meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Modern Works/Daf Shevui to Megillah/English/Daf Shevui.txt"}
text: Daf Shevui to Megillah
  דף שבועי על מגילה
  Daf Shevui
  
  
  Daf Shevui to Megillah
  
  
  
  Daf 1a
  
  
  
  Daf 1b
  
  
  
  Daf 2a
  
  IntroductionThe first mishnah of Megillah teaches that the Megillah might be read on different days, depending on the locality. Depending on which day of the week Purim falls on, the Megillah might be read on the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth or fifteenth. The central idea behind the mishnah is that small villages would not read alone in their own village, but rather would move up, if necessary, the day of the reading so that it would fall on the same day as “the day of gathering,” the market and court day in the larger towns. As we shall see, this can lead to their reading the Megillah on the eleventh, twelfth or thirteenth. The fourteenth and fifteenth are the days when the Megillah is normally read, depending on whether the city is a walled city.
  ExplanationSection one: This section provides all of the possible dates in Adar on which the Megillah might be read.Section two: Esther 9:19 reads, “That is why village Jews, who live in unwalled towns, observe the fourteenth day of the month of Adar and make it a day of merrymaking and feasting, and as a holiday and an occasion for sending gifts to one another.” If Jews in unwalled towns celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, it implies that Jews in walled cities celebrate on another day. This day must be the fifteenth, since in verse 18 the Jews in Shushan rest from their fighting on the fifteenth.The mishnah determines what is a walled city by reference to Joshua, even though Joshua lived hundreds of years before the events of Purim. The mishnah refers back to Joshua because the land of Israel was desolate in the time of Achashverosh and none of its cities were walled. In order to honor Israel, we therefore refer back to the original conquering.Section three: Small villages move the reading up to the Monday or Thursday prior to the fourteenth of Adar. These were the market days, the days on which the court would convene and the days on which the Torah was read. The idea was that on these days the Jews would gather in the larger cities and it would be more possible to have a large celebration than if each individual village had celebrated separately on the fourteenth.Section four: This is the simplest situation. Purim (the fourteenth of Adar) falls on the fourteenth, so everyone can read on that day except for those in walled cities who read on the fifteenth.Section five: If it falls on Tuesday, the people of the villages read on Monday (the 13th), the day of the gathering, and if it falls on Wednesday then they also move it up to the 12th, which is Monday. Again, the people of the large towns read on the fourteenth and the people of the walled cities on the fifteenth.Section six: If it falls on Thursday, again, everyone can read on that day except for those in walled cities who read on the fifteenth, on Friday.Section seven: If it falls on Friday, the villagers read on the Thursday the thirteenth, those from the large towns and even those from walled cities read on Friday, because the Megillah is not read on Shabbat. The reason that the Megillah is not read on Shabbat is that it is possible to move it up to Friday, so there is no reason to disturb Shabbat. The Talmud also explains that if they were allowed to read on Friday, they might end up carrying the Megillah through the public domain in order to get to synagogue.Section eight: If it falls on Shabbat, everyone moves the reading up to Thursday. Since it can’t be read on Shabbat and it will therefore have to be moved up in any case, they move it up for the large towns all the way to Thursday so that they end up reading it on the same day as the villagers.Section nine: Finally, if it falls on Sunday, the villagers move the reading up to Thursday, the 11th of Adar, the people from the large towns read on Sunday and those from walled towns read on Tuesday, the 15th.
  The Talmud begins by asking the source for reading the Megillah on the eleventh of the month. This question is very typical for the beginning of a sugya in the Bavli. However, the Talmud reflects upon in its own question, asking why we should even ask such a question. Later the mishnah answers this very question. According to the Talmud the sages of the Great Assembly, a religious/political group that operated during the Second Temple period, instituted a leniency on the people who live in the villages. These people were allowed to read on an earlier day on the month so that they could be free to provide water and food for the people in the larger cities, who would be reading on the fourteenth or fifteenth of the month. We shall deal at greater length with this reasoning later in this chapter.The Talmud answers that the question really is as follows. Then Men of the Great Assembly must have made this enactment for if they had said that it was to be read only on the fourteenth or fifteenth, as the Megillah itself says, then it could not have been changed to the 11th-15th. So if the Men of the Great Assembly, who also according to the Talmud wrote the Book of Esther, made this enactment, they must have hinted at it in their book. Where, we ask, is such a hint?As an aside, these types of reflexive questions, questions that ask why the Talmud asks certain questions, are often found in the beginning of Talmudic tractates. They are usually late additions to the Talmudic record. In my opinion, the earlier historical level of the Talmud probably began with the statement we shall examine now.
  R. Shemen b. Abba uses Esther 9:31 which says “many times” to prove that there are multiple days on which Purim can fall, as the mishnah stated, not just the 14th or the 15th of Adar.
  The Talmud clarifies that if the verse had meant to refer only to the two days specifically stated in the Megillah, it could have just said “at the appointed time.” The plural form indicates that even more than just the 14th and 15th are possible.
  Still, the Talmud asks, the plural form might indicate that there are two dates for reading the Megillah—the 14th and the 15th. Had it stated “at the appointed time” we might have thought that people read either on the 14th or the 15th, but not that people outside of walled cities must read on the 14th and in walled cities on the 15th. So the plural form does not necessarily indicate that it can be read on other dates as well.The answer is that the verse doesn’t just say “their time”; it says “their times.” This indicates both halakhot, including the halakhah that the Megillah can be read earlier than the 14th.
  So why not say that there are many other days on which one could read the Megillah, not just the 11th, 12th and 13th.The answer is that just as there are two days the Megillah specifically cites as the days of Purim, so too there are two additional days. The Talmud will below ask the obvious question—aren’t there three!
  Two extra days would seem to imply the 12th and 13th. So where do we get the 11th? The answer is that the 13th of Adar was the day on which the Jews assembled to fight Haman’s forces. Therefore, no verse is really needed to teach us that we can read on that day. The two extra days are left over for the 11th and 12th.
  If two days must be added, how do we know that those two days are not the 16th and 17th?The answer is that the Megillah states that “these days should not pass.” Here, this is interpreted to mean that we cannot add on after the 15th has passed.
  R. Shmuel b. Nahmani offers a different midrash for why the Megillah can be read on the 11th or 12th. The Megillah could have said “The days on which…” The extra letter kaf indicates that it can be read even on the 11th or 12th.
  See explanation above.
  See explanation above.
  As it frequently does, the Talmud asks why each amora didn’t use the other amora’s midrash. R. Shmuel b. Nahmani simply did not like R. Shemen b. Abba’s midrash. I find it a bit difficult as well, but no one asked me.
  R. Shemen b. Abba does not use the other midrash because he holds that the “kaf” in the phrase “as the days” is not superfluous, for it points to the future. In the future people will observe Purim “as the days” when the Jews rested from fighting their enemies in Shushan.
  IntroductionIn today’s section an amora posits that the opinion in the Mishnah belongs to one sage, but that other sages disagree.
  According to R. Yohanan, the opinion in the Mishnah that the Megillah may be read on the 11th, 12th or 13th belongs to R. Akiva. There are other sages who rule that it may only be recited only on the 14th or 15th. They don’t make a midrash out of the fact that the Megillah reads “at their times,” a midrash that served as the basis for the Mishnah (see yesterday’s section).
  According to R. Judah, the Megillah may be read on the 11th, 12, or 13th, only when most of Israel resides in the land of Israel and the years and months are properly fixed by the observation of the new moon. But today (i.e in his time, when the Temple had been destroyed, and many of Israel were living elsewhere) people see when the Megillah is read and they reckon their calendar based on this day. Since people count on it being read on the proper date, it can be read only then.
  The Talmud now notes that R. Judah cannot follow R. Akiva, for R. Akiva lived after the destruction and nevertheless continued to rule that the Megillah may be read on the 11th, 12th or 13th. Rather, he must rule like the other sages. These sages would then agree that when Israel resides on their own soil and the years are properly fixed, the Megillah can be read on other days. This is a refutation of R. Yohanan who said that these sages do not draw the midrashic distinction between “time,” “their time” and “their times.” These sages allow for the Megillah to be read on other days, at least in earlier times.
  This is simply another version of the material from above. In this version, R. Yohanan basically says that the sages say the same thing that R. Judah said in a baraita. In today’s time, the Megillah can be read only on the 14th or 15th. This remains the practice till this day.
  
  Daf 2b
  
  IntroductionIn yesterday’s section we learned a mishnah in which R. Judah said that in his time, since people reckon the calendar from the day on which the Megillah is read, it is only read in the proper time, on the 14th or 15th. In our sugya, R. Ashi cites a baraita which seems to have a different opinion, also attributed to R. Judah.
  In the first source, a mishnah from later in the Tractate, the one we learned yesterday, R. Judah stated that in his day, everyone reads the Megillah on the day on which it is supposed to be read, the 14th or the 15th. But in a baraita, R. Judah draws a distinction between places in which villagers go to town on Mondays and Thursdays and places where they do not. Where they do go to town on market days, they can read on an earlier day so that they have time to go to the towns and provide food and water for the townspeople. But if they are not going to town, then they should read it on its proper day.This baraita implies that even in these days, there still are places that move up the reading to the earlier day. This contradicts his earlier opinion.R. Ashi, a late Babylonian amora, resolves this difficulty by changing the ascription in the baraita. These weren’t the words of R. Judah. They were those of his son.
  The Talmud is surprised that R. Ashi can just change the ascription in a baraita. What gives him the right! Just because two sources contradict each other does not mean we change the name of the statement’s author? The Talmud answers that R. Ashi had heard that some people ascribe the baraita to R. Judah and some to R. Yose his son. In order to prevent them from contradicting each other, he accepted only the attribution to R. Yose son of R. Judah.
  IntroductionAccording to the Mishnah unwalled cities celebrate Purim and read the Megillah on the fourteenth of Adar and walled cities on the fifteenth. Our sugya asks where this tradition comes from.
  Esther says that the Jews in unwalled towns celebrate on the fourteenth. From here, Rava deduces that those in walled towns celebrate on the fifteenth.
  The Megillah only says that the Jews in unwalled towns celebrate on the fourteenth. Why not conclude, the Talmud asks rhetorically, that Jews in walled towns don’t read the Megillah at all?The answer is that all Israelites must celebrate Purim, and all Israelites were under Achashverosh’s rule, as we can see from the very opening of the Megillah.
  Verse 21 says that the Jews should keep the fourteenth and fifteenth. This could lead us to conclude that those in unwalled cities celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, and those in walled cities celebrate on both the fourteenth and fifteenth, in line with what is written in verse 21.
  The answer is that the word “et” which doesn’t really have any translation into English, separates the fourteenth from the fifteenth. Those in unwalled cities celebrate on the fourteenth and those in walled cities on the fifteenth.
  Still, the Talmud asks, how do we know that those in walled cities don’t have a choice as to when to celebrate.The answer comes from yet another verse—”their times”, which implies that there is more than one time, and that each type of city must celebrate Purim at a distinct time.
  Still, the Talmud presses on, why not celebrate on the thirteenth, a different date but not the fourteenth. The answer is that walled cities pattern themselves after Shushan, the capital, which did not finish defending itself till a day later than the rest of the Jews, on the fourteenth. They celebrated on the fourteenth, therefore so do all walled cities.
  So far we have only learned about celebrating Purim; but how do we know that the Megillah is to be read on that same day.The answer is derived from Esther 9:28. “Keeping” is understood as a reference to the feast to celebrate the day. “Remembering” is the reading of the Megillah, which recalls the events. Since the verse compares the two, we learn that they are observed on the same days.
  IntroductionAccording to the Mishnah the status of a city as “walled” or “unwalled” is based on whether it was walled when Joshua initially conquered Canaan. Our sugya notes that other tannaim hold that the status is determined according to the city’s status at the time of Ahashverosh, when the Purim events actually occurred.
  R. Joshua b. Korha holds that the city’s status should be based on Shushan. Shushan was walled when the Purim events occurred and rested from the fighting on the fifteenth, so too all cities walled at the time of the Purim events read on the fifteenth of Adar.
  The tanna who authored our mishnah understood Esther 9 which refers to walled cities (also translated as villages) in light of Deuteronomy 3 which uses the exact same word. Deuteronomy refers to the conquering of the land right before the Israelites entered Canaan, so too Esther refers to cities walled at the time of Joshua.
  The Talmud here seems to accept that the more reasonable position is that of R. Joshua b. Korha. There is no reason why he should accept the comparison drawn by our tanna between the two appearances of the word.However, it does not make sense why our Tanna would not accept the view of R. Joshua b. Korha.
  The Talmud rephrases the question of why the Tanna of our mishnah held that the status follows the time of Joshua. The question really is what they did in Shushan, according to the view of the Mishnah. Shushan was walled at the time of the events, but not at the time of Joshua. So if they read on the fifteenth, our tanna would seem to say they read on the wrong date.The answer is that Shushan is an exception to the rule because the miracle actually occurred there. They read on the fifteenth, but the status of all other cities follows their whether they were walled or unwalled at the time of Joshua.
  The Tanna of our Mishnah makes two distinctions: 1) Walled cites and unwalled cities at the time of Joshua; 2) Shushan (unwalled at time of Joshua) and all other cities unwalled at time of Joshua. This accords with a midrash on Esther 9:28.
  But R. Joshua b. Korha does not make two distinctions, just one, between cities walled at time of the events and those not walled. So what does he do with the verse?Rather than answer the question, R. Joshua b. Korha throws it back at the author of the Mishnah. The Mishnah derived the distinction between walled and unwalled cities at the time of Joshua from the use of the word “perazi” in Esther and Deuteronomy. So this tanna should not even need the distinction between “city and city” made in Esther 9. Therefore, this midrash does not accord with him either.
  The real meaning of that verse is not as we thought above. Rather, it is used by R. Joshua b. Levi to teach that the environs of a city count as part of that city. If the city was walled at the time of Joshua, then the area around it also reads on the 15th.
  Any area within a mil of a walled city reads on the fifteenth, as is the distance from Hamtan to Tiberias. A mil is about 1 km.
  IntroductionThis week’s daf begins with another statement attributed to R. Jeremiah, or you may also say R. Hiyya b. Abba, the same authors of the last statement on the previous daf. Topically, this has nothing to do with the reading of the Megilla
  According to R. Jeremiah the alternative form of writing a mem, nun, zadi, peh and kuf was initiated by the “Watchmen” which Rashi interprets as prophets. Today we use these alternate forms for the appearance of the letter when it is at the end of the word the “sofiot.” But R. Jeremiah seems to be suggesting that these forms should always be used.The Talmud raises two difficulties on this. First of all, how can a prophet introduce something so radically new as how a letter is supposed to be written? After all, there are many laws that are connected to how a letter is written, most importantly the writing of Torah scrolls, mezuzot and tefillin. So how could the Prophets change this.Second, R. Hisda said that the mem and samekh in the Tablets given to Moses were standing miraculously—they are circles and have nowhere to be attached to the sides! The assumption is that they were carved all the way through the stone, a notion seen elsewhere as well. This refers obviously to the end form of the letter mem, not the form we use elsewhere in words. If the Tablets were given with this form, then this form of the letter must have existed already at the time of the revelation on Sinai.
  
  Daf 3a
  
  That is so; they were in use, but people did not know which form came in the middle of a word and which one at the end, and the Watchmen came and ordained that the open forms should be in the middle of a word and the closed forms at the end.The Talmud resolves the difficulty by stating that all forms of the letters were original. The Watchmen resolved that the open forms should be used in the beginning and middle of words and that the closed forms should be used at the ends of words. This is how they are used to this day.
  However, the problem still remains. How could the prophets change anything after the giving of the Torah?The answer (found elsewhere in the Talmud as well) expresses a certain ideology concerning change. While it might seem that the prophets were innovating, in actuality what they were doing was restoring the initial revelation. The initial revelation was forgotten, and then the prophets came back and restored it.
  IntroductionToday’s section contains yet another unrelated statement by R. Jeremiah and some say R. Hiyya b. Abba. The topic today is the translation of the Torah into Aramaic. A very interesting sugya.
  The Targum Onkelos is the most well-known Aramaic translation of the Torah and in Yemenite synagogues it is to this day read in the synagogue along with the Hebrew. It is referred to with great frequency by commentators, especially Rashi. However, we should note that the Targum Onkelos that we have today is probably not identical to the Targum they used in the Talmudic period. Rather, our Targum is according to most scholars a later creation. In any case it is interesting that according to tradition Onkelos (not a Jewish name, perhaps from Greek) the convert created this work, under the guidance of two very famous rabbis, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua.
  The translation of the Prophets was done by Jonathan ben Uzziel under the guidance of the prophets who lived during the rebuilding of the Second Temple. There is a fascinating story appended here that the earth quaked at the translation of the Prophets. God, speaking through a Heavenly Voice, was greatly disturbed that the meanings of these books were revealed to the nations of the world. This is potentially a reference to Christianity and maybe other breakaway sects that read cryptic verses in the prophets as foreseeing the coming of the Messiah or in the case of Christianity, Jesus. The verses in books such as Ezekiel and Isaiah were the subject of great mystical speculation and therefore there is a trend in rabbinic literature to want to keep these verses out of the hands of competing groups. Nevertheless, we should note that Jonathan ben Uzziel did translate the Prophets. In the end, at least when it came to this case, his wish to share the Jewish treasures with the world.God, however, says no when it comes to translating the Writings. The Book of Daniel is part of the Writings and in it there are apocryphal visions of the end of the days, the coming of the Messiah. [I should note that many of these visions are already in Aramaic, albeit a different dialect].Traditional Tanakhim today contain Targum Yonatan for all of the Tanakh. However, only the Targum Yonatan on Prophets is actually Targum Yonatan. The other is ascribed to him.
  The Talmud now asks whether Onkelos, living in the first century C.E. actually composed the Targum. According to an interpretation of a verse from Nehemiah, the Jews who returned from the first exile in Babylonian already had a Targum. So how could Onkelos have composed it?The answer is the same we saw on the previous section—the Targum was originally composed by the time of the return from the Babylonian exile, it was forgotten, and then Onkelos went back and composed it again. As we can see, the Bavli likes to use this answer when it has conflicting traditions as to how founded a certain institution.The interpretation of this verse also refers to the “stops”—the separation into verses, and the Masoretic notes. These are not just for how we sing the verses in the public reading of the Torah; they are essential for understanding how to read and understand the verses.
  The Talmud asks the obvious question—why was God okay with translating the Torah but not okay with translating the Prophets? The answer is that the meaning of the Torah and its laws is usually quite apparent. People can understand it without a Targum. However, as anyone who has ever read anything from the Prophets knows, many of the verses are difficult to understand. It was the meaning of these verses that God did not want revealed to the rest of the world.As an example of a cryptic verse the Talmud chooses Zechariah 12:11, which R. Joseph said could not be understood without the Targum. The verse refers to the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the plain of Megiddon but without some interpretation we can’t know what that refers to. The Targum explains it as referring to two people who were killed in two separate events: Ahab son of Omri, whose death is told in I Kings 22 and Josiah son of Amnon whose death is told in II Kings 23. Note that the Targum splits the verse from Zechariah into two events—one involving Hadadrimmon and the other involving the plain of Megiddo.
  IntroductionThe end of yesterday’s section alluded to the prohibition of translating the Writings because there are verses in the book of Daniel that reveal the end of time. Today’s section opens with a verse from Daniel. Furthermore, today’s section contains another statement by R. Jeremiah and some say R. Hiyya b. Abba, the same amoraim whose statements were at the focus of the previous sections.
  In this verse, Daniel sees a vision (seems to be a vision of God, but I do recommend reading the verses) but the other men with him do not see the vision. R. Jeremiah identifies these other men as Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, the prophets that operated at the end of the Babylonian exile and as the Jews returned to the land of Israel. They were superior to Daniel because they were prophets. But Daniel is not really a prophet, sent by God to deliver messages to Israel, as were the classic prophets. However, on this occasion, Daniel was superior for he saw the vision and they did not.
  If the prophets didn’t see why were they afraid? The Talmud claims that while the prophets themselves did not see the vision, their “star (mazal)” did see. Rashi explains that each person has a “mazal” in the heavens who (I guess) represents him above. It seems that whatever the “mazal” experiences, the person also experiences.
  Ravina uses the previous explanation of the verse in Daniel to conclude that if a sudden fright comes across a person it must be because his “star” saw something up above. The remedy for this fright is recite the Shema. Perhaps reciting a text so familiar will calm the person’s nerves. Alternatively, the holy text of the Shema will work as some sort of incantation, protecting him from the frightening sight witnessed by the “star.” It is forbidden to recite the Shema in a dirty place, so if he experiences such a frightful experience near a dirty place he should move away four cubits. Finally, if he’s really stuck in a foul place he should let the demon frightening his star know that there are fatter goats to pick on at the butcher’s.While we did not encounter many such “demon”-oriented text while learning Sukkah, there are many such texts in the Babylonian Talmud. People in the ancient world, including many rabbis, believed in the existence of demons, and developed all sorts of means to protect themselves from them. While today most of us find such passages somewhat “distasteful” “pagan” or “primitive” they are a part of our Jewish/Talmud (and human) heritage.
  IntroductionAt the end of last week’s daf we learned that the words “city and city, town and town” from Esther 9:28 are used in a derashah which teaches that areas close to a walled city read the Megillah on the fifteenth, as does the city itself. The verse continues with “family and family”—our Talmud asks what added meaning can we derive from these words?
  The Talmud uses the word “family and family” to teach that even if priests, Levites or Israelites were in the middle of worshipping at the Temple and the time to hear the Megillah came, they should stop their worship service and go hear the Megillah. Clearly this is a value statement and less of an actual practical issue. One certainly would have thought that hearing the Megillah, a mitzvah that is only of “derabanan,” rabbinic status, would not supersede Temple worship, one of the main mitzvoth in the Torah. The Talmud, as it is wont to do, comes to teach the opposite. Hearing the Megillah it would seem supersedes all mitzvoth.
  I think we could have anticipated this line coming next. In the rabbinic world, the study of Torah is one of the religious acts that replaces the Temple worship. So if the priests, Levites and Israelites stopped Temple service to hear the Megillah, all the more so should rabbis interrupt their studying in the Bet Midrash to come and hear the Megillah.
  The Talmud will now use the above argument to discuss whether the Temple service is really greater than the study of Torah. The discussion begins with a verse from Joshua in which a mysterious man who turns out to be an angel of God approaches Joshua. But before we discuss the larger issue, the Talmud digresses to ask some questions about the verses themselves and Joshua’s behavior.The issue of demonology returns. One shouldn’t greet an unknown person at night, lest he be greeting a demon, a dangerous act (indeed). The man told him that he was a messenger from God, but why should Joshua have believed him. The answer is that demons don’t take God’s name in vain. They may be demons, but they have their red lines as well!
  Joshua had been laying siege the previous evening. According to the midrashic reading of the angel’s words, Joshua had not offered the evening sacrifice, reasoning that he was engaged in war. Rashi explains that although one is allowed to stop Temple worship during war, evening is not a time for battle. Therefore, Joshua should have offered the sacrifice. Furthermore, now that it is night he should be studying Torah, for the night is again not a time for battle. Joshua wants to know which of these two accusations really caused the angel to come. He answers: I have come now. Meaning that he came at night because Joshua was not studying Torah—the worse of the two omissions. Thus it seems that the study of Torah is greater than Temple worship.The Talmud now follows with two more midrashim that are similar. In Joshua 8:9 Joshua spends the night in the “valley.” This occurs when he is setting siege to the city of Ai. But this time Joshua has learned his lesson. He spends the night “in the valley” which R. Yohanan interprets as “the depths of halakhah.” He does not desist from the study of Torah.Finally, R. Shmuel b. Unia restates the earlier midrash—the angel comes “now” when Joshua desists from Torah study, for Torah study is even greater than the offering of the daily sacrifices.
  
