Atonement and Sabbath save that he who breaks the one is punished by a human court, while he who breaks the other is punished with kareth. Now if [R. Hananiah's opinion] is correct, then both are punished by the human court? — R. Nahman replied: Whose view is this? That of R. Isaac, who said that lashes are never inflicted on those who have incurred kareth, as it has been taught: Those who have incurred kareth are included in the general statement. Why then is kareth specially mentioned in the case of [one who lies with] his sister? To show that she is punished with kareth and not with lashes. R. Ashi said: You may even say that it is the view of the Rabbis: in the case of the one [the breaker of Sabbath], the essential [punishment for] his presumption is inflicted by the human court, but in the case of the other, the essential punishment for his presumption consists in ‘being cut off’.28^{ᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣᵃʸᵃᶻᵇᵃᵇᵇᵇᶜᵇᵈᵇᵉᵇᶠᵇᵍᵇʰᵇⁱᵇʲᵇᵏᵇˡᵇᵐᵇⁿᵇᵒᵇᵖᵇᵠᵇʳ}