  
  Daf 3b
  
  The answer is that the case of Rabbi and his bet midrash referred to the study of an individual. Temple service takes precedence over the study of an individual. But in the case of Joshua and the men with him, Torah study of the many takes precedence over Temple service.
  The Talmud now raises a difficulty on the notion that the study of an individual is not so important. The source brought here has to do with mourning practices on a holiday. The festival is treated most seriously—on a festival women may make a dirge but not beat their chests or wail. Rosh Hodesh, Hanukkah and Purim are lesser holidays than a festival so they may beat their chests, but they still do not wail.Rabbah b. Huna said that if the person being mourned is a Torah scholar, then all of these restrictions are suspended. That is to say, he is fully mourned, even on a festival.This implies that we do not take the Torah study of an individual lightly, a difficulty on the conclusion stated above.The Talmud resolves this by saying that this is not an issue of study but honor. The honor accorded to an individual scholar is indeed of grave significance. But when it comes to the study itself, the individual is still less significant than the many, as we saw above.
  IntroductionIn today’s section Rava makes a series of statements concerning which mitzvah takes precedence over which other which other mitzvah when two mitzvoth come into conflict.
  Here Rava makes reference to what we learned yesterday—hearing the Megillah takes precedence over both Temple service and the study of Torah.
  A “met mitzvah” is a body that is found and there is no one to bring it to a proper burial. Taking care of a “met mitzvah” is an extremely important mitzvah in Judaism, and it takes precedence even over the study of Torah. A Torah scholar who is walking on his way, learning Torah and encounters a met mitzvah, must immediately stop learning Torah to bring the body to burial.The same is true for helping a bride enter a canopy, meaning attending a wedding. Helping the bride and groom rejoice at their wedding also takes precedence over the study of Torah.
  The issue here is whether one may defile oneself ritually by taking care of a met mitzvah even if this will prevent him from offering a pesah sacrifice. The answer is derived from a midrash on the word “or for his sister” stated in the context of the prohibitions of a nazirite. A nazirite may not defile himself no matter who dies, even if it is a close relative. So why then does the verse need to specifically mention his sister? The midrash uses this superfluity to teach that one does not defile himself to take care of his dead sister even if he is on the way to offer the pesah sacrifice or circumcise his son, both mitzvoth that must be taken care of immediately. I think the assumption is that someone else can take care of burying his sister. However, if a met mitzvah lies before him, he does defile himself, even if this means missing the opportunity to offer the pesah or to circumcise his son at the proper time.
  When it comes to the conflict between reading the Megillah and burying a met mitzvah, the latter takes precedence. Respect for human beings overrides even negative commandments, and even the reading of the Megillah, which itself takes precedence over the study of Torah and Temple service.
  IntroductionThis section returns to discuss the law we saw in last week’s daf, that any area close to the city that reads on the fifteenth also reads on the fifteenth.
  The text explains that if the area next to the city is adjoined to it, meaning it is close by, but is not seen with it, then it still is reckoned with the city. This could occur with a city on the top of the hill. The area could be visible with the city, even though it is not right next to it. But how do you have an area that is adjoining but not visible. The answer is that the city is in the valley. The area near the city might not be able to be seen with it.
  If a city was first settled, meaning people lived there, and then only later it was surrounded by a wall, it is reckoned as if it was a village. This means it would read on the fourteenth.The Talmud backs this up with a midrash from a totally unrelated realm of halakhah. The verse refers to selling a house in a walled city. But the Talmud reads this as if first the city was walled and then it was settled. If the city was first settled and then walled, it is not treated as a walled city but rather as a village.
  A city in which there are not men of leisure, meaning ten men who do not have jobs to attend to, then it is reckoned as a village. It seems that people who don’t work are a sign of a certain socio-economic level. There are ten men rich enough so that they don’t need to work.The same law was also taught in a baraita, causing the Talmud to ask why R. Joshua b. Levi even needed to state this. The answer is that he had to emphasize that ten men of leisure must actually be permanently located in that city. Many people of leisure come into the city, for that is where the marketplace is located. But these men of leisure do not count towards the required ten for the city to read the Megillah on the fifteenth.
  If a city (with a wall) was laid waste and then resettled it still counts as a city. The problem with this rule is that if we imagine that “laid waste” refers to the walls being destroyed, then it implies that if the walls are not standing, it is not treated as a city. But this contradicts a baraita that says that as long as the city had a wall (at the time of Joshua) it continues to be treated as a walled city.Therefore, they reinterpret “laid waste” to refer to the last halakhah stated by R. Joshua b. Levi. If the city had ten men of leisure, but then these men of leisure either moved or gained employment, the city retains its status as a city.
  
  Daf 4a
  
  IntroductionToday’s section continues with other statements made by R. Joshua b. Levi concerning the laws of the Megillah.
  Joshua b. Levi cites certain cities that were walled during the time of Joshua and therefore read on the fifteenth.The problem is that I Chronicles states that there were men from the tribe of Benjamin who built these cities, led by Elpaal, who lived long after the land was conquered by Joshua. This would mean that they were not walled at the time of Joshua and that they should therefore read on the 14th.
  The response from R. Joshua b. Levi is that there is yet another verse that seems to claim that Asa built them, not Elpaal or Joshua. King Asa was the third king of Judah. There is some confusion as to where these cities are, for the first tradition implies that they were in the tribe of Benjamin, whereas King Asa built cities in Judah. Rashi answers that by Asa’s time Judah was ruling in Benjamin.In any case, who built these cities and were they walled at the time of Joshua?Elazar answers that they were walled at the time of Joshua. They were then laid waste at the time of the brutal murder of the concubine in Gibea, an incident which set off a civil war, and in which the cities of the tribe of Benjamin were destroyed (see Judges 20). They were rebuilt later by Elpaal and his comrades, but then again fell. Finally, the walls and city were rebuilt at the time of Asa.The fact that these cities were already built before King Asa built them is alluded to in the verse itself, for Asa seems to refer to cities that already exist.
  IntroductionThis section contains more statements by R. Joshua b. Levi.
  In traditional Jewish law, women are usually exempt from positive time-bound commandments. However, R. Joshua b. Levi says that they are obligated to read the Megillah because they “were part of the same miracle.” There are two potential meanings to this statement. 1) It refers to Esther, a woman, who was instrumental in saving the Jews. “They were part of the miracle” means that through a woman the miracle took place. 2) Women were endangered just as much as men by Haman’s murderous plot. “They were part of the miracle” means that they were miraculously saved, as were the men.Joshua b. Levi says the same thing—that women are obligated–concerning two other commandments—the four cups of wine on Pesah and the lighting of Hannukah candles. All are mitzvoth in which women are obligated.
  Joshua b. Levi says that when Purim falls on Shabbat they should ask questions and offer derashot about Purim on that very day. This probably means that in the synagogue the rabbi or whoever is speaking should talk about Purim.The Talmud asks why he needs to point this out about Purim. After all, the same is true for all festivals. There is a custom that questions should be asked and derashot offered on the actual day of all of the Festivals.The answer seems to me obvious. When Purim falls on Shabbat we don’t read the Megillah on Shabbat itself. We will learn this later—Rabbah said we don’t read the Megillah on Shabbat lest one carry it in the public domain. Therefore we might have thought that since we’re not reading the Megillah, we also do not talk about the day, ask questions or offer derashot. In other words, it’s not Purim! Therefore, R. Joshua b. Levi states that we do talk about Purim. We just don’t read the Megillah.
  Joshua b. Levi rules that one must read the Megillah in the evening and then repeat it again the next morning. This is supported by a verse which specifically refers to crying out to God both during the day and at night.The rabbis learning from him thought that what this meant was that at night they should read the Megillah and the next morning they should study the mishnayot of Tractate Megillah (actually sounds like a good plan to me). I should clarify why they thought this. The word that R. Joshua b. Levi uses to mean “repeat” is “ולשנותה” which can also mean to teach, as in the word Mishnah. Indeed, Mishnah is taught by repeating it over and over again. That is why these students thought that R. Joshua b. Levi was referring to repeating Mishnah the next day.
  Jeremiah clarifies the meaning of the word “ולשנותה” here. It does not mean to teach Mishnah. It means to repeat the same thing that was recited earlier. This is again restated and supported by another verse which implies that we praise God not only at night, but also during the day.
  IntroductionToday’s section returns to discussing the Mishnah, which had stated that the people who live in the villages can read on the market day, earlier than the fourteenth.
  The rabbis were lenient allowing the people of the villages to move up the reading to coincide with the Day of Gathering so that they could come into the city and provide their brethren with food.The Talmud will discuss who the rabbis were lenient on.
  
  Daf 4b
  
  However, R. Hanina’s statement is actually difficult to understand. If we wanted the villagers to be free to provide food for the city folk on the day of gathering, we should allow them to read before the day on which everyone else gathers. If Purim falls on Monday, they should read the previous Thursday. This way they can come into town and bring food to their brothers on Monday.The problem is that this would mean they read on the tenth and the rabbis did not allow the reading of the Megillah on the tenth.
  If we wanted the villagers to be free to provide food, then if Purim falls on Thursday, they should move it up to Monday for the villagers. This way they could bring food in to the cities on Thursday. Monday would be the 11th of Adar which is a potential day on which the Megillah can be read.The answer is that we don’t move readings that should be on one day of gathering (Thursday) to another day of gathering. Note that we could have given this answer in the earlier part of the sugya as well.
  Judah in the Mishnah says that in a place where the villagers don’t regularly come into the towns on Mondays and Thursdays, then everyone reads at the proper time. This causes a problem to the point of view that held that allowing the villagers to read on the day of gathering was a benefit to the townsfolk. If people dont gather on those days, why should the townsfolk lose the benefit? The villagers should still be told to read on the day of gathering specifically to encourage them to come in and bring food.Therefore we emend slightly the original statement of R. Hanina. The sages were lenient on the villagers allowing them to read on the day of the gathering. If they do not come into the town, they themselves lose the leniency of reading earlier. But this leniency was not for the benefit townsfolk.
  IntroductionToday’s section continues to deal with the Mishnah.
  In the beginning of the Mishnah it referred to the days by the date of the month—11th, 12th, 13th, 14th or 15th. Here later in the Mishnah it refers to them by day of the week, Monday, etc. Why, the Talmud asks, is there this change?The reason is that the numbers would be harder to follow and would go backwards—if Purim falls on Tuesday, the villagers read on the thirteenth, if it falls on Wednesday, they read on the twelfth. If it falls on Friday, they read on the thirteenth. If it falls on Shabbat, they read on the thirteenth. If it falls on Sunday, they read on the 11th. The Mishnah was taught such that it would be easier to remember and that is in ascending not descending order.
  The Mishnah says that if Purim falls on Friday, the villages read on Thursday and the towns and walled cities read on Friday. The Talmud notes that this follows Rabbi. According to the first opinion in this baraita, if Purim falls on Friday the towns and villagers read on Thursday and walled cities read on Friday (the 14th). Rabbi says that the towns should read on the proper day, on Friday, as do the people in the walled city (because they can’t read on Shabbat). This accords with the Mishnah.
  The first opinion holds that towns move up to reading on the 13th so that the general procedure will be followed. Just as the towns usually read a day before the walled cities, so too this year they will read a day before the walled cities. This way we can preserve the implications of the verse “in every year.” “In every year” the towns read before the walled cities.
  We could read “in every year” to mean that just as other years the towns do not have to move their day of reading, so too when Purim falls on Friday, they should not have to move their day of reading.The problem with this is that it is not possible. It is not possible for the towns not to move their day of reading and to still read before the walled cities. Therefore, according to the first opinion, they do shift their reading to Thursday.
  This section is basically the same as above, just with reverse reasoning.In the end if Purim falls on Friday, something has to change. According to the first opinion, the most important thing is that the towns read on the day before the walled city. Therefore, the towns move up to Thursday and the walled cities read on Friday. According to Rabbi, it is more important that towns should not have to move their readings. Therefore, they read with the walled cities on Friday.
  IntroductionIn today’s section we continue to discuss which tannaim agree with the Mishnah which ruled that if Purim falls on Friday, towns and walled cities read on Friday.
  According to the first opinion, when Purim falls on Friday, the walled cities move their reading up from Shabbat (when the Megillah is never read) all the way to Thursday, the same day that the villagers read.Yose objects that walled cities should never read before the towns. Therefore, they both read on Friday.
  The first opinion holds that just as every year towns and walled cities have different days for reading, so too when Purim falls on Friday they should not read on the same day. To avoid reading on the same day, the walled cities move their reading to Thursday.
  This is the same difficulty we read in yesterday’s section. If the goal is to maintain the same pattern as other years, why not say that just as in other years walled cities do not read before towns, so too here they do not read before towns?The answer is the same as before. There is no way for this year to be exactly the same as other years. Something has to budge.
  This section is just the mirror image of above.
  The Talmud rejects the comparison. When Purim falls on Shabbat, the reading must be shifted. Once it is shifted, Rabbi says they shift it all the way to Thursday. But if the proper time is actually Friday, then Rabbi would say that we leave it on Friday.
  According to R. Helbo, if Purim falls on Shabbat, all places read on Thursday, the day of gathering. However, this is an impossible reading of his statement, since walled cities can read on Sunday the 15th, the same day they always read.Therefore, the Talmud emends the statement to say that anyone who shifts their reading, shifts it to Thursday. This means that towns and villages both read on Thursday. This accords with Rabbi’s statement above.
  IntroductionToday’s section deals with what happens when Purim falls on Shabbat.
  According to Rabbah we do not read the Megillah on Shabbat lest one carry the scroll in the public domain which is prohibited on Shabbat. It is for this same reason that we do not perform the mitzvah of lulav on Shabbat, nor do we blow the shofar.I should also note that it does seem like the sages wanted to avoid, to a certain extent, Shabbat turning into another holiday. If Purim was celebrated on Shabbat, it would really be Purim, and not feel like Shabbat. And since they held that the Megillah could be read on another day, there really was not a good reason not to move the reading of the Megillah.
  Joseph says that the reason we don’t read Megillah on Shabbat is that when the poor hear the Megillah being read they get excited, anticipating receiving the gifts for the poor (matanot le’evyonim). If the Megillah were read on Shabbat, gifts for the poor could not be given out that day and they would be disappointed.
  A baraita teaches a similar idea. When Purim falls on Shabbat they read the Megillah and collect and distribute gifts for the poor on the day that the Megillah is actually read. But the Purim feast (seudah) is done on Shabbat, the proper time. There is no reason why a Purim seudah should not occur on Shabbat.
  
  Daf 5a
  
  IntroductionToday’s section we read about whether a minyan is required for the reading of the Megillah.
  According to Rav when the Megillah is read in the proper time, on the fourteenth or fifteenth, it is an individual obligation and can be read even by an individual. We don’t require a minyan to publicize the miracle. But if it is read on one of the earlier days, then it cannot be read without a minyan.Asi says that a minyan should always be sought after. Rashi notes that it is never prohibited for an individual to read the Megillah. R. Asi just holds that it one should seek a minyan.The Talmud notes that such a case actually occurred and Rav sought a minyan, in accordance with R. Asi’s opinion.
  The Talmud now cites another statement by Rav which they (at first) interpret as contradicting the previous statement. Rav said that if Purim falls on Shabbat, “Friday is the proper time.” This does not make sense because if Purim falls on Shabbat, Shabbat is the proper time.Therefore, the Talmud corrects the statement to read that the “alternative” time is like the proper time—just as proper time can be read by an individual, so too the alternative time can be read by an individual. This contradicts what Rav said above.
  The Talmud rejects that reading of Rav’s second statement. Rav still maintains that reading the Megillah on an alternative day requires a minyan. When he said that “Friday is the proper time” he was ruling against the opinion of Rabbi that we saw in last week’s daf. When Purim falls on Shabbat Rav says that the Megillah is read on Friday, not moved up to Thursday as Rabbi held.
  IntroductionToday’s section is a mishnah. My commentary is taken from Mishnah Yomit.This mishnah continues to deal with the topic of the various days upon which the Megillah might be read.
  Section one: A large town is one that is considered wealthy enough to support ten men who do not work but rather sit in the synagogue or study house and study all day. Put another way, a large town is one that can support a small leisurely class. In Greece and Rome this meant philosophers and in Israel this meant rabbis. Anything smaller is considered a village and moves the reading of the Megillah up to the day of the gathering, Monday or Thursday.Section two: There are other holidays and semi-holidays during the year that are not observed on the day upon which they fall if they fall on Shabbat. The reading of the Megillah is the only holiday that is moved up—all the rest are postponed. The Talmud provides a midrashic explanation for this. Esther 9:27 states, “the Jews accepted upon themselves and their descendants and all those who might join them, that these days should not pass without observing them as it is written and in their time, year after year.” My translation is intentionally slightly awkward so that we can note the midrash. The words “should not pass” are understood by the rabbis to mean that one cannot observe Purim after the fourteenth/fifteenth of Adar has already passed.Section three: I will briefly explain these holidays here. The bringing of the wood for the priests occurred nine times a year.   Certain families would bring wood to the Temple to be used on the altar. This was discussed in Taanit 4:5. It would not be done on Shabbat. The hagigah is a sacrifice brought on Yom Tov, the first day of the festival. If Yom Tov falls on Shabbat it is postponed until the next day. The “assembling of the people” or “Hakhel” in Hebrew occurs during the sabbatical year on Sukkot, when they would gather all the people together to read the Torah. This would not be done on Shabbat.Section four: On both the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar, one is not allowed to fast or to mourn, because these are the two days of Purim. However, even though the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth are also days on which one might read the Megillah, it is still permitted to mourn or fast on those days. The mishnah says that it is also permitted to give gifts to the poor on those days. Giving gifts to the poor is one of the central obligations of Purim. Some commentators explain the mishnah to mean that one who gives gifts to the poor on one of these days has fulfilled his obligation. However, others say that the mishnah means that one is exempt from giving gifts to the poor on these days.Section five: Rabbi Judah points out that the system of moving the reading up to the 11th-13th was done only when it made realistic sense—at a time when Mondays and Thursdays were the days of gathering. It seems quite certain that by Rabbi Judah’s time this system of gathering on Monday and Thursday was already defunct and hence everyone would read at the proper time.
  The Talmud explains that “ten men of leisure” refers to ten men who are in the synagogue. Rashi explains that these are ten men that are paid to always be in the synagogue to ensure that there is a minyan. I am not sure if this reflects reality in Talmudic times or in Rashi’s time. My hunch is neither.
  I explained this in my commentary to the Mishnah yesterday. Esther 9:27 states, “the Jews accepted upon themselves and their descendants and all those who might join them, that these days should not pass without observing them as it is written and in their time, year after year.” The words “should not pass” are understood by R. Abba in the name of Shmuel to mean that one cannot observe Purim after the fourteenth/fifteenth of Adar has already passed.
  The Talmud now cites another statement by the same amoraim. A “year” consists of twelve months and not 365 days. One ramification of this might be that if a person says, “I will not drink wine for a year” he may not drink until the same date on the next calendar year. He need not wait a full 365 days. This is derived from Exodus 12:2 which is read as implying that a year is reckoned by its months, not days.
  IntroductionToday’s section deals with the celebrations and events the Mishnah said are pushed back and not forward.
  The Talmud explains that we do not move Tisha B’av up (if it falls on Shabbat) because we do not want to hasten the approach of our commemoration of the time when Jews were punished with the destruction of the Temple.The festival sacrifice and special assembly of people on Sukkot also are postponed if they fall on Shabbat, because one cannot fulfill these mitzvoth before their time has even arrived.
  A short baraita teaches that the festival sacrifice is postponed. This is what we learned above. However, the baraita also says that “the period of the festival sacrifice is postponed.” This is less clear and there are three amoraic interpretations which follow.Oshaya interprets the line to refer to the burnt offering of appearance. This is the whole burnt offering that one brings to the Temple when one comes on a festival. It is in addition to the hagigah, the festival sacrifice. The festival sacrifice itself is offered on the Festival day (Yom Tov) but not on Shabbat. In contrast, the burnt offering of appearance is offered only during Hol Hamoed. It cannot be offered on Yom Tov. The difference is that the festival sacrifice can be eaten. Since one can prepare food on Yom Tov, one can also prepare edible sacrifices. The whole burnt offering cannot be eaten. Therefore, it cannot be offered even on Yom Tov.
  The above halakhah follows the opinion of Bet Shammai. “Offerings of wellbeing” refers to the hagigah, the festival sacrifice. According to Bet Shammai, this sacrifice may be offered on Yom Tov, but we do not perform the laying on of the hands on Yom Tov, because leaning on an animal is considered to be using the animal which is prohibited. Bet Shammai does not allow burnt offerings to be sacrificed at all, for the reasons we learned above.But Bet Hillel allows burnt offerings and offerings of wellbeing, as well as laying on of the hands to be performed on Yom Tov (but not on Shabbat). For more information see Mishnah Betzah 2:4 and Hagigah 2:3 (both available through Mishnah Yomit).
  Rava offers a different interpretation for the baraita. He connects it to Mishnah Hagigah 1:6 which teaches that if one does not bring the festival sacrifice on the first day, he may bring it for the rest of the festival. But if the festival passes and he has not yet brought it, he cannot bring it after the festival has been completed.
  Ashi says that the baraita from above refers to Hagigah 2:4. In that mishnah we learn that if Shavuot falls on Shabbat, Bet Hillel agrees that the festival sacrifice and the burnt offering of appearance can be brought the next day, even though Shavuot is only one day. Therefore, this baraita teaches that the festival sacrifice may be postponed even on Shavuot which is only one day.
  
  Daf 5b
  
  IntroductionMost of this (rather long) section deals with whether work is prohibited on Purim.
  Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] does three things here that later sages remember. First, he plants a sapling on Purim, even though planting is considered work. Second, he bathes on the Seventeenth of Tammuz which is a fast day. Third, he seems to try to abolish the fast of Tisha B’av altogether.This last act seems to surprise R. Abba b. Zavda, who then offers a different version of what happened. The event occurred in a year on which Tisha B’av fell on Shabbat. The other sages wanted to observe it on Sunday (as we now do). But Rabbi wanted to get rid of it that year altogether. For better or for worse (depending on how much you like fasting in the middle of the summer) Rabbi did not win this one.Elazar accepted R. Abba b. Zavda’s correction and remarked that two are better than one. Two rabbis are better at clarifying the tradition than one alone, who is more likely to err.
  The Talmud now has a problem with the fact that Rabbi planted a sapling on Purim. R. Joseph offers a midrash based on the verse in the Megillah that says Purim is to be a day of “rejoicing, feasting and a good day.” From this verse he learns that one may not eulogize, fast or perform work on Purim. So how could Rabbi have planted a sapling?The answer is that Rabbi lived in a place that celebrated Purim on the 14th. He planted the sapling on the 15th.
  The problem is that Rabbi lived (at least most of his life) in Tiberias, which should celebrate Purim on the fifteenth, because it was (supposedly) walled during the times of Joshua.The Talmud revises the previous statement—Rabbi planted on the fourteenth, and kept Purim the next day.
  The problem is that Tiberias seems to have been of unknown status. Hezekiah, an amora, didn’t know whether Tiberias was walled at the time of Joshua. Therefore, he read the Megillah on both days.The answer is that while Hezekiah wasn’t certain, Rabbi was. Somehow he knew that Tiberias was walled at the time of Joshua.
  The problem with planting on the fourteenth of Adar is that there is a tradition in Megillat Ta’anit (the Scroll of Fasting—lists of days on which one is not to fast or mourn) that says there is no mourning on either the fourteenth or fifteenth. Rava points out that this is obvious—these dates are written in the Book of Esther itself. He therefore says that they are included in Megillat Ta’anit to teach that anything prohibited on one is also prohibited on the other. This would mean that if Rabbi couldn’t work on the fifteenth, he also couldn’t work on the fourteenth.The Talmud resolves the difficulty by positing that Rava’s statement applies only to mourning and fasting—both are prohibited on the fourteenth and fifteenth. But the prohibition of work is for only one day.
  The Talmud now cites a tradition of Rav, the amora, who cursed a man for planting flax on Purim. But this happened on the day that the man was supposed to be celebrating Purim. Rabbi, in contrast, planted the sapling the day before Purim.
  Rabbah the son of Rava says that work may even be performed on Purim itself. He derives this from a discrepancy between Esther 8:17 and 9:22. The earlier verse refers to Purim as a “good day (Yom Tov)” implying that work is prohibited. However, the latter verse does not mention “Yom Tov.” Thus the Jews accepted that they are not allowed to mourn or fast on Purim, but the work prohibition they did not accept.
  Rav cursed the man for planting because in Rav’s place the custom was not to work on Purim. If there is something that is actually permitted, but most people treat it as forbidden, one should not perform that act. In contrast, in Rabbi’s place they had no such custom to refrain from work on Purim. Therefore, for him it was permitted.
  The Talmud offers another interpretation of Rabbi’s planting. Generally work was not performed in Rabbi’s place on Purim, even if it was not strictly prohibited. Rabbi was not planting a regular sapling—he was planting a “festive sapling.”To understand what this sapling is the Talmud cites a mishnah from Ta’anit which says that if the Jews have fasted and rain still did not come, they lessen most of their activities. A baraita explains that they do not build “festive building” or plant “festive planting.” The former refers to building a house for one’s son on the occasion of the son’s wedding. The latter refers to planting an abarnaki. Rashi explains that this is a tree trained over a lattice structure whose sole intent is to provide shade. It is not meant for fruit or wood, just the luxury of shade. Such a tree may not be planted if it has not rained for a long time, because people should be mourning, and probably not planting luxury trees. But Rabbi is allowed to plant such a tree on Purim, because it’s less of an act of work and more an act of rejoicing.
  IntroductionToday’s section returns to the issue of when the Megillah is read in Tiberias, on the fourteenth or fifteenth. In other words, was Tiberias walled at the time of Joshua?
  How could Hezekiah have been doubtful as to whether Tiberias was a walled city at the time of Joshua? There is a tradition that the city of Rakat mentioned in Joshua 19 is Tiberias. It was certainly walled at the time of Joshua.The answer is that it was walled on only three sides. The fourth side was the Sea of Galilee.
  But there should be no doubt that Tiberias does not count as a walled city for there is a midrash that specifically says that Tiberias’s sea does not count as its wall.The topic of this midrash is redeeming houses which were sold in a walled city. I suggest you look up Leviticus 25 for more information concerning the topic.
  The Talmud now explains that when it comes to redeeming a house in a walled city, an actual wall is required for it to be considered a wall city. Tiberias is not a walled city because it is not surrounded on all four sides by walls. But Megillat Esther does not use the word “walled city.” Instead it uses the term “perazi” which I have translated as “villages” but is less explicit. Hezekiah wasn’t sure whether the difference between villages and walled towns is that walled towns are totally enclosed. If so, Tiberias is exposed on one side, because there is no wall. Alternatively, the difference is protection. Tiberias is protected, because the one open side is blocked by the sea.This is why Hezekiah was in doubt about Tiberias. He knew it was walled on three sides from the time of Joshua. He just didn’t know whether cities walled on three sides were considered walled cities with regard to reading the Megillah.
  According to the first version of this tradition, R. Assi treated Huzal, a city in Babylonia, as a city whose status was doubtful. Therefore he read on both days.According to the second version, Huzal was walled at the time of Joshua and therefore reads on the fifteenth.The big problem is: Where is Huzal? According to a different passage in the Talmud, Huzal is in Babylonia. This would demonstrate that the rule of walled cities reading on the fifteenth applies to Babylonia. However, according the second tradition here, it seems that Huzal is in Israel, for it is called “Huzal of [the tribe of] Benjamin.” There are many variants readings of this, both here and in Ketubot. The bottom line is that it is not all that clear where Huzal is. The issue was discussed by many medieval authorities who questioned whether the difference between walled cities and villages is relevant outside of Israel.
  
  Daf 6a
  
  IntroductionThis whole sugya returns to identifying the places listed in Joshua 19:35. These were mentioned in the previous daf because Rakat was identified earlier as Tiberias.
  R. Yohanan identifies the three places in Joshua 19:35 and then provides a “folk etymology” for their original names.
  Rava, the Babylonian amora, says that Rakat is not Tzippori, as R. Yohanan said. Rakat is Tiberias. As proof he cites several traditions concerning mourning in Tiberias for great Torah scholars who died in Babylonia. When eulogizing the people of Tiberias refer to their city as “Rakat.” This eloquent and retro way of referring to Tiberias proves that Rakat is not Tzippori.
  Rava says that Rakat is Tiberias. It is called Rakat because of the great worth of its inhabitants. Even the least worthy of them, the “rekanim” perform many mitzvoth.
  Interestingly, these amoram find “folk etymologies” for Tiberias, not for Rakat, as was the trend above. Rakat is the real name.Obviously, Tiberias was named after the Roman emperor Tiberius. It was established in 20 C.E. during Tiberius’s rule. I don’t know whether Babylonian amoraim knew this. Even if they did, they may be trying to “Judaicize” the name of the city. After all, the city was one of the great centers of Judaism, and even at times considered holy. They could not have been happy that such a Jewish city was actually named after a Roman Emperor, Indeed, this may explain why they attempted to identify Tiberias with the biblical cities named in Joshua.
  IntroductionToday’s section is about another biblical city in the Galilee—Kitron, which is identified with Tzippori.
  This section contains an extended midrash on Judges 5:18. It is brought here because Kitron seems to be in the tribe of Zevulun. Zevulun complains that its tribe did not receive good land. Indeed, it received lakes and rivers, for it was on the coast. God responds that Zevulun will receive the hilazon, the snail that produces the dye used for making the blue in tzitzit. Zevulun complains more. They fear that people will come and take the snail without properly compensating the tribe. God further promises Zevulun that people will pay for just as they would not benefit improperly from a sacrifice, so they won’t steal the hilazon snail from Zevulun.
  The problem is that if Kitron was Tzippori, then why was Zevulun complaining about its land. After all, Tzippori is excellent land. It is “flowing with milk and honey” -16 square miles of it. If you were to say that this isn’t so much, then we could respond that in all of the land of Israel there is only 22 parasangs by 6 parasangs. Since a parasang equals 4 miles, it turns out that Zevulun has about 1/8 of the milk and honey of all of Israel, more than its fair share.The answer is that Zevulun preferred fields and vineyards over milk and honey. Thus Kitron is Tzippori, but Zevulun still complained about his lot.
  IntroductionThis sugya continues with some more geography.
  R. Abbahu identifies Ekron with the Greek city, Caesarea, which he calls daughter of Edom. Edom is related to Esau and in rabbinic literature is associated with Rome/Greece. I should note that I’m not sure if this is the same Caesarea that still exists to this day. I believe that it is a different one, for Ekron is located further south, in the area that is today Gaza.This city was a thorn in the side of the Jews during the Hasmonean period, and when the Hasmoneans conquered it they called it “the capture of the tower of Shir.”
  R. Yose b. Hanina now interprets a verse from Zechariah containing a prophecy against Zur. The prophecy mentions Ekron which was the topic above.The midrash on the prophecy is understandable, I think. Note the theme of theaters and circuses becoming synagogues. This is a frequent theme in rabbinic literature.
  Leshem is a city conquered by the tribe of Dan. Pamias is the Greek name of the city.Caesarea is again identified as Ekron. According to this statement, it seems to be a place where kings are made. I assume that this is related to the name of the city—Caesarea, after Caesar.The continuation of R. Yitzchak’s statement points out that Jewish culture and Greco-Roman culture (symbolized by Caesarea and Jerusalem) exist in an inverse relationship. When one thrives, the other suffers.To be honest, I think this remains one of the great challenges of American Jewish existence. Can the “Greco-Roman” side, the part of us that wants to integrate with the modern world, adopt modern values and lifestyles, thrive at the same time that the traditional Jewish side thrives.
  IntroductionThis section contains several more statements by R. Yitzchak related to Esau and Rome.
  This section contains R. Yitzchak’s midrash on Isaiah 26:10. Isaac pleas for mercy (favor) for Esau. God responds that he is wicked. Isaac persists—how can you judge him when he never learned righteousness. God responds that he will deal wrongfully with “the land of uprightness.” Rashi interprets this to mean that Esau, in the form of his descendants in Rome, will come and destroy Jerusalem. Finally, Isaac relents, responding that such a destroyer should not see the majesty of the Lord.
  R. Yitzchak applies this verse in Psalms to Jacob, pleading before God not to grant Esau again in the form of their descendants in Rome, the ability to carry out their wicked plans. He refers to “Germamia” which Rashi explains as the name of a kingdom, based on the following passage. Jastrow reads this as Germany, which if let out would destroy the whole world. If this reading is correct, and it seems likely that it is, I find it incredibly prescient.
  
  Daf 6b
  
  IntroductionToday’s section contains additional statements of R. Yitzchak.
  R. Yitzchak’s statement here is in a similar pattern to the earlier statement. He expresses a tight correlation between effort and reward. With effort, reward is guaranteed. Without effort, reward is impossible.The anonymous commenter limits R. Yitzchak’s statement. First of all, when it comes to business luck is involved. People work hard and don’t succeed, and people don’t work so hard and nevertheless are successful.And even when it comes to Torah, some people are blessed with great memory and others are not. It is not something someone can toil for. The gift of good memory is in the hands of heaven.
  R. Yitzchak uses a midrash on Psalms 37 and Psalms 10 to sadly point out that the wicked do often triumph and are not even judged for their wickedness.
  In this section R. Yohanan quotes a series of verses that proves the opposite. One should contend with evildoers. Verses that seem to imply that one should not contend with them really mean that one should not be envious of them. So this section contradicts the words of R. Yitzchak above.
  There are three answers to the contradiction.1) One can contend with wicked when it comes to religious matters, but one should not contend with the wicked when it comes to one’s own affairs.2) One who is totally righteous is strong enough to contend with the wicked. But not one who is not totally righteous is not strong enough to contend with the wicked.3) When fortune is favoring a wicked man, one should not contend with him. But under normal conditions, this is not inadvisable.
  This is a description of the great size and wealth of Rome, which is interestingly enough called “Greek Italy.”
  IntroductionToday’s section begins with a new mishnah. My commentary is taken from Mishnah Yomit. When Jews adjust the lunar calendar to keep it in sync with the solar calendar, they add a second month of Adar, the month during which Purim falls. The rabbis hold that Purim should be observed during the second Adar. Today because our calendar is fixed this is quite simple. Ahead of time we know which year will have a second Adar. In mishnaic and talmudic times this was more difficult because the calendar had not yet been fixed. Our mishnah addresses this problem.
  Section one: If they read the Megillah during the first Adar and then the court decided to add a month to the year, they must read it again during the second Adar.Section two: The only difference with regard to Purim between the first month of Adar and the second is that the Megillah is read and gifts are given to the poor during the second month and not during the first month. However, when it comes to the prohibition of fasting and mourning, it is forbidden to fast on the fourteenth and fifteenth of both months.It is unclear from our mishnah whether the other two obligations for Purim, giving portions of food to friends and having a festive meal, are done both times or not. It seems to me that it would make little sense for these customs to be performed during the first Adar at a time when the Megillah is not being read.
  The Mishnah had stated that when a second month of Adar is added to the year, all of the mitzvoth of Purim are observed in both months except for the reading of the Megillah and the giving of gifts to the poor. This would seem to imply that the special portions of the Torah that precede Purim (parshat shekalim, zakhor, parah, and hahodesh) can be read during Adar I.The Talmud begins an extended discussion of which Tanna is the author of the Mishnah. The Talmud cites a baraita with three opinions. According to both the first opinion and R. Shimon b. Gamaliel if they read the Megillah in the first Adar and then an extra month is added, they must read the Megillah again. According to R. Eliezer son of R. Yose if they read it in the first month, they have performed the mitzvah and they need not go back and read again in the second month.
  R. Papa now clarifies the specific points of dispute and outlines each tanna’s opinion:1) First Tanna: All mitzvoth may be performed in Adar I except for the Megillah. The special Torah reading portions should be read in Adar II but if they were read in Adar I, he has fulfilled his obligation.2) R. Eliezer son of R. Yose: All mitzvoth may be performed in Adar I.3) R. Shimon b. Gamaliel held that all mitzvot, even the special portions, must be performed in Adar II.
  The Mishnah held that Adar I and Adar II were equivalent except for the Megillah and gifts to the poor. This does not accord with anyone in the baraita (or so it seems). The first opinion holds that only the Megillah needs to be done in Adar II, not the gifts to the poor. The second opinion holds that even the Megillah may be read in Adar I and need not be read again in Adar II.Finally, R. Shimon b. Gamaliel holds that the special Torah portions must also be read in Adar II, whereas the Mishnah seemed to hold that they could be read in Adar I.
  The second resolution is to emend the Mishnah itself such that it is dealing only with mitzvoth performed on Purim itself. The Mishnah does not express an opinion on when the special portions are read. Therefore, it could accord with R. Shimon b. Gamaliel who says that they are read on Adar II.
  The halakhah is that all of the mitzvoth, even the special portions, must be observed in Adar II.
  The question is—which is the real Adar? R. Eliezer holds that the real Adar is the one that follows the month of Shevat, as it does in all years. Therefore, if one keeps the mitzvoth of Purim in Adar I, he has fulfilled his obligation. R. Shimon b. Gamaliel holds that the real Adar is the one that immediately precedes the month of Nisan. Therefore, we keep the mitzvoth of Purim in Adar II.
  R. Eliezer, who holds that Purim is observed in Adar I makes sense for there is a principle that one should never pass up an opportunity to perform a mitzvah. But why would R. Shimon b. Gamaliel hold that Purim is delayed until Adar II.R. Tabi says that R. Shimon b. Gamaliel wanted the redemption of Purim to be close to the redemption of Pesah. Therefore, they should be observed in adjacent months.
  R. Elazar derives R. Shimon b. Gamaliel’s rule from the word “the second.” The simple reading of this word is that there was a second letter about Purim. But R. Elazar creates a midrash understanding it as referring to the “second month of Adar.”The Talmud then notes that we need both phrases, “In every year” and “second.” If we only had “in every year” I would have known that Adar needs to be next to a month that it is next to every other year. But I would not have known if this month was Shevat or Nisan. And it had only written “second” I might have thought that it should be read in both months.
  How does R. Eliezer son of R. Yose understand the word “second”? He understands it closer to its literal meaning. There were two letters. The first letter was addressed only to the people of Shushan, trying to convince them to observe Purim. The second letter was addressed to Jews elsewhere in the world. Next week’s daf will continue to deal with this second letter.
  
  Daf 7a
  
  How does R. Eliezer son of R. Yose understand the word “second”? He understands it closer to its literal meaning. There were two letters. The first letter was addressed only to the people of Shushan, trying to convince them to observe Purim. The second letter was addressed to Jews elsewhere in the world. Next week’s daf will continue to deal with this second letter.
  IntoductionToday’s section offers some midrashic interpretations of the various letters that Mordecai and Esther send to the Jews asking them to commemorate Purim or to write the Megillah. What is most fascinating about these midrashim is that they express very well the anxieties of the Jews that composed them. Many of these anxieties are still felt by us today.
  The darshan imagines Esther sending her letter not just to any old “Jews” but to the sages, whom the darshan imagines run the show. The sages are hesitant to establish Purim for it might incite the non-Jews against them. After all, the Megillah contains some descriptions of Jews massacring the people of Shushan. Esther assures the sages that the non-Jews already know these events. They are already written in their history books, as is stated in Esther 10:2.
  In this midrash, the rabbis don’t want to write down the book of Esther and preserve it for posterity. The rabbis cite a verse in Proverbs which they understand to mean that the battle between Israel should be written in the Bible three times and not four times. Besides Esther, this perpetual battle is already referred to three times: Exodus 17, Deuteronomy 25 and Samuel I 15. So how can Esther ask for it to be put again into the Bible, making a fourth mention.The rabbis resolve their own difficulty with a verse from Exodus 17. Each word in the verse alludes to a different section of the Bible. “This” refers to what is written in the Torah (Exodus and Deuteronomy). “For a memorial” refers to Samuel. And “in a book” refers to the Book of Esther. Thus already the Torah alludes to the legitimacy of adding Esther to the biblical canon.The anxiety expressed and allayed in this midrash seems to be the anxiety of adding books to the Jewish canon. The rabbis may have been hesitant to add books to the Bible in the face of Christians and other competing groups who were continuing to write Holy Scripture.
  Elazar HaModai (perhaps from Modiin, where I’m from!) agrees with the opinion of the sages from above—the Torah already alludes to writing the book of Esther. But R. Joshua reads the three words in Exodus as relating only to two of the mentions in the Torah and a mention in Samuel. It seems that he holds that the book of Esther should not be included in the Bible. We will continue with this discussion tomorrow, where we will see other opinions that also exclude the book of Esther from the biblical canon.
  IntroductionToday’s section discusses whether the book of Esther belongs in the biblical canon, but it does so in two different ways.First of all, does Esther “defile the hands?” Only Holy Scripture causes the hands to be defiled. This is a concept we learned about in Tractate Yadayim, especially towards the end of chapter three and chapter four. Saying that a certain book does not defile the hands implies that it is not part of the Bible.The second issue is whether a book was “said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” This does not mean that “God” wrote the book. Most of the books under discussion were clearly not written by God. What it seems to mean is that the book has a certain amount of inspired holiness in it and should certainly be included in the canon.
  Shmuel, the amora, makes two contradictory statements. First he says that Esther does not defile the hands. This implies that it is not holy. But then he says it was inspired by God. So which is it?The Talmud resolves this by saying it was inspired by God, but God did not mean for it to be written. It was intended to be read, but not written.We should note that this is not an easy resolution. After all, the Book of Esther clearly was written, and Esther and Mordecai clearly intended for their story to be written history.
  The Talmud now cites an objection taken from Mishnah Yadayim 3:5. In this mishnah there are some disputes as to whether Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) and Song of Songs (Shir Hashirim) belong in the canon. But there is no disagreement that Esther does belong in the canon. So how could Shmuel even have any doubt about Esther?!The answer is that Shmuel agrees with R. Joshua from yesterday’s section who said that the book of Esther should not have been written because there were meant to be only three portions about Amalek in the Bible, not four.
  In this baraita there is a dispute as to whether Kohelet is holy. According to R. Shimon b. Menasia, since it was written by King Solomon, it is not holy. The other sages object. Solomon spoke thousands of proverbs, but he only wrote down a few (Proverbs, Kohelet and Song of Songs). Therefore, those that he wrote down were said with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We can also see from the fact that he prohibits adding to those proverbs he wrote, that what he did write down was holy.
  Four sages cite proof from the book of Esther itself that it must have been written under divine inspiration.Elazar proves this from the fact that the author knows what Haman was thinking (when he told Ahashverosh that the one who saved him should be dressed in the king’s clothes and ride the king’s horse).Similarly, R. Akiva cites proof from the fact that the author knows what everyone thinks of Esther.Meir cites proof from the fact that the plot to kill Ahashverosh became known to Mordecai. How? Through the Holy Spirit!Yose b. Durmaskit proves the book’s sanctity because the author knows that no Jews took spoil from those they had killed in Shushan and elsewhere. He could only have known this about people who lived far from him if he was told through the Holy Spirit.
  Shmuel lived well after the sages above, who were all tannaim. He did not have the opportunity to be there to give his own proof. But he believes that he has a superior prooftext. The Megillah says, “They confirmed and they accepted.” These two words seem to be superfluous. Therefore, Shmuel says that the first verb refers to Heaven, which confirmed what they, the Jews, had accepted upon themselves below.We should note that this is an entirely different type of proof. All of the tannaim basically pointed out that the narrator or characters know something that they could not have known on their own. In other words an omniscient narrator is proof that the book is holy. Shmuel, on the other hand, offers a more typical midrash, focusing on a superfluous word.
  Rava, an amora who lived several generations after Shmuel, refutes all of the tannaim, confirming that Shmuel’s explanation is superior, as Shmuel himself thought.The author could have known without divine inspiration that Haman assumed that Ahashverosh was thinking of honoring him.That Esther found favor in everyone’s eyes may have been known to the author because everyone was saying “she’s one of us” for she appeared to everyone as if she was from their nation.Mordecai could have overheard Bigtan and Teresh plotting against the king speaking the Tarsis language, which Mordecai also understood. They would not have known that he understood this language.Perhaps the author learned that no Jews had taken from the spoil from messengers who were sent from afar.But Shmuel’s midrashic interpretation, not based on logic, cannot be refuted, at least not based on logic.
  One grain of sharp pepper—Shmuel—is better than all of the pumpkins—the tannaim—whose proofs were all refuted.
  Two more amoraim chime in with proof that Esther was written under divine inspiration. Both of these proofs are from the same verse and they both say the same thing. Only God can know that Purim will never cease to be observed.
  IntroductionToday’s section deals with the mitzvoth of sending food portions to others on Purim and giving gifts to the poor.
  The mitzvah of “sending portions (mishloah manot)” consists of sending at least two portions of food to at least one person. This is because “portions” is plural but “another” is singular. But when it comes to gifts to the poor, two gifts must be given to two men—both words are plural.There follows a series of stories about rabbis sending gifts to each other. In the first one, R. Judah Nesiah sends a leg of calf and a barrel of wine. This counts as two gifts. And sounds like a great meal—much better than some hamantaschen and an apple.
  
  Daf 7b
  
  In this story Rabbah and Mari b. Mar exchange gifts on Purim, while Abaye, who is acting as a go-between, offers a play by play commentary.
  This is a continuation of the above story. Abaye seems to have had quite a feast at both houses.
  Abaye connects the previous story to two folk-sayings. The first is that a poor man doesn’t know when he is hungry because he is not used to eating the copious amounts of food that Abaye ate at his master’s house.The second remains true to this day—there is always room for sweets.
  According to one way of understanding this line, Abaye and Hananiah would exchange meals on Purim. This seems to be a way to fulfill the mitzvah of mishloah manot for someone who only has enough money to pay for one meal. There are other interpretations of the story, but this seems to make most sense.
  IntroductionToday’s section is about the Purim feast.
  Rava is the sage who famously ruled that one should become inebriated on Purim, so inebriated that he cannot tell the difference between Haman and Mordecai. I will not comment on whether someone is really obligated to do so, but I would urge that if you do drink on Purim, give the car keys to someone else. Drinking may be obligatory but endangering a life is strictly against the Torah.In the famous story that follows Rabbah and R. Zera illustrate well the dangers of drinking.
  From the word “days” Rava learns that the Purim feast must be eaten during the day.
  In this story, the rabbis eat their Purim meal and delay in coming to R. Kahana’s Bet Midrash. R. Ashi uses this opportunity to report to his teacher R. Kahana the tradition stated above by Rava. The rabbis could not have eaten their Purim feast the evening before. R. Kahana recites Rava’s statement forty times, thereby committing it to memory.
  IntroductionToday’s section starts with a new mishnah.
  After teaching what the difference between Purim in Adar I and Purim in Adar II is, the Mishnah now begins a series of comparisons between two similar fields of halakhah. As far as Shabbat/festival prohibitions, the only difference is that on the latter one is allowed to prepare food.
  The Mishnah allows only the actual preparation of food, but not preparing the utensils needed to make food. Thus, for instance, one would not be allowed to sharpen a knife on Yom Tov or make any other vessel to be used in cooking.This accords with the first opinion in the baraita. R. Judah, on the other hand, is even more lenient, allowing even making the preliminaries for preparing food.The Talmud then lays out a midrash for each side.
  In this section each position explains what they do with the word the other position’s midrash was based on.The first opinion uses the word “for you” to exclude cooking for non-Jews or for animals. One may prepare food on Yom Tov only for a Jew to eat.Judah uses the word “that only” combined with his midrash on “for you” to teach that one can make preliminaries on Yom Tov only if he could not have prepared them the day before. For instance, if his knife was damaged on Yom Tov, he could sharpen it on Yom Tov itself. But if he just forgot to sharpen his knife before Yom Tov, he would not be allowed to sharpen it on Yom Tov.
  IntroductionToday’s section opens with another new mishnah.
  One who deliberately transgresses Shabbat is punished by being executed by a human court. We should remember that this is theoretical. Rabbis did not carry out the death penalty and for the most part did not carry out any form of physical punishment.&gt;Deliberate transgression of Yom Kippur is punishable by karet, which can be translated as “being cut off” but is a penalty not carried out by a human court.
  There is a principle in halakhah that if a person commits one crime for which there are two penalties, he gets the worse of the two penalties. Thus if someone burns down a house on Shabbat (intentionally) he is executed but he is not liable for making compensation for the property damage. According to R. Nehuniah b. Hakaneh, the same is true for Yom Kippur, even though its punishment is not death but karet. The mishnah, according to the Talmud, agrees with this position.
  According to R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel, if someone is liable for karet and he is flogged he is now exempt from the karet punishment. This is derived from the verse in Deuteronomy—once someone has been flogged, he returns to being your brother.
  Yohanan says that there are others who disagree with R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel. They would hold that even if one is lashed, he remains liable to the punishment of karet. Lashes don’t exempt one from karet.Rava cites a proof for this from the school of Rav which cited our mishnah from Megillah, according to which transgressions of Yom Kippur are not punished by a human court. But if a person who committed a transgression punishable by karet is to be lashed, then transgressing Yom Kippur is also punishable by a human court, contra the mishnah.
  Nahman disagrees with R. Yohanan. A person who is obligated for karet does receive lashes and is thereby exempt from karet. The mishnah in Megillah represents R. Yitzchak’s opinion only, who holds that if someone transgresses something for which he is obligated for karet, he can never be lashed. This is based on a midrash on Leviticus 18. Leviticus 18:29 says that anyone who transgresses one of the incest prohibitions in the chapter is liable for karet. But then Leviticus 20:17 says that one who sleeps with his sister receives karet. This seems to be superfluous. R. Yitzchak reads the verse as saying that such a person receives only karet, no lashes. And this then becomes a paradigm. Anyone who is liable for karet is not lashed.
  R. Ashi says that the mishnah in Megillah can even accord with the rabbis who hold that if a person liable for karet is flogged he is exempt from karet. When the mishnah said that Shabbat is punishable by a human court and Yom Kippur by a divine court, it referred to the main punishment. The main punishment for transgressing Shabbat is the death penalty and the main punishment for transgressing Yom Kippur is karet, even though lashes can be handed out for it as well.
  
  Daf 8a
  
  IntroductionAnother new mishnah opens this week’s daf.
  There are two things which are permitted to one who is under a vow not to derive food benefit from his neighbor but are not permitted to one who may not benefit from his neighbor at all: walking on his property and the use of vessels not involved in the making of food (vessels in rabbinic literature includes pretty much anything made by human beings, including for instance clothing). For more information look at Mishnah Nedarim 4:1.
  When it comes to the use of utensils used for preparing food, there is no difference between one who vows not receive any benefit and one who vows not receive benefit from food. In both cases, the one who has been vowed against cannot derive benefit.
  The Mishnah stated that one who has been sworn not to derive any benefit from someone else may not even set foot on his property. The Talmud raises the problem that generally people don’t care if another person walks on their property. They don’t consider that giving benefit to another person. Therefore, it should not be prohibited in the case of a vow.Rava says that the mishnah follows R. Elazar who says that even when someone normally doesn’t care if someone else derives benefit from him in a certain way, it is still prohibited. I’ll give you a potential example. I am an avid cyclist. I don’t care if people use my bike pump. In fact, if someone were to come over to my house, they could use it without even asking (not sure how they would get in, but that’s a different issue). I “excuse” this because it doesn’t cost me anything. According to R. Elazar it would still be forbidden for a person who is not allowed to derive benefit from me to use my bike pump.
  IntroductionAnother new mishnah, again about vows.
  Vowed offerings are stated using the language “Behold, I will bring an animal as an offering.” If a person sets aside an animal to be a vowed offering and the animal cannot for whatever reason be sacrificed (for instance, it gets lost or dies) he must bring a substitute. However, if he makes a freewill-offering using the language, “I will bring this animal as a sacrifice” and the animal is lost, he need not bring another. In all other respects, there is no difference between the two types of offerings.
  No matter how one phrases his vow, he is still responsible for not delaying in bringing it. There are differences of opinion among tannaim as to how long one has to bring the sacrifice before he has transgressed the prohibition of “do not delay.”
  This mishnah (taken from Kinim 1:1), like the mishnah in Megillah, explains the difference between a vow offering (a neder) and a freewill offering (a nedavah). A neder is when one promises to bring a certain type of offering, either an olah or a shelamim (wellbeing offering). For example if he promises to bring a bird olah, he must bring two birds as an olah. If he sets aside a bird and it is lost or stolen before it can be sacrificed, he must bring a replacement. The case of the nedavah is different. In this case, one points at an animal and promises to bring that animal as a sacrifice. For instance, he points at a sheep and promises to bring it. If the sheep is lost or dies, he is not responsible for its replacement because he was only responsible to bring that sheep as long as it was alive or available.
  The Talmud now provides a prooftext for the mishnah’s halakhah. R. Shimon reads the verse from Leviticus as saying that any sacrifice he is liable to bring, he is responsible for if it is lost or stolen. But if he is not liable to bring it, then he is not responsible for it.Yitzchak b. Avdimi explains that once a person says “I take it upon myself” to bring a certain sacrifice, it is as if it is already on his shoulders. In other words, just saying that one will bring a sacrifice is sufficient to make one obligated to bring it.
  IntroductionToday’s mishnah is about the difference between a man who has two unnatural genital discharges (meaning not semen) and one who has three.
  A man who experiences an abnormal discharge for one or two consecutive days is impure for seven days after the discharge ends. If he sees the discharge for a third consecutive day, he must bring a sacrifice at the end of the seven day period. See Leviticus 15.
  Both one who saw two “issues” and one who saw “three” issues defile anything they sit or lie on (even if they don’t touch it) and need to count seven days before they can become pure.
  Leviticus 15:2 uses the word “zav” and its equivalent “zovo” which R. Simai interprets as two issues of unnatural discharge. After using this word twice, the end of the verse calls him impure. The next verse uses the word three times and also calls him impure. However, this is problematic. If he is already impure after two issues, why mention (midrashically) that he has a third?The answer is that after two issues he is unclean, but after the third he is also liable for a sacrifice.
  The Talmud now explores other ways of understanding why first the Torah refers to two issues and then three. Perhaps it means that after two he is unclean but that after three he brings a sacrifice and is not unclean!Of course, this is not a serious suggestion. Before he can have three issues, he would have been unclean after having two. He stays unclean.
  This is a slightly more plausible interpretation. After two issues he would be obligated to bring a sacrifice but not unclean. After three he would be unclean as well.Of course, this does conflict with the simple meaning of the verse which in both verses call him impure.
  This baraita derives the same halakhah we learned from R. Simai above. It focuses on the word “from his issue” which (to this midrash) implies that some zavim bring a sacrifice and some do not. Two issues does not entail bringing a sacrifice, but three does.
  The Talmud points out that both midrashim were necessary. If we only had R. Simai we would not have known that after two he is unclean and after three he brings a sacrifice. We might have thought the opposite, as was stated in the difficulty above.And if all we had was the latter baraita, we would have known that there was a difference between how many issues a zav had seen, but we wouldn’t have known that he was impure after two and brought a sacrifice after three. Therefore we need both midrashim.
  IntroductionYesterday’s section contained a midrash on the word “from his issue.” Today’s section contains another instance where the word appears, asking how it is midrashically interpreted there.
  Basically, this section is used to introduce another midrash on the issue of zavim, it too based on the word “from his issue” but this time from a different verse. The midrash goes through each word of the verse. “Cleansed” means the flow of discharge has stopped. “From his issue” means that he need only be clean from his genital discharge. If he also has leprosy (or some skin disease), he can still count clean days for his genital discharge. “Then he shall count” means that even if he has only had two discharges he begins to count seven days without discharge before he becomes clean.
  
  Daf 8b
  
  The baraita asks why we even need a special midrash to teach that a zav who saw two issues should have to count seven clean days. Shouldn’t this be obvious; after all, if he defiles things he lays and sits on, which constitutes a high level of impurity, clearly he should have to count seven days before he can become clean.The midrash answers that this is not so obvious, because of the case of a woman who is keeping day for day. If a woman has one observation of non-menstrual discharge, she must count one day before she can become clean. Two observations and she counts two days. But even after one observation, she defiles bed and seat. Thus we can see that one can be impure with this high level of impurity but not need to count seven full days before becoming clean. Therefore, the verse had to teach us with regard to the zav, that after two observations he must count a full seven days before becoming clean.
  If we pay careful attention, we can see that in this case the word “from his issue” was used to include a zav who had two observations—he already counts seven days before he can become clean. But in yesterday’s midrash, the same word excluded a zav who had two observations from being liable to bring a sacrifice. So why, R. Papa asks, does the word one time include and one time exclude?
  Ashi answers that if the Torah had wanted to teach that one who has had two observations does not need to count seven days, then it should have said nothing about the matter. It could have omitted the word.We would not have deduced this rule without the word, because the case of a woman who counts day for day would have refuted it, as we stated above. Just as she need not count seven days free of discharge, neither would a man. Therefore, we need this derashah to teach that the zav does need to count.
  If you might have thought that the word “from his issue” only teaches the first halakhah that we learned above—that he need only be free from issue and not skin disease—the verse could have skipped the word “from his issue” altogether. The extra word “from his issue” teaches that one who has had two issues must already count seven clean days.
  IntroductionAnother new mishnah!
  Section one: A metzora is a person with some sort of skin affliction. After his skin affliction is identified he is set aside for seven days for observation by a priest. If the skin affliction spreads, then the priest declares him to be a definite metzora. There is no difference between the two stages except that one who has been declared to be a definite metzora has to have his hair disheveled and his clothes torn, as prescribed in Leviticus 13:45. [I should note that some interpret the Hebrew for “disheveling the hair” to mean that he has to let his hair grow long.] Other than these differences, the two types of metzora are equal in their impurity.Section two: If the priest declares a metzora who had been under observation to be pure, he does not bring a sacrifice nor does he have to shave his hair. If the metzora had been definite then he must bring two birds as a sacrifice and shave his hair. See Leviticus 14. The two different types of metzora are the same in that at the end of their period of impurity they both must immerse in the mikveh and purify their clothes (see Lev. 13:6, 34).
  Both types of metzora are unclean and must be sent outside of the camp.
  Shmuel b. Yitzchak picks up on the double usage of “clean” in the verse. How can the priest pronounce him clean before he becomes clean at the end of the verse only after washing his clothes? The answer is that the first “clean” demonstrates that he is clean from rending his garments and loosening his hair. Only a definite metzora is obligated for these.
  Rava raises a difficulty on the above midrash. The same construct appears in a verse about a “zav”—one who has had unnatural genital discharge. There too the word “clean” appears twice in the verse. In that case the extra “clean” is interpreted to mean that if after he goes to the mikveh but before the sun sets and he has become fully pure he sees another issue of discharge, he does not defile earthenware vessels by moving them. In that sense his immersion in the mikveh has purified him. So too in the case of the metzora we could interpret that after being pronounced clean he is already pure in that he doesn’t defile the contents of a house by entering a house. But if we interpreted this way, we would have no source for how we know that a metzora under observation is not liable for rending his garment or loosening his hair.
  Rava derives the mishnah’s halakhah from elsewhere. The Torah says that the “metzora in whom the plague is” has to rend his clothes and loosen his hair. Rava reads the word “in whom” as limiting this rule to one whose impurity is due to the state of his body. He won’t become pure until he is physically cured. The metzora under observation’s impurity is limited to seven days. After that time he either becomes fully a metzora or he becomes pure.
  Abaye points out that the same phrasing “in him” is used in Leviticus 13:46, which mentions being sent out of the camp. Were we to read this word the way Rava reads it above—it refers only to one whose impurity is due to his body—we would conclude that only a definite metzora is sent out of the camp. But this contradicts the mishnah which implies that every type of metzora is sent out of the camp!
  Rava responds that his midrash is from the word “all.” All types of metzoras are sent out from the camp. The midrash is not based on the word “in him” as Rava had previously stated.
  The Talmud now asks why a metzora under observation does not have to shave or offer bird sacrifices after being cleansed. After all, he should be included in these obligations due to the word “all.” But the mishnah again clearly states the opposite—only a definite metzora must shave and offer sacrifices.Abaye derives this halakha from Leviticus 14:3, which begins to discuss the purification which is accompanied by sacrifices and shaving. These are obligatory only if his purification depends on his healing, and not a simple counting of days, as it does for the metzora under observation.
  IntroductionToday’s section is a mishnah. My commentary is taken from Mishnah Yomit. We will continue to discuss the talmudic commentary on the mishnah next week.
  Section one: Scrolls of the Tanakh may be written in any language and in any type of writing. However, mezuzot and tefillin may be written only in Assyrian, the alphabet in which Hebrew was and is still written and they may be written only in Hebrew.Section two: Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that while Tanakh scrolls may indeed be written in languages other than Hebrew, they may not be written in any language, just Greek. At the time of the Mishnah Greek was the international language of the intelligentsia. It was also the language into which the Tanakh had already been translated. This translation is called the Septuagint and was widely used in the period by Jews in the Greek-speaking Diaspora.
  IntroductionThis week’s daf focuses on the mishnah that we learned at the end of last week’s daf concerning the difference between Torah scrolls, mezuzot and tefillin. According to the Mishnah Torah scrolls can be written in any language or in any type of script, but mezuzot and tefillin must be written in Hebrew language using Assyrian script.
  The pages of mezuzot, tefillin and Torah scrolls all must be sewn together with sinews. We should note that there are some sages who hold that Torah scrolls can be sewn with regular thread.They all also defile the hands. This is a concept we have discussed before and is also found in Tractate Yadayim. Basically, this means that they are all holy.
  According to the Mishah, Torah scrolls can be written in any language or any script. But a baraita says that if a Hebrew portion of the Tanakh was written in Aramaic, or an Aramaic portion was written in Hebrew, it is not valid (i.e. it does not defile the hands). It also must be written in what is known as Assyrian script (the script we use today) and not what is known today as Paleo-Hebraic script. Thus the mishnah and the baraita contradict each other.
  Rava resolves the contradiction by saying that it depends on which script was used. If the script is “our script” meaning the original Hebraic script, then the scroll can be written in any language. But if the script is Assyrian, then the language must be Hebrew.
  
  Daf 9a
  
  Abaye says that Rava’s resolution does not make sense. According to Rava if the scroll is written in their script, then it is valid if it is in Hebrew (or more precisely, its original language). But this contradicts the baraita itself which says that it must be written in Assyrian script. Even a Hebrew text written in Hebrew is invalid unless written with the Assyrian script.
  Abaye, or the Talmud, now offer a new resolution. The Mishnah which says that they can be written in any language is the opinion of the rabbis who allow Torah scrolls to be written in any language. The baraita is the opinion of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel does not allow any language.
  This is an obvious problem. How can the baraita disqualify all other languages when R. Shimon b. Gamaliel does allow scrolls to be written in Greek.
  The Talmud attempts another resolution. Torah scrolls can be written in any language (mishnah), but mezuzot and tefillin which include the verse from the Shema “and they shall be” must be written in their original language (baraita). 
  There is some Aramaic in the Torah. Therefore, it can make sense why the Torah would say that the Aramaic portion of the Torah must be written in Aramaic. But why would we need to say that about the mezuzah or tefillin—texts in which there are no Aramaic words!Therefore, the Talmud offers yet another resolution. The baraita which allows only the original refers to Megillat Esther, where it is eluded to that it must be written in its original language. The mishnah which allows any language refers to all other books of the Bible.
  The amoraim point out some Aramaic words in Esther: pitgam—saying, or letter, and yekar—honor. Both of these words must be written in their original Aramaic and not translated to Hebrew.
  Ashi offers yet another resolution. The Torah may be written in any language. But the other books of the Bible may not. In tomorrow’s section we will see a baraita that explains why. So stay tuned!
  Introduction
  This section is a direct continuation of yesterday’s sugya. R. Ashi resolved the conflict between the baraita and the Mishnah by ruling that the Torah may be written in any language but the other books of the Bible may not. The baraita that prohibited other books from being written in other languages is here attributed to R. Judah. But first we must deal with that baraita on its own terms.
  The first version of this baraita seems to say that the rabbis allowed tefillin and mezuzahs to be written in Greek. The problem with this is that we earlier interpreted the Torah itself as mandating that these scrolls which include the Shema be written in Hebrew. Therefore, the Talmud emends the baraita as referring to scrolls—books of the Bible—and not tefillin and mezuzahs.After another slight emendation the conclusion is that the rabbis allow scrolls to be translated only into Greek, whereas the “first tanna” allows them to be written in any language.
  IntroductionThe Talmud now shows how the Greek elders translated the Torah. The central idea here is that the elders changed the verses to avoid various interpretive or theological problems.Due to the nature of this passage I have lined it up in a table. The middle column is what is written in the Talmud. On the left is the translation of the purported Septuagint. The right side is the actual Hebrew text. I have not translated the Hebrew original but you should be able to understand it from my explanation below.Genesis 1:1: Here they changed the order of the words around. According to Rashi the original order might give the impression that an entity named “Bereshit” created God. The change in order might also serve to emphasize that God preexisted the world.Genesis 1:26: The plural form, which gives the impression of a multitude of gods, was changed into singular.Genesis 2:2: The original is confusing—did God complete creation on the sixth day or on the seventh day? The revised version makes more sense.Genesis 5:2: In the original it sounds like two humans were originally created. The emendation changes the word to the singular.Genesis 11:7: The original is plural and has been emended to the singular.Genesis 18:12: In the Torah, both Abraham and Sarah laugh when told that they will have a child, but God gets angry only with Sarah. This is puzzling. To fix this problem, the translation reads that Sarah laughed in front of her relatives. Abraham laughed only to himself, and that is why God was not angry with him.Genesis 49:6: In the original, Shimon and Levi are accused of killing a person. This is emended so that they only killed an ox.Exodus 4:20: It is a bit dishonorable that Moses has no better vehicle for his wife and kids than a donkey. No horse, no camel! Therefore, the verse is emended.Exodus 12:40: 430 years is emended to 400 years.Exodus 24:5, 11: These verses are problematic because one verse says “the youth” and the other verse says “the nobility.” Therefore, both have been emended to read “the elect” a group more appropriate to be sent to greet God.Numbers 16:15: In the original Moses says he did not take a single “donkey.” This could imply that he did take other objects. To correct this, the emendation reads “valuable item.Deuteronomy 4:19: The original makes it sound like God created the sun, moon and stars so that non-Jews could worship them. The emended version says that they are just for light.Deuteronomy 17:3: The original makes it sound like God didn’t command that the sun and stars should even be created. This would give the impression that they were created on their own or by another god. The emended version clarifies that God didn’t command that people should worship them.
  According to this legend, Ptolemy’s wife’s name sounded like the Hebrew word “arnevet” which means “hare.” The Jews didn’t want Ptolemy thinking they were mocking him, so they changed it to “beast with small legs.” From a search on the web her name was actually “Arsinoe”—close to arnevet.
  
  Daf 9b
  
  IntroductionThis section continues to discuss translating the Torah into other languages.
  Shimon b. Gamaliel says that the books of the Bible cannot be translated into any other language besides Greek. R. Yohanan rules that this is the halakhah. He then explains it by referencing Genesis 9:26. Yapheth is the progenitor of Greece and Shem is the progenitor of Israel. According to R. Yohanan’s midrash, the words of Yapheth, meaning Greek, shall dwell in the tents of Shem, meaning in the Torah of Israel. But not just any of the words of Yaphet, such as those of Gomer and Magog, evil kings that descended from Yapheth. Only the beautiful words (a play on the word Yapheth, which is similar to the word “yafeh” meaning beautiful, can dwell in the tents of Shem. Any other language is not “beautiful”; therefore the Torah can be translated only into Greek.
  IntroductionThis mishnah deals with differences between different types of high priests.
  Section one: The high priest was supposed to be anointed with special anointing oil, except that the composition of this type of oil was unknown in the Second Temple period and hence not used. The distinction in the Second Temple period between high priests and ordinary priests was that the high priest had eight garments and the ordinary priest wore only four. Our mishnah teaches that the difference between the high priest in the First Temple and the high priest in the Second Temple is that only the anointed priest brings a bull for an unwitting transgression, as is stated in Leviticus 4:3, “If it is the anointed priest who has incurred guilt…”Section two: The high priest who is currently serving in office brings the sacrificial bull on Yom HaKippurim (Leviticus 16:6) and the tenth of an ephah of flour offered every day (Leviticus 6:13). Otherwise a high priest who has been removed or otherwise left office is treated the same as the currently serving high priest. For more information on this, see Horayot 3:4.
  The differences between a serving high priest and the high priest whose time has passed (listed in section two) do not distinguish the two different types of priests in section one of the mishnah—the first Temple priest and the second Temple priest.
  According to the mishnah, a high priest who was not anointed with the oil does not bring the bull offered for the unintentional transgression of one of the mitzvoth. But R. Meir in this baraita says that he does. Thus the mishnah accords with the sages and not with R. Meir.
  Meir expounds upon the extra “the” (the letter heh in Hebrew) that precedes the word “anointed priest” to teach that even a priest who only wears the additional garments, meaning a second Temple priest, can offer this bull sacrifice.
  Above we said that the first clause of the mishnah does not agree with R. Meir. The problem is that the second clause of the mishnah is R. Meir’s opinion. According to the second clause, a former high priest can continue to perform any Temple ritual except for offering the bull on Yom Kippur and the tenth of the ephah offered every day. For all other matters he can still act as a high priest. This agrees with R. Meir’s position in the baraita. R. Meir holds that if a serving high priest is disqualified for some temporary reason, he can still return to his service as a high priest when that disqualification is remedied. R. Yose, on the other hand, says he cannot go back to serving as high priest for this would cause enmity between him and his replacement. Once you’re out, you’re out for good. Neither can he go back to being an ordinary high priest, since there is a rule that one can go up in holiness (from priest to high priest) but not down.
  The answer is that basically yes, the first clause is the sages’ opinion and the second clause is R. Meir’s opinion. R. Joseph says that Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] is the author of the whole mishnah, but still you’d have to say that in the first clause he agrees with the sages and in the second clause with R. Meir.
  IntroductionBefore the Temple in Jerusalem was built it was permitted to build personal altars and offer sacrifices on them. At this time period there were also communal altars. The personal altars are called “small altars” whereas the communal altars are called “great altars”. The “great altar” is referred to in I Kings 3:2, “The people, however, continued to offer sacrifices at altars, because up to that time no house had been built for the name of the Lord. The king went up to Gibeon to sacrifice there, for that was the great altar…” Our mishnah outlines the differences that existed in this time period between great, communal altars and personal, small altars. 
  Section one: An individual cannot sacrifice the pesah at his own altar, but rather must bring it to the communal altar.Section two: Only voluntary offerings can be offered at a small altar. Mandatory offerings, such as the tamid, the musaf, the pesah, sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, holiday-related offerings and others, must be brought to the central altar. 
  The Talmud explains that not only the pesah cannot be offered at the small altar, but all mandatory sacrifices as well, which are like the pesach. This is illustrated in the general principle in clause two of the mishnah. 
  The mishnah allows one to offer pesahim and sacrifices with a fixed time on the large altar. According to the Talmud, only these sacrifices were offered on the large altar. Other sacrifices that do not have a set time could not be offered on either altar, and would have to wait until there was a permanent home in the Temple. The other rabbis disagree and hold that anything offered in the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness can also be offered in the Tent of Meeting that was found in Gilgal in the land of Israel. 
  IntroductionThe final mishnah of this series of “there is no difference between X and Y except” deals with differences between places in which sacrifices can be offered.
  Section one: During the time of Samuel the ark was at Shiloh (see I Samuel 3-4). Since the ark had a permanent home, it was prohibited to offer sacrifices at local altars, just as it was prohibited to offer sacrifices when the Temple stood in Jerusalem. There is only one difference between Shiloh and Jerusalem, and that is with regard to where certain sacrifices and second tithe could be eaten. When Shiloh was the center of worship, these could be eaten in any place within sight of Shiloh. In Jerusalem they had to be eaten within the city walls.Section two: In both Shiloh and Jerusalem most holy sacrifices, such as sin and guilt offerings, had to be eaten within the Temple/Tabernacle (Mishkan) precincts.Section three: When Shiloh was destroyed, it again became permitted to offer sacrifices at other communal and personal altars but when the two Temples in Jerusalem were destroyed there was no such permission and it continued to be forbidden to offer sacrifices at other altars. Put another way, when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed it became forbidden to offer sacrifices elsewhere and after the destruction of the Second Temple it remained forbidden until the Temple will be rebuilt.
  
  Daf 10a
  
  Yitzchak says two related things. First of all, the Temple built by Onias (or his family) in Heliopolis in Egypt is not considered to be an idolatrous shrine. This famous Temple is discussed in both rabbinic sources and in Josephus. Some sources seem to oppose this Temple, whereas others do not. It was in any case destroyed shortly after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Second, R. Yitzchak holds that now that the Temple has been destroyed it is permitted to offer sacrifices elsewhere, just as it was permitted to offer sacrifices after the destruction of Shiloh. In other words, the sanctification of Jerusalem was only in place as long as the Temple stood. As we shall see, this is somewhat of a radical notion.
  When asked if he really said such a thing, R. Yitzchak retracted. We shall see why below. Nevertheless, Rava confirmed that he did actually issue the above statement.
  The reason why R. Yitzchak retracted was that his statement contradicts two explicit tannaitic sources which state the opposite. Once the Jews established the Temple in Jerusalem it was never again permitted to offer sacrifices elsewhere.
  The Talmud cites a baraita from which we could learn that there is a dispute as to whether sacrifices may be offered on other altars after the destruction of the Second Temple. But first we should explain the baraita itself.Eliezer says that when they were building the Second Temple, they put curtains around hekhal (the sanctuary) and the Temple courtyard during the rebuilding. These curtains would take the place of the walls. The curtains for the hekhal were outside the walls so that the builders wouldn’t enter the actually space of the hekhal. But they didn’t need to be so strict when it came to the courtyard. Here the curtains were inside the courtyard’s walls.Joshua holds that once the first Temple was sanctified, the sanctity remained in Jerusalem forever. What this means is that it is permitted to offer sacrifices in Jerusalem even though the Temple and its walls have not been rebuilt.
  If R. Joshua holds that the first sanctification lasted forever, then his disputant, R. Eliezer would seem to hold the opposite. Seemingly this is why R. Eliezer requires curtains—they take the place of walls and allow sacrifices to be offered on the altars even before walls were rebuilt.
  Ravina reasons that there is no dispute between R. Eliezer and R. Joshua. R. Eliezer agrees with R. Joshua that the original sanctification of Jerusalem was for all time. He requires the curtains not in order to take the place of the walls and thereby allow sacrifice. Rather, the curtains were there only for privacy.
  IntroductionToday’s section continues searching for a tannaitic debate about whether when Jerusalem was sanctified that sanctification would last forever. A positive answer to this question would mean that even after the destruction it would be forbidden to offer sacrifices elsewhere.
  This baraita is taken from Tractate Arakhin and refers to redeeming houses in walled cities (the owner has only a year in which to redeem them). The mishnah lists cities that were walled at the time of Joshua. But there were other such cities, leading to the question of why only these cities were listed. R. Yishmael son of R. Yose answers that when the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile these were the only walled cities still remaining. They then sanctified these cities, for the other city’s holiness was annulled when the Temple was destroyed. This shows that he holds that when Jerusalem was first sanctified, its holiness was not forever.
  In this baraita the same tanna, R. Ishmael son of R. Yose contradicts himself. In the beginning of the baraita he seems to say the same thing he said above—when the exiles returned they sanctified these cities. But later in the baraita he clearly says that they didn’t need to sanctify them, because the original holiness never left them. If there is a tradition about a city that it was walled in the time of Joshua, then it continues to be treated as a walled city forever.
  
  Daf 10b
  
  There is an obvious contradiction in the two baraitot between the two versions of the opinion of R. Ishmael. The first resolution is to simply say that they do indeed contradict and that different “tannaim” had a different impression about what R. Ishmael said. Note that in this source “tannaim” means “reciters.” These are the professional memorizers who recorded and transmitted the talmudic tradition.
  The second resolution is to ascribe the second baraita to a different sage—R. Elazar son of R. Yose. This sage holds that the original sanctity given to the land is forever. Thus even if the city no longer has a wall, it is forever treated as a walled city.
  According to this tradition, every time the Torah says the word “vayehi” it is a portent of trouble. The Talmud will now go through case by case, first listing the times when the paradigm works, and then dealing with the times the paradigm does not work.These cases do not require any real explanation. They can easily be understood by looking at the appropriate biblical verses.
  The Talmud now begins with a series of cases that seem exceptional. The word “vayehi” is used in the story about the day that the Tabernacle was first set up in the wilderness. There is a tradition based on the very word “vayehi” that says that that day was as joyous as the creation of heaven and earth. So how can we say that “vayehi” is a portent of bad things to come?The answer is that on the same day that the Tabernacle was established, Nadav and Avihu died.
  The Talmud now cites many other verses that use the word “vayehi” but do not have any portents of evil!
  Ashi resolves the difficulty by distinguishing between appearances of the word “vayehi” alone and as part of the phrase “Vayehi in the days of.” The former has no determined significance but the latter is always a portent of bad things to come. There are only five such cases in the entire Bible and indeed in each case evil things are to come.
  IntroductionToday’s section deals with other statements made by R. Levi that open with the words “The following is a tradition that we have from our ancestors.”
  Amoz was the prophet Isaiah’s father and Amatzyah was king of Judea from 798-769. R. Levi relates a tradition not found in the Tanakh itself that they were brothers.
  The Talmud asks why we should care that Amoz and Amaziah were brothers. The answer comes from a midrash about Tamar, the daughter-in-law of Judah who seemingly dressed as a harlot to entice him into sleeping with her. The midrash is bothered by the verse—just because she covered her face, Judah should think that she is a harlot? Therefore the verse is reinterpreted. Judah thought that she was a harlot for some other reason (perhaps based on where she was waiting for him). The verse tells us that she covered her face to let us know that she was so modest that she covered her face even in the house of her father-in-law, Judah. In other words, she was so modest that Judah had never seen her face! That’s why he didn’t recognize her.As a reward for her modesty she became the mother not only to kings, but also to prophets. The book of Ruth itself says that David came from the union of Judah and Tamar. Here we learn that the prophet Isaiah was also from the Davidic line.
  The final statement of R. Levi is that the Ark of the Covenant miraculously took up no room in the Holy of Holies. This is explained in the following baraita. The inside of the Holy of Holies, where the ark stood, was 20 cubits by 20 cubits. On top of the ark were two cherubs, the wing of one was 10 cubits and the wing of the other was also 10 cubits. Thus there was no space for the ark.We should note that many commentators raise serious problems with this baraita. Specifically, the wings of the cherubs were above the ark, not to the sides of it. Therefore, there is no proof from these verses that the ark took up no room.
  IntroductionThe Talmud now cites a series of “openings” to derashot that rabbis would deliver before they would offer their main derashot (sermons which expound upon verses) on the book or topic at hand. These “openings” relate in some way to Megillat Esther.
  Yonatan starts from Isaiah 54:22, a prophecy against Babylon. He reads the downfall of Vashti into the verse, who according to the rabbis was Nebuchadnezzar’s granddaughter.
  Shmuel b. Nahmani begins his derashah with a different verse from Isaiah. The thorn is Haman, who is a thorn because he demanded to be worshipped. [The connection with the verse quoted is not clear]. Mordecai is the cypress, a fragrant tree. This is because the spice “myrrh” is translated into Aramaic as “mare deki” which sounds like Mordecai.The brier is Vashti, a bush used in burning. Vashti is the granddaughter of Nebuchadnezzar and is therefore associated with the burning of the Temple. There is a pun here that is lost in the English based on the word “brier (סרפד)” and “its top (רפידתו).”br&gt;Esther is the willow due to the other name she is given in the Megillah itself, Hadassah, which is similar to the Hebrew word for willow, hadas.Finally, the end of the verse is interpreted in the context of the reading of the Megillah and the celebration of Purim. There is also a connection here between this verse and Esther 9:28 which says that these days of Purim will never pass.
  IntroductionToday’s section continues with more “opening derashot” on the book of Esther.
  Joshua b. Levi’s derashah is based on Deuteronomy 28:63. We should note that the connection made between this verse and the Megillah is not completely clear.The verse seems to say that God takes joy in causing the children to suffer or perish. But we have many other traditions that God does not even rejoice when the enemies of Israel suffer—so how could it possibly be that God takes joy when the children of Israeli themselves suffer.Elazar answers that God Himself does not rejoice—but He does cause others to rejoice. This is indicated by the verb to rejoice, “yasis”, which can be read as causative, instead of “yasus”, which would imply that God rejoices.According to Rashi the rejoicing here alludes to Esther 3:9 or 5:9 where Haman rejoices either after the Jews were sentenced to death or after he was invited to Esther’s feast.
  Abba b. Kahana interprets Ecclesiastes (Kohelet) 2:26 in light of the main characters in the Megillah. God gives the property that Haman gathered and heaped up to Esther to give to Mordecai’s house.
  As we learned above, Vashti descended from a king.
  
  Daf 11a
  
  I think this one is self-explanatory.
  IntroductionThis week’s daf continues with midrashic discourse related to Megillat Esther.
  Each element of the verse from Psalms is interpreted as referring to a case where God cast the Jews, or some Jews, into something. “Fire” refers to the casting of Hananyah, Mishael and Azaryah into the furnace (see Daniel 3). “Water” refers to male children being cast into the Nile. “Abundance” refers to the feasts through which Israel was saved during the time of Esther.
  There may be two reasons why R. Yohanan assumes that in the days of Mordecai and Esther the word of God’s salvation reached all the ends of the earth. Either because letters were sent out to all of the ends of the earth, or because Ahashverosh ruled over all of the known parts of civilization.
  Resh Lakish interprets the verse in Proverbs as referring to various enemies of Israel. They rule over the “poor people” Israel as a punishment for Israel not observing the commandments.
  Elazar uses the verse from Ecclesiastes to teach that through Israel’s “laziness,” i.e. their neglect of Torah study, God Himself became poor. “The enemy of the Holy One” refers to God—the editor did not want to even say that God was damaged, so he euphemistically added in “the enemy of…”
  The “man” referred to in the verse is Haman, who was most certainly not a king.
  Rava notes the contrast between the victory of Mordecai and Esther which caused the people to rejoice and the (temporary) ascent of Haman, which caused the people of Shushan to be perplexed (or ashamed).
  Both of these seem to be abbreviated openings of derashot, without the usual continuation of the interpretation. Somehow each amora connects his verse to the characters and stories of Megillat Esther.
  IntroductionThe Talmud now continues with what are either more “opening discourses” or perhaps midrashim on the Megillah itself.
  I have rendered this line as it is found in manuscripts. Rav reads “vayehi” as if it reads “voi” and “hayah” which means “There was trouble.” He interprets the troubles in light of the rebuke found in Deuteronomy. Haman will issue such a horrific decree upon you that you will not even be able to be sold into slavery.
  Both Shmuel and the baraita interpret the verse from Leviticus as referring to various times or events in Jewish history in which God stood by Israel throughout its various subjections to foreign rule. Both also interpret the end of the verse as referring to the world to come, when God alone will have dominion over Israel.The main difference between Shmuel and the baraita is that the latter refers to those particular leaders who brought Israel salvation.We should note that there are definitely various mistaken readings in this section. First, “Hasmonean and his sons, and Mattathias the High Priest” is a case of a “double reading,” where the text either should read “Hasmonean and his sons” or “Mattathias the High Priest” but not both, because the “Hasmonean” is “Mattathias.” There are certainly another mistakes in the version found in the “printed edition.” “Nebuchadnezzar” is out of chronological order, for he ruled well before the Greeks. Manuscripts read “the Emperor Vespasian” who destroyed the Second Temple. Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] and the other sages operated during the Roman period, not the Persian period, as the baraita implies. Indeed, manuscripts read “Romans” not “Persians.” It is likely that these last changes were made by Christian censors.
  Numbers 33 states that if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, they will come back to be formidable enemies for you. Rashi explains that Haman, the descendent of Amalek, attacked Israel as a punishment by God for Saul not having finished off the Amalekites, as is told in I Samuel 15.
  Rav begins to offer midrashim on Ahashverosh’s name, reading the Babylonian name as related to Hebrew words—”Ah shel Rosh”—the brother and counterpart of Nebuchadnezzar, except that whereas the latter succeeded in destroying, Ahashverosh failed. The context of the verse from Ezra is an attempt by the Samaritans in Canaan to prevent the returning Israelites from rebuilding the Temple. This proves that Ahashverosh attempted to lay waste. We should note that in the Megillah itself Ahashverosh is not portrayed as the enemy. Haman is the enemy.
  There are three more amoraic puns here on the name of Ahashverosh.
  The Megillah contains a curious phrase, “This is the Ahashverosh.” Why repeat his name right in the beginning of the book?The midrash answers that the verse alludes to his remaining wicked from the beginning to the end. It then links Ahashverosh through the word “hu” to four other wicked characters, also introduced by “hu.” Ahaz was king of Judah from 741-726, and was not a good king.
  The word “hu” does not necessarily indicate evil. It merely indicates consistency. Therefore the Talmud now moves to show that just as there were consistently evil characters, so too there are consistently good or humble characters.
  IntroductionToday’s section continues with midrashim on Megillat Esther.
  Rav interprets the Megillah as implying that Ahashverosh seized the throne and did not inherit it from his father. However, it is unclear whether this is offered as praise for Ahashverosh, that he took the kingship from those less worthy, or a denouncement of him for having bribed his way into the kingship, thereby depriving a more worthy inheritor.
  Rav and Shmuel agree that Ahashverosh ruled the entire (known) world. They disagree as to where Hodu and Cush are. We interpret these today as India and Ethiopia, which seems to accord pretty much with the opinion that says they are at opposite ends of the world. Another opinion believes them to be right next to each other. However, even this opinion agrees that he ruled over the whole world. Therefore, it reads the Megillah metaphorically. Just as he ruled over these two lands that were right next to each, so too he ruled over the whole world.
  Here we see that Rav and Shmuel had the same dispute concerning a verse from Kings.
  Hisda notes that the verse counting Ahashverosh’s provinces begins with seven, and then moves to twenty and then one hundred. From this he learns that his rule expanded from 7, to 27 to 127. The problem with this is that there are many verses that list large numbers this way, including Exodus 6:20. What could we possibly learn from this way of writing numbers about Amram’s life? The answer is that there is nothing inherently midrash-worthy in the way that the number is listed. What is “midrash-worthy” is the very fact that the Megillah lists the number of Ahashverosh’s provinces. This is superfluous for the verse already stated that he ruled over the whole world. Therefore, R. Hisda can midrashically interpret it.
  IntroductionThis section deals with the kings who seem to have ruled over the entire earth. Since that list includes Ahashverosh it is included here.
  There are three kings about whom it can be proven in Scripture that they ruled over the whole earth.The first is Ahab. This is learned from a conversation that Ovadiah had with Elijah, where he told him that Ahab had made every nation swear that they had not seen Elijah. From here we can learn that Ahab had power over every nation.
  God promises Jeremiah that all nations of the world will be subject to Nebuchadnezzar.The verse from the previous section already demonstrated that Ahashverosh ruled over the whole world.
  
  Daf 11b
  
  The Talmud now raises a difficulty on the assertion that there were only three kings who ruled over the whole world. First it provides a mnemonic to remember the four kings about whom it will ask (Shlomo, Sanheriv, Darius and Koresh).The first is Solomon—didn’t he rule over the entire world? The first answer is that he was removed from his kingship. This is related to a midrash found on Gittin 68b. However, there are other opinions there in Gittin that state that after he was removed from his kingship, he was later restored. So how come he is not counted among those kings who ruled the entire world?The answer is that Solomon’s kingship was unique—he ruled even over parts of heaven, which Rashi interprets to mean the demons. The other kings ruled only over human beings.
  The next king who seemed to have ruled over the entire world was Sanheriv, the Assyrian king.The answer is that Sanheriv failed to conquer Jerusalem.
  Darius, the Persian king also seemed to have ruled over the entire world. However, he ruled over “only” 120 kingdoms. The whole world included 127, as we learn in the beginning of Esther.
  From the book of Ezra it seems that Cyrus ruled over the whole earth. But the rabbis read that verse as merely a boast.
  
  Daf 12a
  
  IntroductionThis section is actually on daf yod bet, but since it is basically a continuation of daf yod aleph I decided to include it this week.It continues to deal with reckoning how long each Babylonian king ruled.
  Rava adds that even Daniel made a mistake in his calculation of the period of exile. This he detects from Daniel’s use of the word “I meditated.” The word implies that Daniel made some mistakes and then “meditated” on them.
  There still remains a contradiction in the verses. The verse from Jeremiah implies that the 70 years should be counted from the first exile, that of Jechoniah, whereas the verse from Daniel implies that they should be counted from the destruction of Jerusalem.Rava answers that the first verse refers to the date on which Cyrus will state that he was charged with rebuilding the Temple. This was fulfilled, as we can see in Ezra 1:2. The latter date referred to in Daniel refers to when the Temple was actually rebuilt.
  Nahman b. Hisda’s derashah is brought here because it deals with Cyrus and the rebuilding of the Temple. Isaiah calls Cyrus the Messiah, which is strange because Messiah usually refers to an anointed king or, in rabbinic literature, to the eventual redeemer of Israel. Therefore, R. Nahman reinterprets the verse as if it is a complaint against Cyrus stated by God to the Messiah (the eventual redeemer). Cyrus had promised God that he himself would rebuild the Temple and lead the Jewish exiles back to Zion. However, in Ezra Cyrus tells the Jews to go back and rebuild the Temple themselves.
  IntroductionThe Talmud continues to interpret the Megillah.
  Which comes first—Media or Persia? The answer notes that in one verse the word “kings” is next to Media and in the other verse “governors” is next to Media. So the two nations made a deal with one another—one would supply the kings, the other would supply the governors.
  The word “tiferet” is used midrashically to teach that Ahashverosh dressed up in priestly garments for the banquet. According to Rashi, these were the priestly garments stolen from the Temple in Jerusalem.
  According to the Megillah, Ahashverosh first made a banquet for the governors coming from afar. Following this, in verse five, it says that he made a banquet for the people of his city. Rav and Shmuel debate whether this was a wise move. One holds that it is wise to first win over those who live far away, because he always has an opportunity to win over those who live in Shushan itself. Thus Ahashverosh was a wise political maneuverer. The other holds that it is more important to first garner support from those who live close. Once they were on his side, he could always use them as support against those who live far. Thus Ahashverosh acted foolishly.
  In this dialogue, R. Shimon b. Yohai and his students try to figure out why the Jews were (almost) exterminated in the time of Haman. His students explain that this was a punishment for sitting down to a feast with Ahashverosh. The problem with this is that only those in Shushan are said to have feasted with him—so why were all of the Jews sentenced in Haman’s decree? Therefore, R. Shimon b. Yohai said it was a punishment for the idol worship that took place in the time of Ahashverosh—only Hananyah, Mishael and Azaryah did not. The problem with this is that the punishment for idol worship is death. Why then did God end up saving them? Was he really showing favoritism to them, allowing to escape from a deserved punishment?Shimon answers by defending the Jews—they didn’t really worship idols. They only bowed down out of fear. So too God did not afflict them in reality—he only warned them by allowing Haman to make his evil decree.
  The rabbis are troubled by the verse because “court” “garden” and “palace” are three different places. They offer three different interpretations: 1) Each person went where he belonged, based on his societal standing. 2) They first went into the court, but when that couldn’t hold them, Ahashverosh opened up the garden and then eventually the palace itself. 3) He sat them in the court but doors were opened to the garden and palace.
  The rabbis here interpret two very unusual words in the Tanakh “hur, karpas” by using puns that accord with Hebrew.
  According to R. Judah’s interpretation, who reclined on what type of couch at the banquet was a reflection of his social standing. R. Nehemiah is shocked at such an interpretation because it would cause envy at the banquet. Rather, the couches were of silver and only the legs were gold. Everyone was equal.It is interesting to note that the Roman banquet was highly stratified—where you sat reflected your social standing. R. Nehemiah’s response may be a veiled critique of the type of banquets that occurred in his day.
  Assi uses another pun to explain “bahat.” The idea that stones can be great work to lift up is echoed in a midrashic interpretation of Zechariah.
  More puns in the stones used in the palace. All of these connect the odd Persian loan words found in Esther with Hebrew or Aramaic words that sound similar.
  Rava reads some more puns into these verses. “Kalu” can mean “exterminated” and sounds like the word “keli” which means vessels. The Babylonians were destroyed in the time of Belshazzar for drinking out of the vessels they had stolen from the Temple. And yet Ahasheverosh is again (shonim, from the word for two, which in Esther means “diverse”) drinking from them!
  Rav reads the word “rav” in Esther not as “abundance” but as “greater in years.” Old wine is superior to new wine.
  Despite the fact that Ahashverosh was considered evil, he still held the proper portion of food to drink—more food to drink. This is like the offerings on the altar where there was more food offered than drink.
  A person is used to wine from one’s own country, and will not have to be compelled to drink it.
  Mordecai and Haman reigned over this banquet. Each was the “ish” whose will the others had to follow.
  According to Rava, Vashti was a willing and active participant in Ahashverosh’s lascivious plan. He wanted her to dance naked in front of the other men, and she did as well.
  
  Daf 12b
  
  This extended section relates that the “seventh day” of the feast was also the seventh day of the week. Jews study Torah and thank God. In contrast, the nations of the world get drunk and deal in frivolous matters. Ahashverosh wishing to show off his wife Vashti, calls her to come forth naked. This is a measure for measure punishment for how she used to treat the daughters of Israel, whom she used to force to dance naked in front of her. 
  Having said that both Vashti and Ahashverosh intended to commit acts of licentiousness, the rabbis are forced to explain why she refused to come when he summoned her. There are two versions as to why. The first is that she got a scale disease on her skin. The rabbis considered leprosy to be a punishment from God, which makes it appropriate for their perception of Vashti. That she was given a tail is a bit stranger. Perhaps we might surmise that being given a tail is a sign of her becoming like the serpent, wily. Tails are one of the things that distinguish humans from another mammals. In essence we are the tail-less mammal (although we do really all have tails, they’re just very small).
  Why did Ahashverosh get so angry with Vashti? The Talmud ascribes a curse that Vashti made against Ahashverosh—he was the son of her father’s stable master. I have read some research noting that this was a Persian type of curse. Interestingly, the rabbis while denigrating the old Persian king, are influenced by Persian culture itself.
  The king turns to the sages who are identified as rabbis for they know how to intercalate years and months. He wants them to put Vashti on trial for disobeying the king. They wisely avoid the matter, sending him to other nationalities to do the dirty work. There is even a pun here in the midrash. Moab has “settled on his lees” unlike Ahashverosh whose lees were just shook up by getting so drunk.
  Levi reads the strange names of Ahashverosh’s ministers as alluding to claims that the ministering angels made before God concerning the sacrifices. Each name alludes to a sacrificial act that Israel did before God that the non-Jews did not. Rashi explains that at this point the ministering angels pleaded before God to punish Vashti, so that Esther could become queen and eventually save the Jews.
  The rabbis identify Memukhan with Haman, who is destined to be hanged later in the Megillah. This identification is part of a midrashic trend to conflate characters in the Tanakh. Here it is especially curious why Haman was not listed with the ministers of the king in chapter one.Kahana notes that Memukhan was the last of the ministers in the list but the first to talk. Often times it is the least important person, the one who has the least to say, who pushes himself to the front to speak.
  Rava notes something curious about the various letters sent out by Ahashverosh to his people. The Babylonians waited before carrying out the destruction of the Jews instructed in the second letters. This is because, Rava claims, the first letter was so obvious. Obviously men command their homes, even a weaver, a rather lowly profession, reigns in his own home. Since the first letter was so obvious, the second letter was ignored. Thus Haman’s (Memukhan) own suggestion allowed the “enemies of Israel”—a euphemism for Israel themselves, to be eventually saved.
  The midrash now moves to the second chapter. The verse refers to the king appointing officers to find him a new wife. Rav’s midrash compares David with Ahashverosh and is based on a pun between the word clever (arom) and naked (arom). David when he was old only asked for one girl. Therefore everyone rushed to bring him a girl. Ahashverosh, the fool, appointed officers to find all of the girls. All of the fathers knew that his intent was to try them all out and then pick one. Whoever had a daughter hid her.
  The verse only lists a few generations of Mordecai—son of Yair, son of Shimei, son of Kish. And then it says he was from Benjamin. So why give some of his pedigree but not all of it?A baraita takes each of the names and makes a pun from it. These midrashic puns are something we have seen quite a few of throughout these pages.
  The first half of the verse calls Mordecai a Judean, meaning from the tribe of Judah, whereas the second half calls him a Benjamite, from the tribe of Benjamin. The rabbis give various answers as to how the Megillah can seem to say he is from different tribes.The first answer is simply that he was given good names. He is not from both of these tribes.The second answer is that he actually was from both tribes—one side was Benjamin, the other Judah.The third answer is that the tribes fought over who allowed him to be born. Judah said that since David didn’t kill Shimi ben Gera (see II Samuel 19) they allowed Mordecai to be born. This assumes that the same Shimi not killed by David was actually Mordecai’s ancestor. In other words, even if he was from Benjamin, credit for his birth goes to Judah.The tribe of Benjamin argued that that does not matter who saved Shimi’s life, for Mordecai is actually born from us.
  Rava says that the verse is actually a lament from the community of Israel, blaming both Judah and Benjamin for the dangerous situation in Shushan. Haman was provoked by Mordecai, who was a descendent of Shimei, who was not slayed by David. Thus Mordecai brought on the Jews’ punishment. And Haman was allowed to live by Saul, the Benjamite who didn’t slay Agag, the Amalekite king and ancestor of Haman. Thus, ancestry can be the source of blame as well as credit.
  
  Daf 13a
  
  This midrash is connected to a verse from Daniel where a minister refers to Jews as those who do not worship the Babylonian king’s god or bow down to his idols. This is also an apt description of Mordecai who refuses to bow down to Ahashverosh. From here R. Yohanan learns that anyone who denies idolatry is called a Jew. There may be some broader implications of this statement. R. Yohanan may be saying, in a sense, that all those who deny idolatry in his day are actually Jews. While I wouldn’t go so far as to say that he does not require conversion, he may be saying that when it comes to being inside the Jewish people, one way to be “in” is simply to deny idolatry.
  Shimon b. Pazi offers a derashah here explaining some of the strange names used in the book of Chronicles. This derashah is brought here because it too cites the notion that anyone who rejects idol worship is called a Jew.A verse above refers to Caleb (the famous spy) and then a later verse refers to his Jewish wife, daughter of Pharaoh. But how could Pharaoh’s daughter be called a Jew? The answer is that she too rejected idol worship. R. Yohanan interpreted her going down to the Nile to bathe as an act of repudiating her father’s idols.
  Pharaoh’s daughter did not really give birth to Moses, she only brought him up. From here we learn a message that is so important for all adoptive parents. Anyone who raises an orphan is treated as he bore him.
  The verse in its totality reads: “18 And his Judean wife bore Yered father of Gedor, Heber father of Soco, and Yekutiel father of Zanoah.” The midrash reads each of these as another name for Moses, based on a pun for Moses’s qualities. In addition the words “father of” are not to be understood literally. Rather “father of” hints at Moses’s quality as “father of” Israel in Torah, wisdom and prophecy.
  This verse refers to Bitya as Mered’s wife whereas above she was called Caleb’s wife. To resolve the problem we get another pun—Caleb rebelled against the bad advice of the spies and Bitya rebelled against her father’s idols. A match made in heaven.
  IntroductionThe Talmud continues to give midrashic explanations of the Megillah.
  According to Rava Mordecai went into exile on his own accord—he was not forced into exile like the others sent into exile with Yechoniah who are described in this verse.
  Esther seems to have a second name—Hadassah. The rabbis in this baraita discuss the meanings of these two names, and which one was her “real” name and which was a nickname based on one of her qualities. I will go through these one at a time.A hadas is a myrtle. This connects the midrash to a verse from Zechariah where the prophet sees an angel standing among the myrtle trees. Esther is righteous like a myrtle.Judah plays on a pun between “Esther” and “masteret”—to hide. Esther received her nickname by hiding her origins from Ahashverosh.Nehemiah notes that the name Esther is like the word “Istahar.” According to Rashi this relates to the moon, which in Aramaic is called “sahar.” She was as beautiful as the moon.Ben Azzai says she was of average height, like a myrtle.Joshua b. Korha says she was green! Like a myrtle. But he also works in a pun that she had “hesed,” kindness, which is a pun on the myrtle.
  The Megillah twice notes that Esther’s mother and father had died—why the repetition? R. Aha answers that Esther was a sort of “super-orphan,” her father having died when her mother became pregnant and her mother dying right after giving birth.
  The rabbis read Mordecai as marrying Esther, not adopting her. We should note that the rabbis encouraged niece marriage and were not at all repulsed by it. The idea that Mordecai married Esther is based on a pun, an intentional re-reading of a word. In Hebrew and Aramaic the word for “house”—bayit, can also mean “wife.” This sounds like the word for daughter “bat” which allows the rabbis to read the Megillah as saying that Mordecai married Esther, rather than adopting her as a daughter. The same word “le-bat” is used in II Samuel when Nathan the prophet rebukes David for taking Batsheva, Uriah’s “little lamb.”
  Esther was given seven servant girls so she could count the week by them. I wonder if she named them, Sunday, Monday…. Most importantly, she could use the girls to know when it was Shabbat. Rava is in essence saying that although she was in the king’s house, she still preserved Shabbat.
  The rabbis read the verse as if it states that Hagai, the head of Ahashverosh’s harem, treated Esther better than the other maidens. But the rabbis ask how so. Rav says that he gave her kosher food. This is somewhat remarkable considering that he did not yet know that she was a Jew. Shmuel says he gave her fatty pieces of pork, which was considered a special treat. Rashi says that she ate the pork while other commentators say that she did not. R. Yohanan says he gave them legumes, the same food that was given to Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah in Belshazzar’s court. This refers to a story where these Jews refuse to eat the kings non-kosher food. The steward fears that they will get sick from not eating well. Daniel says that all they needed was legumes. After eating only legumes for ten days, they looked better and healthier than all of the youth that ate the king’s food. Just goes to show you, “Beans are good for your heart.”
  This section identifies the oil of myrrh that the girls in Ahashverosh’s harem used for a whole six months. There are various interpretations of what “stakat” is. Jastrow says cinnamon. Rashi says persimmon. In any case, I’m sure it smelled very good.Huna interprets it as oil from unripened olives, which evidently can also be used for depilatory cream.
  From the disgrace of that wicked man we can learn something to his credit, that he did not have sexual relations by day.
  I find this to be a very interesting remark. “To find favor” with other people means that you look like them. I’m not sure this is always true, but to a certain extent it usually seems to me that it is. People like it when other people look like them. Strange exotic looks may be interesting for a magazine, but how many people end up marrying someone who looks just like them? Esther, as we shall increasingly see, is a master of disguise, blending in with any crowd.
  Tevet is the dead of winter. It’s the month when people want to snuggle in bed just to warm up next to each other.
  Esther was “above all the women” and “above all the virgins.” Rav reads this as alluding to Esther’s sexual allure. She could provide Ahashverosh with the experience of being with a virgin and she could also provide him with the experience of being with the married woman. Again, she can also be whomever someone else wants her to be.
  Esther was adamant about not revealing her birthplace. This is a major theme in the book of Esther and the rabbis emphasize it here. Only later on, at the feast she throws to save the Jews, will she dramatically tell the king who she is. Here Ahashverosh is portrayed as making all sorts of efforts to convince her tell him where she’s from. Interestingly, this also connects with what was stated before. Esther looked like a person from anywhere. She could be a virgin or a married woman. She had no identity. She blended in perfectly well, but this just made the king more curious as to who she really is. Full of intrigue, Esther held back this information from the king and from everyone else. It was this guile that eventually saved the Jewish people.
  
  Daf 13b
  
  The Talmud now moves to deal with another issue related to Esther and modesty.Saul comes from the tribe of Benjamin, so he was a descendant of Rachel. The Megillah itself does not state Esther’s ancestry, but according to rabbinic sources, Mordecai descended from Saul, and since Esther was his niece, she too would have descended from Mordecai.
  In this remarkable story, Rachel is actually the one who tricks Jacob into marrying Leah, not Laban as the story is usually read. Jacob knows in advance that Laban will try to trick him and takes precautions to ensure that he will not be tricked. But Rachel just cannot tolerate the thought of her sister waking up happy with her new husband, only to discover that she was unwanted. She has mercy on her poor sister, who was not as attractive as she. So she gives the tokens to Jacob, who is fooled by them. I can’t help but read here a critique of Jacob as well. Jacob stole the birthright from his brother. His brother was a fool, and Jacob took full advantage of it. Rachel acts with “modesty” which here means kindness, a willingness to forego what she wants because someone else wants it more. Jacob was not so modest. By her acts, Rachel merits that the first king of Israel should be descended from her. [It doesn’t seem to bother the storyteller that David was not descended from Rachel].
  Saul was modest in not telling his uncle that he had been anointed king by the prophet Shmuel, when he returns from his journey to find some lost donkeys. Therefore, he merited that the modest Esther should descend from him.
  Elazar continues to explain the verse from Job. When God sets a king on the throne, his descendants will rule forever. However, if they become arrogant, God will bring them down.
  One of the main functions the rabbis picture themselves as having is determining whether what is considered menstrual blood, and therefore makes the woman impure and forbidden to have sex with her husband. The rabbis picture Esther as observing this halakhah—this is the “commandment” told to her by Mordecai.
  Esther was married to Mordecai when she was taken into the house of Ahashverosh. She would have relations with Ahashverosh, bathe and then go and have relations with Mordecai. To be honest, I find this a disturbing image, but I imagine that it may reflect a woman who was taken into the harem of the king, but still was able to maintain her relationship with her husband.
  Hiyya makes the observation that God caused a master to be angry at his servants, in order to aid Joseph. This refers to Pharaoh’s anger at the baker and the butler. By putting them in jail, he set in motion the chain of events that would lead to Joseph’s restoration.Similarly, God caused servants to be angry with their master, for the benefit of Mordecai. It was the rebellion of the king’s servants, Bigtan and Teresh, that eventually led to Mordecai’s elevation by the king.
  Yohanan explains how Mordecai was able to uncover the plot against the king. His statement also explains some other puzzles in the book of Esther. First of all, why were they so angry? The answer—the king was keeping them up all night, having sex with his new wife, Esther. Second, what does it mean “and it was found.” What did they have to find? The answer—Bigtan and Teresh had left their posts. This alerted the authorities as to their plot against the king.
  Before Haman even has a chance to set in motion his plot to destroy the Jews, God has already given Mordecai favor in the king’s eyes. This favor will eventually save the Jews. This is how God acts for Israel—before he punishes them, he already creates the healing process. God evidently needs to punish Israel at times, but before He does so, he makes sure that there will be a means through which the punishment can be healed. But when it comes to the rest of the world, such a favoring relationship does not exist.
  Rava explains why the verse moves from Mordecai, to “the people of Mordecai” then “all of the Jews.” Gradually, Haman expanded the scope of his evil decree.
  Haman rejoiced when he saw that the lot to kill the Jews fell on Adar, the month in which Moses died. He thought this was a good sign that his plot would succeed. What he did not know was that Moses was also born in Adar. Just as Adar can be a month of death, so too it can be a month of rebirth.
  Rava explains Haman’s speech to Ahashverosh. How did Haman convince Ahashverosh to allow him to kill all the Jews? Many of Haman’s claims against the Jews are classic anti-semitic claims made throughout history against the Jews. The portrait of a king hesitating about killing the Jews is also a scene that played itself out throughout Jewish history. Often the kings looked at the bottom line (the money) and did see some benefit in retaining the Jewish population in their region. It was often the people or other community leaders (the church) who were most dangerous to the Jews.The beginning of Rava’s derashah is a bit different. There Haman himself notes that these Jews are lax in their observance of commandments. Even the rabbis are not fully observant of the commandments. While it is strange to hear Haman saying these things, this is reflective of typical rabbinic theology. God would not punish Israel without Israel deserving such punishment.
  Resh Lakish refers here to the announcement made on the first of Adar as to the collection of the half-shekel tax. This was a tax collected from every Jew when the Temple still stood. The proceeds were used to finance the daily sacrifices. Resh Lakish says that it is not coincidental that Haman’s decree involved shekels and that Adar is also the month in which the Jews give a shekel to the Temple. Through observing the mitzvah of the half-shekel, the Jews were saved from Haman’s evil decree, bought with shekels.On the first of Adar they also announce that anyone with two different kinds of seeds growing together should uproot them (see Leviticus 19:19). Since Adar is the beginning of the growing season, this is when that announcement was made.
  
  Daf 14a
  
  Ahasheverosh ends up giving the Jews to Haman for free! This is like two men who both need what the other has. One has a mound and wants to level his field into the other’s ditch. One has a ditch and wants to fill it up with the other’s mound. In the end, they are both happy because they make the exchange for free. So too Ahashverosh wants to get rid of his Jews and Haman wants to kill the Jews. Ahashverosh is so willing, he does not even take the money.
  In last week’s daf we learned that Israel’s sins were what allowed Haman to issue his decree to kill all of the Jews. Throughout the Tanakh, the prophets and prophetesses consistently warn Israel to repent, but rarely does it work. But what did get the Jews to repent, and mourn and wear sackcloth (Esther 4:3)? The threat to their lives that occurred when Ahashverosh took off his ring.
  According to the rabbis the prophets never added anything to the “Torah,” i.e. the corpus of commandments that a Jew must observe, except for the reading of the Megillah. This is a reading of Purim we’ve seen elsewhere—it’s the holiday of innovation. The prophets derived the obligation to read the Megillah from a “kal vehomer” argument. If we sang the praise of God after the Exodus from Egypt, all the more so we should sing it when we were saved from death at the time of Haman. Of course, the problem is that we do not recite Hallel on Purim—we say the Megillah. The Talmud answers that we don’t recite Hallel for miracles that occurred outside of Israel.
  If we don’t say Hallel for miracles that occurred outside of Israel, then how can we say Hallel for the Exodus itself! The answer is that there is a difference between miracles that occurred before the Israelites entered the land (such as the Exodus), and those that occurred after they entered the land. Once the Jews entered the land, they could only say Hallel for miracles that occurred in the land. That is why we don’t say Hallel on Purim.
  Rava said: There is a good reason in that case [of the Exodus from Egypt] because it says [in the Hallel], “Praise you O servants of the Lord,” and not servants of Pharaoh. But can we say in this case, “Praise you, servants of the Lord” and not servants of Ahashverosh? We are still servants of Ahashverosh.
  By offering other reasons for why we don’t say Hallel on Purim, Rava and R. Nahman imply that we could say Hallel for miracles that occurred in other lands. This contradicts the baraita from above. The resolution is that once all of the people went into exile, it again became proper to recite Hallel
  Above, we said that there only 48 prophets. But a verse in Samuel is read [based on pun—Ramataim=matayim (200)] as if there were 200 “Tzophim”—prophets—just in Eli’s time.The answer is that there were many prophets. But only the prophesies that contain lessons for the future generations was written down.
  The Talmud now offers two other interpretations for the place Ramataim-Tzophim. The first is physical—it refers to heights (ramot) that face each other (tzophim means to look or face). The second interpretation is that it refers to Eli’s ancestors. Eli was a priest, a descendent of Korah. Korah’s sons didn’t die. They were swallowed up by the earth, preserved in Gehinnom so that they wouldn’t fall to its depths.
  IntroductionIn a baraita in yesterday’s section we learned that there were seven prophetesses. The Talmud now begins to list them and explain how we know they were prophetesses.
  That Sarah was a prophet is derived from what R. Isaac considers her alternative name—Yiskah. He says that this name is connected to the verb, sakhtah, which means to “see” but has the connotation of seeing prophetic visions. This is supported by the fact that God tells Abraham to heed everything Sarah has to say.Alternatively, “sakhin” refers to the fact that people looked at her for her beauty.Interestingly, we have here two different versions of Sarah’s worth, and perhaps by extension, women in general. According to the first version, Sarah’s value is in that God speaks through her. According to the second, more mundane version, she is just an object of beauty.
  Miriam is called a prophet directly by the verse. The midrash here explains what her prophesy was. She predicted that her younger brother, not yet born, would save Israel. But when he was thrown into the river, her prophecy seemed to be in doubt. This explains why she went down to the river to see what would become of him.
  Devorah from the book of Judges is also called a prophetess. The Talmud asks why she was also called “woman of flames.” The simple meaning of this phrase is probably that she was from a place called “Lapidot.” Midrashically, the Talmud interprets “woman of flames” to mean that she made wicks to be used in the Menorah in the Temple.She sat under a palm tree, an open place, to avoid being secluded with any man who came to seek her advice. The rabbis were very concerned that women should not be secluded with men. This is known as “yihhud.”The palm tree is also interpreted more as a metaphor, symbolizing Israel’s solidarity during that generation, in their devotion to God.
  Hannah, the mother of the prophet Shmuel, was also a prophetess. Her prophecy is derived from her words “My horn is exalted.” David and Solomon were anointed with oil poured from a horn and their kingdom lasted. Saul and Yehu (see II Kings 9:3) were anointed from a cruse of oil, and their kingships were cut short.
  Having begun interpreting Hannah’s song in II Samuel 2, the Talmud continues with a few more explanations. R. Judah b. Menashya plays off the word “biltekha” showing that God is different from human beings. When human beings make things, the objects outlast the person (at least they did back then, nowadays I’m not sure). But God outlasts His works.
  God is the greatest artist. Human artistic creations simply cannot be compared with the wondrous creation of life, fashioned inside a person by God.
  IntroductionAbigail was married to a scoundrel named Naval, when David sent men to ask her for bread. Naval foolishly refused, causing David to set out to kill him. Abigail went to David to try to appease him and succeeded. Eventually, Naval died and David married Abigail.
  The verse says that she came down on the hidden side of the mountain. This is a strange detail—why on the hidden side of the mountain, and not just down the mountain.Rabbah b. Shmuel now begins an extended midrash, in which we shall eventually see what Abigail prophesied. Abigail was coming down the mountain to David to ask him questions about her menstrual blood. David here is portrayed in the way that a typical rabbi is portrayed—women came to ask whether their blood was impure. The story continues below.
  Abigail showed the blood stain, assumedly on a sheet, to David. He replies that we don’t show blood stains at night—for obvious reasons. She, being a prophetess, responds that David should not be coming to execute Naval for we don’t judge capital cases at night. David responds that Naval is a rebel, and rebels against the king do not even need to be judged. The king can execute them without a trial. She defends her husband by replying that King Saul was still alive, so how was Naval supposed to know that David was king.
  This section shows how Abigail saved David twice, and was also a prophetess. David says that she prevented him from shedding blood, but he uses the word “bloods” as if to say she prevented him from another type of blood. This second blood was the menstrual blood. David wanted to lie with her, because she was exceedingly beautiful (and David is David, after all). She told him “let not ‘this’ meaning ‘me’ be a stumbling block for you.” Abigail was not a stumbling block for David—he did not lie with her until Naval died. But Bathsheba was a stumbling block for David. This was predicted by Abigail, and eventually came true. Thus she was a prophetess.
  Abigail, when departing from David, asks him to remember her in the future. She knows that her current scoundrel of a husband, Naval, will die, and she wants David to marry her later on. Abigail, married but already securing a future marriage, is like a woman who can talk and spin wool at the same time. She was a good multi-tasker. Another folk-saying illustrating this is that even though the goose walks with its head down, its eyes look far off.
  
  Daf 14b
  
  IntroductionToday’s section talks about the prophetesses Hulda and then Esther.
  Hulda is called a prophetess by the verse. But she lived at the same time as the prophet Jeremiah. So if Jeremiah was the main prophet, how could she also prophesize.The answer is that Jeremiah didn’t mind, because she was a relative. Like the force, prophecy seems to run in families.We should note the tension the rabbis feel with women prophets. This is a tension we shall see at the end of this section as well.
  Still, why did King Josiah send for Hulda and not Jeremiah. The first answer is that Josiah thought he would receive more mercy from Hulda. A woman prophet would pray for Josiah’s kingdom if the prophecy was evil. This answer also seems to relate to the ambivalence the rabbis felt about women prophets/leaders. The woman was chosen, according to this section, because of her special abilities, unique to women.The second answer is that Jeremiah was trying to bring back the lost ten tribes. This is a major theme in parts of the book of Jeremiah—his attempt to restore the northern kingdom that had been conquered by Sancheriv nearly 150 years earlier.
  The Talmud now proves that Jeremiah did indeed restore the ten lost tribes. In the verse quoted Ezekiel prophecies that the Jubilee law will be nullified. But this implies that in Ezekiel’s time, who lived after Jeremiah, the Jubilee was still observed. According to the rabbis, the Jubilee laws are observed only when all tribes dwell in their ancestral lands. Thus we can see that the ten tribes were returned and that is why the Jubilee was observed in the time of Ezekiel.
  The king of Judah (the southern kingdom), Josiah, ruled over the ten tribes. In other words, they were restored to the kingdom of the south, Judah. This is proved from one of two verses. In the first verse Josiah has a connection with the altar in the north in Beth-El. In the second verse Judah is portrayed as ruling over the restored captives, which R. Nahman says are the ten tribes of the north.We should note that according to a straightforward, non-midrashic reading of the Tanakh, the ten tribes of the north were not restored. They were lost.
  Esther did not put on royal clothing—she dressed herself in the Holy Spirit of God, before going in to approach Ahashverosh.
  Nahman notes that two of these seven prophetesses have animal names—Devorah means hornet, or bee, and Hulda means weasel. These are not particularly beloved animals. R. Nahman condemns these two women for the arrogant way in which they treat the authoritative men around them.A feminist reading of this section would note the discomfort caused to R. Nahman by these strong women who don’t mind talking down to the men around them. This is the same discomfort the text noted above with regard to the king calling for Hulda instead of Jeremiah.
  Nahman connects the word “Harhas” to the word “Heres” to conclude that Hulda was a descendent of Joshua.
  Ena Saba (old R. Ena) uses a baraita to show that Hulda was the descendant of Rahab the prostitute, who helped Joshua conquer Jericho. So how could she be the descendant of Joshua.
  Nahman resolves the difficulty—Rahav converted to Judaism and Joshua married her. Hulda is the descendent of both.
  From the verse it seems that Joshua had no sons, this is why the book does not list them. So how could Hulda be a descendant of his? The answer is that he had only daughters, and Chronicles lists only sons.
  
  Daf 15a
  
  Baruch, Serayah, Jeremiah and Hanamel were the sons of Neriah, Mahseya, Hilkiah and Shallum. We know that the sons were prophets because they are called prophets. But how do we know that the fathers were prophets as well? Ulla answers that whenever the verse lists the name of the father with the prophet, it is a sign that the father was a prophet as well. And whenever the verse does not list where a prophet was from, we can know that he was from Jerusalem.
  If a person is righteous, such as Zephaniah the prophet, and his father is mentioned as well, we can know that his father was righteous as well. This is why the verse mentions his father’s name—to let you know that his righteousness was inherited from his parents. But if a person is wicked, like Ishmael son of Netanel, son of Elishama who killed Gedaliah, the last ruler of Judah after the destruction of the Temple, then we can know that his fathers were wicked as well. The prophet/scoundrel does not fall far from the tree!
  Nahman identifies the prophet Malachi with Mordecai. Malach can means “messenger.” Mordecai was second to the king (Esther 10:3) and that is why the king called him “Malachi”—my messenger.Nahman is refuted with a baraita that lists prophets who prophesied while Darius, the Persian king, was living. Since Mordecai and Malachi are listed separately, they must be separate people.
  Joshua b. Korha identifies Malachi with Ezra, an identification accepted by R. Nahman who notes the similarity in message. Both Malachi and Ezra oppose the intermarriage with the local women that Israelites (Judeans) were engaging in. Ezra, in the verse that follows the verse quoted here, even goes so far as to demand that all the Israelites send away their foreign women.The sages say that Malachi was his actual name, it was not a nickname for something else.
  The baraita identifies four women who were known for their surpassing beauty. However, there was an interpretation above on 13a that Esther was green. The author of this opinion would have to hold that Vashti and not Esther was one of the four most beautiful women.
  The rabbis expand the topic of sexually attractive women in the Bible. Rahab was so sexually inspiring that all it took was to say her name for one to be lustful. R. Isaac says that anyone who even says her name will immediately have a seminal emission. Later, it is clarified that this is only for someone who was already intimate with her.Yael had an extraordinarily attractive voice. Even one who thought about Abigail would become lustful. Finally, as far as physical appearance, Michal surpassed them all.It is interesting that the rabbis note so many different forms of sexual attraction. There are those whose very names inspire desire, whereas others are known for their voice or beauty. I think today we imagine sexual attraction as being based mostly on appearance, but obviously there are many more factors involved.
  IntroductionThis section continues with verse by verse explanations of the Megillah.
  Rav and Shmuel explain what Mordecai cried out when he revealed Haman’s plot. According to Rav, Mordecai cried out that Haman’s plan had gone beyond anything that Ahashverosh had planned. This cry seems to be a political ploy by Haman to rouse the non-Jews against Haman. It also may have been meant to rouse Ahashverosh himself against Haman.Shmuel provides a more theological explanation. First of all, we should note that Shmuel speaks euphemistically. The upper king is God and the lower king is Haman. What he means is that Haman has prevailed over God but this is such a terrible sentence to write, that he writes the opposite.
  The simple meaning of the verb “vatithalhal” is that Esther was afraid. However, the rabbis understood it based on the word for empty space—halal. Rav said blood flowed out of her, because she began to menstruate. R. Jeremiah says that she needed to go to bathroom.
  The rabbis love to conflate characters in the Bible. Thus “Hatach” is not just any one of the kings’ servants. He is none other than Daniel. Rav and Shmuel then offer two puns on his name, explaining why Daniel was called Hatach.
  Isaac interprets Esther’s inquiry as a question whether Israel was being punished by God for their sins and transgressions of the Torah. This might be necessary to influence her decision as to how to save the Jews. If it was their own deeds, then they need to do begin by doing teshuvah.
  Hatach (Daniel) himself did not go back to Mordecai to tell him that Esther refused to go in front of the king—he sent others. This teaches that a messenger is not obligated to return to the one who sent him with a negative answer.
  Esther says that she is going in front of the king “not according to the custom.” R. Abba interprets this to mean that up until now, she only came in front of the king when called. She had no choice; she was compelled to lie with him. Now, she was making a choice to go to him willingly, and she may again have to lie with him. As we shall see, this will impact her relationship with Mordecai.
  When Esther was sleeping with Ahashverosh out of compulsion, she was not forbidden to Mordecai her husband. But if she now goes to Ahashverosh willingly, and he sleeps with her, she will be prohibited to Mordecai because she is an adulteress.
  The verse says that Mordecai “passed” before declaring a three day fast, as Esther had directed him. The word “passed” is unclear. According to Rav, Mordecai “passed over” Passover, by making the first day of the holiday one of the days of fasting.Shmuel says that there must have been a stream that he crossed over on that day.
  This statement already appeared above on 14b. Esther didn’t put on “royal clothes” rather she began to act as a prophet by being clothed by “the holy spirit.”This now opens a chain of statements made by R. Elazar in the name of R. Hanina.
  There were two cases where a great man was blessed by an “ordinary” man and the blessing came true. In II Samuel 24 a plague comes upon Israel. Aravnah a Jebusite blesses David that God should listen to David’s sacrifices. God listens and the plague stops.Daniel was blessed by Darius that God should save him. David was indeed saved when thrown into the lion’s den. While I would hardly call Darius an “ordinary” person, he is not a prophet or other Jewish role.
  The simple reading of “behold his for you a covering of the eyes is that Abraham hid from Avimelech that Sarah was his wife. However, the midrash here reads it as blindness. Avimelech curses Sarah that she should have blind descendants. Indeed, Isaac her son does eventually go blind.
  Usually people first put a pot on the fire and then they pour water into it (at least this must be how they did things back then, when water didn’t come from a sink). But God first put the waters in the heavens and then created the clouds that held the water back. The end of the verse in Jeremiah reads, “and he raises clouds from the ends of the earth.” Thus he first puts the water in the heavens and then creates the clouds.
  When people say something, they should say where they heard it from.
  In this beautiful message R. Elazar says that the loss of a tzadik, a righteous person, is only for his own generation. It is like the loss of a pearl, a precious stone that cannot truly be destroyed. Just because one’s owner has lost the pearl, does not mean that it is really lost. Just as it will always exist somewhere, so too do the righteous.
  
  Daf 15b
  
  Why should Haman have been so enraged just at seeing Mordecai sitting at the gate? The answer seems to be in a midrash found elsewhere and alluded to here. According to this midrash, Ahashverosh once sent Haman and Mordecai out to war, giving them money to spend on troops. Haman spent all of his own money on himself and was left with nothing. He came to Mordecai and asked for a loan. Mordecai refused unless Haman sold himself as a slave. Haman thus became Mordecai’s slave. This is what angered Haman so much.Again we can see here an echo of subsequent Jewish history. The Jews’ wealth and especially the indebtedness of the Gentiles to the Jews was often a grave source of anti-semitism.
  All of the money that Haman once had was worth nothing, for whenever he would see Mordecai he was reminded that he had been sold into slavery to him.
  Using some wordplay on the verse from Isaiah R. Elazar says that in the world to come (or in the Messianic age) God will be a crown of glory for the righteous.
  The midrash continues to interpret the verse. Only those with these qualities, those who control their evil inclinations, will merit God’s crown of glory in the world to come.
  The midrash interprets these righteous people as rabbis, otherwise known as “disciples of the sages.”
  The Attribute of Justice argues before God—why do you give this reward to righteous people who have the above attributes of self-control and not to everyone. The answer is that those who are righteous but still follow their appetites (wine and strong drink) are treated as if they were wicked. This midrash is heavily focused on self-control. Only those righteous who also are able to control themselves are deserving of such a great reward. Indeed, we might say that a righteous person who does not control himself is even more deserving of such a serious punishment.There is a sentence in the Hebrew which is missing in all manuscripts. I have not translated here because it does not seem to make sense at all.
  This text reads Psalms 22 in connection with Esther’s entrance to Ahashverosh’s chamber. God’s Divine Presence leaves Esther as soon as she enters the chamber in which the king’s idols are kept. She then defends herself, as if to accuse God of not realizing that she was there under duress, to save the people of Israel. She also presents another possibility as to why the Divine Presence abandoned her—she called Ahashverosh a dog. This is not a proper means by which to refer to a king—even a foreign king like Ahashverosh, who was considered wicked by the rabbis. The Talmud demands respect for the non-Jewish authority. Esther’s lack of respect for him may have caused God to leave her!She restores the Divine Presence to her side by calling Ahashverosh a lion, a proper term of respect. This is also based on the verse in Psalms.
  The verse says that when the king saw Esther “he stretched out the golden scepter in his hand and Esther drew near and touched the scepter.” Rabbi Yohanan says that three angels performed three miracles for her at that moment. The first lifted her head up so that Ahashverosh would notice her, the second made her look beautiful and the third extended Ahashverosh’s scepter to make it easier for her to reach.I know it is tempting to give a certain interpretation to the lengthening of Ahashverosh’s scepter. After all, he just saw Esther and now his scepter grows. I’m not sure if this is what the midrash intended. If so, that’s one long scepter.
  Exodus 2:5 says that Pharaoh’s daughter sent out her “amata” to take Moses out of the water. The simple reading of the verse is that she sent her slave woman out to take Moses out. But the rabbis read the word “amata” as “her arm.” This is to protect the dignity of Moses—a simple slave woman didn’t draw him from the water. The princess did! Her arm was miraculously lengthened and she reached out and took Moses from the water.Resh Lakish also reads a pun on the word “shibarta”—you broke from Psalms 3:8. Elsewhere, the Talmud reads this verse as referring to Og, King of Bashan, whose teeth were lengthened to sixty cubits by God. Those are some long choppers!Finally, there is a tradition that the scepter grew to 200 cubits. That’s more than the length of a football field. Touchdown to Ahashverosh!
  The rabbis note that the one thing that Ahashverosh did not offer Esther was the opportunity to go back to the land of Israel and rebuild the Temple. He didn’t even offer her the land of Israel, for that would have cut his kingdom in half. Had she been offered a return to Israel or the Temple, she surely would have asked for it. This may also be there way of explaining why she only asked to save her life, which seems to be a minor request considering he offered to give her half the kingdom.
  IntroductionThis section contains a long baraita with multiple explanations for why Esther invited Haman to her feast. After all, she could have just invited Ahashverosh and told him about Haman’s plot without the presence of Haman.
  Esther invited Haman as a trap. When a person eats a good meal, and drinks good wine, he feels relaxed. It is at that moment that he is most vulnerable. Once food and liquor loosen him up, he might also speak too freely and thereby be ensnared by his own words.
  Esther learned this strategy from “her father’s house.” Since Esther was an orphan this phrase cannot be taken literally. Rather, commentators understand that she learned it in school, when studying the book of Proverbs.
  Esther wisely kept Haman close so that when he heard her accusation he would be immediately caught. He would not be able to begin a rebellion against Ahashverosh.
  Had she not invited Haman, he might have realized that she was a Jew and that she planned to influence the king to annul his decree. This might have caused him to move up the date of the planned massacre.
  Nehemiah reads Esther’s strategy as directed at the Jews. She made it look to the other Jews as if she was not pleading on their behalf. They would see that she had invited Haman and this would cause them to continue to pray for mercy from God. This section seems to reveal a tension in the story—what saves the Jews—their prayers to God or Esther and Mordecai’s political machinations? The Talmud casts the story as if Esther purposefully shapes her politics to encourage Jews to continue praying for God’s mercy.
  As they say, Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.
  Esther invited Haman so that God could see her desperation. The situation of the Jews was so dire that she had to invite their archenemy to her own feast.
  Esther invited Haman to her feast so that Ahashverosh would think that the two of them were having an adulterous relationship. The king would kill them both and thereby save the rest of the Jews. This highlights Esther’s willingness to martyr herself.
  Rabban Gamaliel says that Esther realized that Ahashverosh was a flipflopper (someone who says one thing and then changes his mind). Esther invited Haman lest Ahashverosh were to change his mind after she told him about the decree. With Haman there she hoped he would kill him immediately.
  Rabbah says that Esther wanted to inflate Haman’s sense of pride for “pride goes before the fall.”
  Abaye and Rava say that Esther learned from Jeremiah that the downfall of the wicked comes from the context of a feast. The verse in Jeremiah refers to the downfall of Belshazzar. He and his men had returned from a victory over Darius and Cyrus and settled down to a feast. At that very feast he was killed.
  Elijah the ultimate peacemaker, says that Esther acted out of all the reasons proffered by the Tannaim and Amoraim. Interestingly, when it comes to halakhic debates, Elijah is imagined as settling them, i.e. determining which side is correct. But here, in an aggadic debate, he is presented as accepting all of the answers.
  IntroductionThis section continues with Haman’s return to his home, where he tells Zeresh and his friends of his great wealth and the number of his children.
  The rabbis offer various answers as to how many children Haman had. The source of Rav’s answer of thirty is not known. The other rabbis base it on a pun. Rami b. Abba bases it on gematria, using the defective spelling. In any case, he certainly did have a lot of children. Perhaps one of the reasons for this midrash is to show that Haman’s descendants did not all die.
  The night after Esther’s invitation, Ahashverosh has trouble sleeping. Rabbis offer different interpretations of the verse. Some interpret it as if it refers to God, or at least to the angels. But Rava says that Ahashverosh himself couldn’t sleep. The reason is connected with the events that preceded chapter six. Ahashverosh feared that his minister and queen were plotting against him. In addition, he realized that maybe others were not informing him as to their plot because he didn’t properly reward those who had rescued him in the past. That is why he opened the books to check his records.
  The verb “they were read” is passive. The Talmud reads a miracle into the syntax —the words read themselves!
  Again, the rabbis read into the syntax of the word. Shimshai was the king’s scribe (see Ezra 4:8). He writes to the king asking him to stop the Jews from rebuilding the Temple. Shimshai hated the Jews. When Ahashverosh opened the book, Shimshai tried to erase the tale of how Mordecai saved the king. But every time he erased something, the angel Gavriel would rewrite it.
  
  Daf 16a
  
  Ahashverosh’s ministers answered that nothing had been done for Mordecai not because they loved him or the Jews so much. Rather, they hated Haman. Since it was Haman’s job to reward those who had helped Ahashverosh, by saying that nothing had been done for Mordecai, they were making Haman look bad.
  Haman walks in on Ahashverosh, after having just prepared the tree on which to hang Mordecai. But a tanna reads this as foreshadowing—Haman had prepared the tree for himself, for in the end, Haman, not Mordecai is hanged on that tree.
  The full verse states, “And do even so to Mordecai the Jew, who sits in the gate. Omit nothing of all you have proposed.” The midrash adds in some dialogue to break up and better explain Ahashverosh’s rather long directive.
  IntroductionToday’s section is an extended telling of the episode where Haman is forced to lead Mordecai around garbed in royal clothing riding on a horse.
  Haman finds Mordecai, portrayed as a rabbinic sage, teaching the laws of the handful of fine flour taken from a meal-offering and put on the altar. The rabbis tell Haman that they have been studying these laws, for which he mocks them. How could your little handful of flour supersede my 10,000 talents of silver!But Haman according to legend had already sold himself to Mordecai as a slave (we learned this on page 15b). So any money that Haman owned really belongs to Mordecai himself.
  The tale continues. Haman was once a barber. This seems to have been considered a rather lowly profession, thereby adding to the tale of Haman’s humiliation.
  Adding more layers of humiliation to Haman, Mordecai makes him bend over so he can get up on the horse and then kicks him while he mounts. I’d say I feel bad for Haman, but remember, this is a man who has plotted to kill thousands of innocent people. I can imagine that the rabbis who composed this midrash enjoyed taking out all of their misery on this wicked man.
  Again, this account adds to Haman’s humiliation. Haman’s daughter unwittingly dumps the chamber pot onto his head, thinking it was Mordecai. When she realizes what she has done, she commits suicide. This is why Haman goes back to his house mourning.The longer account in interrupted with R. Sheshet’s midrash—that Mordecai returned to his sackcloth and fasting. He didn’t let this temporary victory deter him from his larger task.
  Haman goes home and tells Zeresh and all of his friends how he was humiliated by Mordecai. R. Yohanan notes that no matter a person’s ethnicity, nationality or religion, if he says something wise, he is called wise. Haman’s friends indeed do give him some sage advice—stay away from Mordecai. You can’t beat him.
  Haman’s friends say that if Mordecai is a Jew then Haman will not be able to prevail. The word “Jew” could also mean “from the tribe of Judah.” The midrash then notes that there are three tribes that have special military powers over the nations of the world—Judah, Ephraim, Benjamin and Manesseh. If Mordecai is from one of these, then Haman will not be able to defeat him.
  Judah b. Ilai picks up on the repetition of the word “fall” (this is normal biblical syntax but susceptible to midrash). The people of Israel are likened to dust and stars (see Genesis 13:16 and 15:5). When they fall, they fall hard, all the way to the dust of the earth. But when they rise, they soar to the stars. Since Israel had already begun rising when Haman was humiliated by Mordecai, Haman should be able to count on them continuing to rise.
  In Esther the word “va-yavhilu” means hastened. But in rabbinic Hebrew it can mean with great confusion. Commentators explain that the haste led to him still being dirty from the chamber pot dumped on his head.
  Esther warns Ahashverosh that Haman doesn’t care how much damage he does to Ahashverosh. This is evidenced by the fact that he already got Vashti killed due to his jealousy.
  Abahu picks up on the strange repetition of the word “said.” He interprets that at first, Ahashverosh refused to speak directly to Esther, for he did not know her lineage. When she told him that she was of royal lineage, from the house of Saul, he spoke to her, addressing her as Queen Esther.
  Elazar picks up on how strange it is that she first says, “adversary, and an enemy.” Why shouldn’t she just say “this wicked Haman”?The answer is that at first she wanted to accuse Ahashverosh of being the wicked one. Perhaps she just had so much pent up anger at him that she could not hold back. After all, it was his fault for agreeing to Haman’s wicked plot. Of course, had she accused Ahashverosh he would have killed her and she would not have been able to save the Jews.
  This expansion of the story seems to be primarily based on the word “also” that Ahashverosh utters when he sees that Haman had fallen on the couch with Esther. What else made Ahashverosh angry before he seen on the couch with the queen? The midrash is also based on a parallel in the verse—the king leaves the palace in anger, and his return is also in anger. These two textual hints lead to the conclusion that Ahashverosh saw something in the garden that angered him as well. What he saw was angels uprooting trees. I suppose that Haman wanted to use the trees to hang the Jews (or impale them, the word for impale and hang is the same in Hebrew). But there may be other interpretations to the need to uproot these trees.Harbonah seems to be a good guy in Esther—he suggests to the king that Haman be hanged on the very tree that was prepared for Mordecai. The interpretive problem that seems to lie at the basis of R. Elazar’s accusation that Harbonah was part of Haman’s plot, is how Harbonah could have known that Haman had planned to hang Mordecai on that tree? He must have been part of the plot to kill Mordecai. But when Haman failed, Harbonah jumped ship and abandoned the plot. This is alluded to in the verse, where God does not pity the wicked, and his comrades flee from him when he fails. 
  Harbonah seems to be a good guy in Esther—he suggests to the king that Haman be hanged on the very tree that was prepared for Mordecai. The interpretive problem that seems to lie at the basis of R. Elazar’s accusation that Harbonah was part of Haman’s plot, is how Harbonah could have known that Haman had planned to hang Mordecai on that tree? He must have been part of the plot to kill Mordecai. But when Haman failed, Harbonah jumped ship and abandoned the plot. This is alluded to in the verse, where God does not pity the wicked, and his comrades flee from him when he fails.
  The word for “assuaged” is שככה with a double kaf. The Talmud reads the double kaf as alluding to two “assuagings.” In the spirit of a double reading, there are two interpretations of what these assuagings were. The first is that God was assuaged, as well as Ahashverosh. The second is that Ahashverosh was assuaged over what Haman had tried to do to Esther and over the fact that Haman had advised Ahashverosh to kill Vashti.
  
  Daf 16b
  
  IntroductionThis section moves on to midrashim on the Joseph story. The first of these is connected to Esther, and it is for that reason that the collection is placed here.
  When Joseph gives Benjamin more gifts than he gives to the other brothers, he seems to be falling into the same trap as did his father. Jacob gave a greater gift than that which he gave to the brothers, the “tunic of ‘many colors'” (whatever the word “pasim” means). By doing so he set in motion the process that would eventually lead to the Israelite descent into slavery in Egypt. Joseph should know this—yet he falls into the pattern of the same destructive behavior as his father (don’t we all).Benjamin b. Japhet (is it a coincidence that Benjamin explains Benjamin?) explains that Joseph was giving Benjamin a hint that eventually he would have a descendant who would wear five royal garments—Mordecai.
  Joseph cries on Benjamin’s “necks” for the two Temples that were to be built in Jerusalem, which according to some was in the tribe of Benjamin. And Benjamin cried on Joseph’s neck for the destruction of the tabernacle in Shiloh, the center of worship before the building of the First Temple in Jerusalem.
  This section is about Joseph’s revelation of his identity to his brothers. R. Elazar reads into the verse some emphasis that Joseph holds no malice against them for having sold him into slavery.
  How nice of Benjamin to send his father wine from Egypt. I’ll be happy if my boy sends me wine when I’m old. Right now it’s still mostly whine.
  The first verse quoted here is from Genesis 50, after Jacob has died. The brothers come in front of Joseph, bowing down out of fear. R. Elazar applies a folk saying to this—”A fox in its hour—bow down to it.” The implication of the saying is that one should bow down even to a lowly fox, when it is “having its hour.” The problem is that Joseph is no fox, inferior to his brothers. The saying should be invoked only when superiors are bowing to an inferior, which is not the case here.Therefore, the saying is reapplied to a case where Jacob bows down to Joseph. Since Jacob is the father, Joseph should bow down to him. But Joseph was “having his hour” and therefore it is appropriate for Jacob to bow down to him.
  Joseph reassured his brothers that he did not intend on taking revenge against them.
  IntroductionWe now return to our regularly scheduled midrashing on the book of Esther.
  Judah gives particular interpretations to all of the general words in Esther 8:16. Most of these are comparisons between the word here and the word as used in another context.There are a few points that require explanation. “I rejoice at Your word” is understood as a reference to circumcision for God gives the commandment of circumcision using the word “ויאמר” and not “וידבר.” See Genesis 17:9.The midrash on honor is not based on the use of the word in Deuteronomy 28:10. Rather, it is based on R. Elazar’s interpretation of that verse: when the people of the world see Israel wearing tefillin, they will be afraid of them, i.e. they will honor them. The tefillin seem to be like a crown of glory, demonstrating that Israel fights in the name of the Almighty Lord.
  There are two special rules with regards to the section about the hanging of Haman’s ten sons. First, since they all died at the exact same moment, they all must be said in one breath. This is not easy—some long hard to pronounce names. Second, the vav of the word “Vaizata” must be lengthened like a boat-pole, for all ten sons were hung on one pole.
  If you have ever looked at a Sefer Torah you will notice that songs are written in a special form—a half-brick of writing over a brick of writing on the next line, with a brick over a half-brick of writing. In the first line there would be a half brick followed by a full brick, followed by another half brick, a space separating each brick/half-brick. In the second line there would be a brick followed by another brick, again with a space in between. Every half brick is on top of a brick. But there are two exceptions—the list of Haman’s sons and the list of kings in Joshua 12:9-24. These are written half brick over half brick. They cannot “move up” because there is always something directly in the line above them. This is a symbolic way of preventing them from ever rising again.
  In this verse, which is not fully quoted here, at first it seems that Ahashverosh is angry that the Jews are massacring so many people. But then he proceeds to tell Esther that she can have whatever he wants. It’s a strange turnaround in one verse. To explain it the midrash says that an angel came and slapped him on his mouth.
  This verse looks as if it should be said by Esther, not Ahashverosh. It seems to be Esther instructing Ahashverosh to turn Haman’s plot onto Haman’s own head.Yohanan interprets the verse to mean that the words in the book are Esther’s. Esther gave him the scroll and Ahashverosh was to pronounce the words in it. Thus Ahashverosh speaks, but the content is hers.
  Since the book of Esther is called “truth” it must be written like the Torah, with ruled lines.
  Esther 9:31 is a letter from Ahashverosh directing his kingdom to observe all that Esther has commanded, including the annulling of the decree, and the observance of fasts. But then in vs. 32 it says only that the “ordinance of Esther” saved the Jews. This implies that their fasts did not.Yohanan resolves this by rereading the verse, attaching the end of vs. 31 to vs. 32. The fasts and crying out to God and Esther’s words to Ahashverosh are what saved the day. Neither would have been sufficient alone.
  This section again notes the conflict between political and religious authority. The verse from Esther seems to hint that Mordecai was not accepted by all of his brothers. The midrash explains that after he became second to the king, some of his fellow rabbis (Mordecai is understood by the midrash to be a “rabbi”) separated from him. The time spent working in politics would have taken them away from what they really wanted to be doing—studying Torah.The same message is hinted at in R. Joseph’s midrash. R. Joseph says that studying Torah is more important than even saving lives, as Mordecai did for the Jews in Shushan and the rest of the kingdom. At first, when he was just studying Torah, Mordecai was the fifth in the list of those with Zerubabel. But when he stopped studying Torah to save lives, he was demoted to sixth.I should note that I read this counterintuitive midrash as being purposefully provocative, fighting against what most people surely think. The obvious position is that saving lives takes precedence over study. After all, one cannot study when one is dead. There is no doubt that this is true. But the midrash is trying to say that we should not so simply assume that politicians are superior to religious leaders. At times we need to state that studying Torah takes precedence over everything else, even the saving of a life. In other words, while I wouldn’t want a real law to be shaped by this sentiment, i.e. I wouldn’t want to see someone studying instead of actually saving a life, I do believe that as a value statement, this resonates with me.
  IntroductionToday’s section continues with the topic of Talmud Torah—the supreme value of studying Torah.
  According to the rabbis, there was a Bet Midrash in the time of the patriarchs that had been established by Shem and Ever (Shem was one of Noah’s sons, and Ever was his grandson). Jacob, according to legend, studied in the Bet Midrash of Ever (Shem was already dead). During those years he was not able to honor his parents due to his absence. Nevertheless, he was not punished. This teaches that the study of Torah is greater than honoring one’s parents.
  
  Daf 17a
  
  The Talmud now begins a long calculation of Jacob’s life to show that he was not punished for the years he spent in the Bet Midrash of Ever. To do so, it goes all the way back to Ishmael. The years of Ishmael’s life were needed to calculate Jacob’s life. Ishmael was 14 years older than Isaac, as can be seen by Abraham’s age at their births.
  Rebekah gave birth to Jacob and Esau when Isaac was sixty years old. Ishmael was thus 74. He had 63 more years to live. And during the last year of Ishmael’s life, Jacob stole the blessing from Esau. Jacob was 63 at the time.
  According to this midrash, when Jacob received the blessing, Esau went and married Ishmael’s daughter. From the repetitiveness of the verse, the rabbis learn that Esau betrothed Mahalat while her father was still alive, but he married her only once Ishmael had already died.In total we see that the mention of the age of Ishmael helps in reckoning how old Jacob was when he received Isaac’s blessing. Tomorrow’s section continues the calculation.
  IntroductionIn yesterday’s section we learned that Jacob was sixty-three when he received the blessing from Isaac. Shortly thereafter he fled to Lavan. The calculations pick up at this point.
  How could Jacob have told Pharaoh that he was 130 years old when according to the calculations, he was only 116?
  The Talmud adds in fourteen years between Jacob’s leaving Canaan and his arrival at the well in Aram Naharaim where he met Rachel. These fourteen years were spent studying in the Bet Midrash (the House) of Ever. The baraita also notes that Ever died two years after Jacob had left his Bet Midrash.
  The point of all of these calculations was to demonstrate that Jacob was not punished for not having honored his parents during the years he was studying in the House of Ever. This is learned from a deduction—Jacob was punished for the twenty-two years in which he was absent from his father, while working for Lavan. The punishment was “measure for measure.” Just as he was absent from his father for 22 years, so too did he lose his son for 22 years. But he was not punished for the fourteen years he spent in Aram Naharaim.
  Jacob only spent twenty years in Aram Naharaim, seven working for each wife, and six extra earning some flocks of sheep and goats. So why was he punished for twenty-two years?The answer is that he spent two years going there, one and a half years in Sukkot and another half a year in Bethel.
  That’s it folks—this extraordinary chapter is over. There were some long pages in this chapter including long discussions of when the Megillah is read, some strange mishnahs that went way off topic and finally, about 7 long pages of midrashim on the book of Esther. I hope you found these pages as interesting as I did, and I hope that you come back to them when celebrating the holiday of Purim!
  IntroductionToday we begin a new chapter! Most of this chapter has to deal with the laws of reading the Megillah.
  Section one: The Megillah must be read in order. One cannot skip around and then go back.Section two: The Megillah must be read from a scroll. Despite its brevity, it, like other Torah readings, may not be read by memory.It also may not be read using a translation or in any other language, even if it is written in that language. This section refers to a person who understands Hebrew. Such a person who hears in another language has not fulfilled his obligation.Section three: In contrast, somebody who doesn’t understand Hebrew may fulfill his obligation by hearing the Megillah in a language other than Hebrew. Nevertheless, if a person hears it in Hebrew he has fulfilled his obligation even if he doesn’t understand it. In this aspect Hebrew is greater than the other languages—other languages need to be understood while Hebrew does not.Hebrew is referred to as “Assyrian” because it is written using the Assyrian alphabet.Section four: Above we learned that one must read the Megillah in its proper order. Here the mishnah teaches that it need not be read without breaks. One may read some of the Megillah, stop for a while, and then continue on and thereby fulfill one’s obligation. Similarly, one may read, take a nap and then continue where one has left off [no, this is not permission to sleep in shul].Section five: When one reads the Megillah, or hears it being read, he must have in mind that he is fulfilling the religious obligation to hear the Megillah on Purim. The mishnah describes other activities in which a person might be engaged that count as reading the Megillah only if he has the proper intent. A person who was copying a scroll, explaining it or correcting it and did not remember that it was Purim has not fulfilled his obligation. While doing any of these activities he must have the intention of fulfilling his obligation. Assumedly, he must also read it out loud.Section six: One cannot write a Megillah with these types of dyes or on these types of paper because it is not permanent. In order for the Megillah to be valid for a religious occasion, it must be written in Hebrew, on parchment (made from animal skins) and with permanent ink.
  The Talmud begins its commentary on the mishnah by searching for a source for the rule that the Megillah must be read in order.The first answer is from the words “according to their writing and according to their appointed time.” Just as the time must be kept in order (it would be impossible to do otherwise) so too the writing must be done in order.
  The same rule that applies to reading the Megillah applies to the recitation of the Hallel, the reading of Shema and the Amidah. There are four prooftexts for this.Rabbah says that just as the sun cannot reverse its course, so too Hallel cannot be read out of order.Joseph says that just as the order of the hours of the day cannot be reversed, so too with Hallel.Avia’s midrash is on the word ויהי—”Let.” This implies that the Hallel must be recited as it is written—in the proper order.Nahman b. Yitzchak says that just as the days of the world cannot have their order reversed, so too the Hallel must be recited in order.
  IntroductionToday’s section shows that the Shema must be read in order. But first, the Talmud discusses whether the Shema can be recited in any language but Hebrew.
  From the word “shall be” Rabbi derives that the Shema must be recited as it is written—in Hebrew. In contrast, the Sages use the word “Hear” or “Listen” as the basis for their rule that the Shema may be recited in any language that a person understands.
  
  Daf 17b
  
  How does Rabbi use the word “Hear” that the Sages use to prove that the Shema can be recited in any language? He uses it to prove that one must hear oneself recite the Shema. It cannot be silent.The Sages, however, do not agree. Once can recite the Shema silently.
  The other Sages must now account for Rabbi’s midrash on “and they shall be.” They use this word to teach that the Shema must be read in order.Rabbi agrees that the Shema must be read in order, but he needs a midrash to derive this law. He finds it in the extra letter “heh” in front of “words.” The Torah could have just said, “And the words shall be…” The extra “the (or these)” comes to teach that they must be recited in their proper order.The Sages do not make a midrash out of the extra “heh”. They derive the halakhah concerning the order from “And they shall be.”
  Rabbi uses a special midrash to teach that the Shema must be recited in Hebrew. The need for this midrash seems to imply that the rest of the Torah can be recited in any language.The Talmud rejects this. Rabbi needed a special midrash about the Shema lest one use the word “hear” to prove that it could be recited in any language. To combat the sages’ midrash he needed to emphasize that even the Shema needs to be recited in Hebrew.
  This section is the mirror of the previous one. We might have thought that the Sages held that only the Shema can be recited in any language. The rest of the Torah would have to be in Hebrew. This is then rejected. They needed a special midrash to teach that the Shema could be in any language, for without it we would have thought that even the Shema needs to be recited in Hebrew, due to Rabbi’s midrash on “and they shall be.”In the end, Rabbi and the other Sages dispute not only about the Shema, but about everything in the Torah. Rabbi holds that everything must be recited in Hebrew, and the “Sages” hold that all passages may be recited in any language.
  IntroductionToday’s section begins to deal with the Amidah, called by the rabbis “tefillah.” This well-known prayer consists of 18 (actually 19) blessings that must be recited in the correct order. Our section asks how we know this, and then proceeds to explain why those who created the Amidah, arranged it in such an order.
  Both of these sources attribute the creation of the Amidah to various characters in Jewish history. However, they attribute it to different periods. The first source says that the order was established by Shimon Hapakuli in front of Rabban Gamaliel, the patriarch after the destruction of the Second Temple. The second tradition says it was established by 120 elders, a group that included prophets. Elsewhere this group is called “The Men of the Great Assembly.” The Talmud will later deal with the contradiction between these two sources.In any case, what is most important is that when they created it, they gave it a specific order. One who changes that order has not fulfilled his duty. The Talmud below will explain the order.
  This section is a basically a midrash on Psalms 29 and the order of praises of God. First we praise God for “the sons of might” which is interpreted as the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This is the first blessing of the Shemoneh Esreh, which ends “magen Avraham.” Next we praise God for “mighty deeds.” This ends with “mehayeh metim,” the resuscitation of the dead, the mightiest deed of all. The third blessing is “kedushah,” which is God’s sanctification.
  Following “kedushah”—sanctification, we say “understanding” which ends, “who grants wisdom to people. This follows the order of the verses in Isaiah—first sanctification, and then understanding. We should also note that “understanding” is the first of the “requests” in the Amidah. These are the sections said only as part of the weekday Amidah. They are not said on Shabbat or holidays.
  The blessing after “understanding” is repentance. This follows the order of Isaiah 6:10. It also implies that once a person understands his sins, he will repent. Makes sense.The problem is that the verse mentions healing immediately after repentance. So why doesn’t the blessing over healing follow the blessing over repentance?This is because there is another verse that implies that forgiveness follows repentance. This is indeed the order of the blessings.
  The problem is that we now have one verse that implies that healing should follow repentance, whereas another verse implies that forgiveness should. So which is it? The answer comes from a third verse. This verse implies that forgiveness should come before healing and redemption, which are later blessings.
  So now the Talmud returns to the earlier verse that implies that healing follows repentance. What do we do with that verse? That verse, the Talmud answers, refers not to physical healing, but the emotional and spiritual healing of forgiveness.I think this is a very prescient piece of Talmud. There indeed are different kinds of healing—physical and spiritual/emotional. Human beings need both.
  The blessing for redemption “goel Yisrael” is the seventh. This, according to Rava, accords with the idea that Israel will be redeemed in the seventh year after the coming of the Messiah. This idea is more spelled out in Sanhedrin 97a, which describes the events over the course of a seven year cycle that follow the arrival of the Messiah.The problem is that according to that source, the “son of David”—the Messiah—will come only at the end of seven years, which is really the eighth year. The beginning of that year will be a time of great wars.The answer is that these wars will be the beginning of redemption. In another words, the redemptive process, at least according to this text, is also accompanied by violence.
  IntroductionThis section continues to discuss the order of the blessings of the Amidah.
  The eighth blessing is healing. This alludes to another “eighth” in Judaism—circumcision, done on the 8th day. Circumcision requires healing so that is why healing is the eighth blessing.
  The ninth blessing is over the blessing over the years, specifically that the produce should be plentiful. This, according to R. Alexandri, was directed against those who raise the price of produce. In Psalms, David asks God to “break the arms of the wicked” interpreted here to refer to those who raise prices beyond fair market value [I will not go into the issue of economic policy here, but it does bring up some interesting questions]. According to the Talmud, this was part of the ninth Psalm. The problem is that in our Tanakh it is the tenth Psalm. To complicate matters, Rashi thinks it’s the eighth Psalm. It seems that there was some disagreement in the period over how to break up the Psalms into individual chapters. All I think we can say for certain is that in the eyes of this Talmud, this verse comes in the ninth Psalm.
  The verse from Ezekiel first mentions agricultural growth, the topic of the previous blessing, and then the gathering of the exiles. This is why the blessing “who gathers the exiles of Israel” follows the blessing over the years.
  Once all of the exiles have been returned to Israel, God will make judgment with the wicked of Israel. This is referred to in Isaiah 1:25. The verse that follows shows that after God has made heavenly judgment with the wicked, he will establish judges like those who ruled Israel in days of yore. This is why the blessing over God’s judgment follows the blessing over the gathering of the exiles.
  Once God has visited judgment on the wicked, there will be no more “apostates” or “presumptuous sinners.” These are both groups of people who deny God, either through their beliefs or through their actions. This blessing was not part of the original 18, and it is why there are today 19 blessings. It was, according to legend, added during Rabban Gamaliel’s time to combat the increasing fissures in Jewish unity after the destruction of the Temple. It remained a source of some controversy and was eventually emended due to pressure from various Christian censors throughout the ages.
  The Talmud now proceeds to read the future into the order of the blessings of the Amidah. Once apostates and presumptuous sinners have been removed, the righteous will be lifted up. The Talmud goes out of its way to note that this includes “righteous converts” those Gentiles who joined Judaism out of love of Torah and God. The fact that Leviticus juxtaposes the honor of the elderly and wise with a conjunction to love the convert, means that both should be included in the blessing. It is also a strong statement as to the value of the convert in Judaism.
  The exaltation of the righteous will ultimately take place in Jerusalem. This is why the blessing over Jerusalem follows.
  Once Israel has returned to Jerusalem, the royal line of David will be restored to kingship. This is why the blessing over David’s house follows the blessing over Jerusalem.
  
  Daf 18a
  
  Once the throne is restored to David, prayer in the Holy Temple will be restored as well. This is why the blessing “who hears the prayer of Israel” follows the restoration of David’s throne.
  Along with prayer, the Temple service will be restored. We should note that this blessing begins the final part of the Amidah, the section that is recited every day.
  The penultimate blessing is “thanksgiving.” This refers to the thanksgiving offer (the Todah) which will be part of the restored sacrificial service.Next week’s daf will conclude this exciting analysis of the order of the Shemoneh Esreh!
  IntroductionThis week’s daf continues where we left off last week, discussing the order of the blessings in the Amidah.
  After the blessing over thanksgiving, which itself follows the blessing over sacrificial worship, we recite the blessing of the priests. In some synagogues the priests themselves say these blessings and in others the prayer leader says them. In any case, why at this point in the Amidah?The verse demonstrates (as the Talmud will now explain) that after having offered the sacrifices, Aaron blessed the people.The Talmud asks how we know he blessed them after offering the sacrifices. Perhaps he did so first? The answer is found in the verb “from offering.” He didn’t come down to offer the sacrifices. He came down after having already done so.
  If Aaron blessed the people right after offering the sacrifices, then why don’t we put the priestly blessing right after the blessing over worship?The problem with this is the verse we used to show that the thanksgiving blessing follows the worship blessing, “Whoever offers the sacrifice of thanksgiving”—first sacrifice, then thanksgiving.
  So now there are two conflicting verses, one which implies that the priestly blessing should follow the blessing over worship, and one that implies that it should follow the thanksgiving blessing. Why do we follow the latter? The answer is that the blessing over worship and thanksgiving are the same thing, for thanksgiving is a form of worship.
  Why does Sim Shalom follow the priestly blessing? This is because God says at the end of the priestly blessing that He will now bless Israel. And when God blesses Israel, it is with peace.We should also note that the priestly blessing itself concludes with a blessing for peace. It obviously makes sense that it should come directly before Sim Shalom.
  On 17b there were two opinions as to when the Amidah was established. A baraita ascribed it to Shimon the Pakulite, who lived after the destruction of the Temple, whereas R. Yohanan ascribed it to a body of elders that included prophets, meaning it was during the Second Temple period.Our Talmud harmonizes these two sources. The elders and prophets originally established the Amidah. Jews forgot the order of the blessings and Shimon the Pakulite put them back into order. We should note that this is a common resolution for such difficulties. I doubt that we can read it as an accurate reflection of historical developments.
  Once the Amidah was established, a Jew is not supposed to freely recite the praises of God. He/she is supposed to stick to the formula, not to go “beyond” it. To do so would be arrogant, for only one who could truly list the unending praise of God is fit to even give it a shot.This question and midrash cut to the heart of the nature of Jewish prayer—it is fixed liturgy, and not a freely formed, spontaneous recitation of God’s praises. Here we learn one reason—fixed prayer contains what would otherwise be of necessity infinite, and therefore in reality impossible. Praising God properly would require infinite time and skill. No human could ever aspire to doing so. Therefore, all human beings are limited to the established formula of the Amidah.
  Rabbah b. Bar Hannah reads the verse as if it teaches that if a person tries to say all of the praises of God, the land will swallow him up.
  These last two statements praise silence, especially in the face of praising God. I especially like the second one.
  IntroductionThe mishnah says that if one reads the megillah “by heart,” not from a book, he has not fulfilled his obligation. The Talmud asks where this is derived from.
  Rava derives the obligation to read the Megillah from a book from the use of the root “zakhor” in Esther and its comparison with Exodus. In Exodus the verse clearly means that the words must be written. Therefore, when Esther says, “And these days shall be remembered” it means that they must be read from a written source.The technique that Rava uses here, taking a word that appears in two contexts and applying the rules in one to the other, is called a “gezera shava.” It is a well-known midrashic technique.
  How do we know that one must read the Megillah out loud and not just look at it with one’s eyes? The answer comes from the use of the word “zakhor” in Deuteronomy 25:17. When the verse says, “Do not forget” it already teaches us not to forget with our hearts. So what more do we learn from “zakhor“? That we must say the words out loud.
  IntroductionToday’s section deals with reading the Megillah in a language other than Hebrew.
  When the mishnah says that if he reads it in translation he has not fulfilled his obligation, it refers to a case where it was written in translation. If it was written in Hebrew and then he translated while reading, he was reading it by heart, and we already know that this is not valid.
  While the Mishnah seems to allow one to read it in any language to those who don’t know Hebrew, Rav and Shmuel limit this to Greek. Below we will see that this opinion is related to Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel’s opinion from the Mishnah who accorded special qualities to the Greek language, placing it one notch below Hebrew, but above all other languages. Assumedly, in his day, Greek was considered the international language, the language that “civilized” people spoke.As above, the case is one in which the scroll was written in Greek. If it was written in Hebrew, one would not be able to read it in Greek.
  This statement is brought here only because it was stated by R. Aha in the name of R. Elazar.Genesis 33:20 states, “And [Jacob] placed there an altar, and he called it God (El) the God of Israel.” The simple reading of the verse is probably that Jacob called the altar “God, God of Israel.” But this reading is unacceptable to R. Aha, so he rereads the verse as if God jumps in. Jacob sets up the altar, and in return God calls Jacob, “El (God).”We should note there are a series of midrashim that accord God-like qualities to Jacob, mostly that he and God look exactly alike. This brief midrash may be part of this larger idea.
  The Talmud now returns to reading the Megillah in another language. Rav and Shmuel allowed it to be read only in Greek. But a baraita states explicitly that it may not be read in other languages, even to those who speak that language!The Talmud resolves it by saying that Rav and Shmuel’s statement related to a different baraita that did allow one to read the Megillah in another language to a person who understood that language.
  The problem with the above resolution is that Rav and Shmuel allow the Megillah to be read only in Greek, whereas the baraita allows other languages as well.To resolve this, the Talmud acknowledges that the Mishnah does indeed allow the Megillah to be read in other languages to those who understand that language. Rav and Shmuel were not interpreting the mishnah, as we thought above. They were offering a general rule—the Megillah may be read in Greek to anyone, even to one who does not understand Greek.
  The baraita allowed Greek only for the Greeks. According to this opinion, Greek is no different from any other language. But Rav and Shmuel agree with Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel who accords a special status to Greek. The Talmud resolves this by saying that they hold like Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel who accords a special status to Greek. Torah scrolls may only be translated into Greek, not into other languages.
  Rav and Shmuel did not just say “The halakhah follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel” who allows all scrolls to be written only in Greek (and Hebrew, of course), for had they said that we would not have known that even the Megillah may be written in Greek. The word “according to their writing” might have led us to believe that the Megillah had to be written in Hebrew. Rav and Shmuel inform us that even the Megillah may be written in any language.
  IntroductionThis short section deals with the next line of the mishnah.
  The mishnah says that even one who cannot understand Hebrew can fulfill one’s obligation by hearing the Megillah in Hebrew.The Talmud raises a difficulty on this—how can one fulfill one’s obligation without even understanding what he is hearing? What meaning is there to such an act?There are two answers to this question. The first is basically—that’s just the way it is. In the time of the Talmud it was expected that women would not understand Hebrew (they spoke Aramaic). Similarly, there are uneducated men (amei haaretz) who do not understand Hebrew. Nevertheless, they can fulfill their obligation by hearing the Megillah. That’s just the way it is.Ravina was bothered by the very question, for he has a different understanding of the mitzvah altogether. There are words in the Megillah that no one understands. He cites some Persian words in the Megillah, borrowed into Hebrew. A Hebrew speaker would not understand these words (although Rashi does interpret them). From the presence of these words, Ravina concludes that in general reading the Megillah is not in order to understand it. It is ritual act that one must “perform” with or without understanding. Its purpose is to “proclaim the miracle” just like the lighting of the Hannukah candles. Therefore, there is no need to actually understand the words.
  IntroductionToday’s section begins by discussing the mishnah’s rule that if one reads the Megillah “with interruptions” he has fulfilled his obligation
  The Hebrew word for in “intervals” or “with interruptions” is serugin. This is an unusual word and at first the rabbis themselves didn’t known what it meant. Then they heard the maidservant of Rabbi [Judah Hanasi’s] house using the word and they understood. This story now begins a series of stories of the rabbis learning the meaning of a word by hearing it from Rabbi Judah Hanasi’s maidservant (or an Arab). Perhaps part of the reason these stories are here is to show how knowledgeable all the members of Rabbi’s household were. Even the maidservant knew the meaning of words that the rabbis did not know.
  Haluglot are evidently a type of vegetable.
  Here (and below) the rabbis do not know the meaning of a word from the Tanakh. They hear the maidservant use the word in conversation with a man, and from here they understand that it means “to look at it, and turn it over.” The verse therefore means that if one looks deeply into the Torah, the Torah will exalt him.
  Rabbah b. Bar Hannah learns from an Arab (similar to today’s Beduin) that the word “yehav” in Psalms 55 means “load.”
  Here the rabbis learn the word for “broom” and “sweep” from Rabbi’s maidservant. I should conclude by noting that elsewhere this remarkable woman is portrayed as even knowing some halakhot unknown to other rabbis.
  
  Daf 18b
  
  According to the first opinion one can read the Megillah with breaks but not omissions. R. Muna presents a limit to the length of the break. It cannot be longer than it would take to complete the whole Megillah.Joseph, the amora, says that the halakhah follows R. Muna. R. Joseph then explains to Abaye that “long enough to finish the whole of it” means as long as it takes to read from beginning to end. For if we interpreted “long enough to finish the whole of it” to mean from wherever he stops until the end, then the length of a permitted interruption would depend on where he stops. This would mean there is no fixed standard.
  The first section here contains a dispute over who said what: Did Rav say that the halakhah follows R. Muna and Shmuel say it does not? Or was it vice versa? Variant versions of this dispute were taught in the Yeshivot in Sura and Pumbedita, two of major centers of Jewish learning in Babylonia.Joseph uses another instance to conclude that it was Shmuel who ruled according to R. Muna. With regard to a totally different issue, Shmuel ruled according to a minority opinion, so he must be the amoraic sage who did so here as well.The other case has to do with the laws of levirate marriage. If a woman’s husband dies and they have no children, one of his brothers must marry her or release her from levirate marriage (halitzah). Until he does so, the brothers cannot marry her sister. According to R. Judah b. Batera, this sister is prohibited from marrying all of the brothers because they all have a potential relationship with the widow. If the younger brother has already betrothed this sister, he should wait to marry her until the older brother either marries or releases the widow from marriage. At that point, the younger brother can marry the sister.
  According to the first baraita here, if some letters or even some verses are missing from the Megillah, and the reader knows what he is supposed to read, he can read these individual letters or verses from heart, just as a translator translates without reading the translation. In contrast, the other baraita says that if letters are rubbed out are torn, the Megillah is valid only if the words can still be read. These two baraitot seem to contradict each other.The Talmud resolves the contradiction by positing that the Megillah is invalid only if all of it has rubbed out letters or missing words/verses. But if most of the Megillah is still written correctly, it is valid.
  This baraita provides information for someone who skips a verse or for someone who comes late to the synagogue. He needs to hear the entire Megillah, every single verse, in the proper order.
  Ashi gives a pretty good definition of napping. I’ve always defined napping as how my father used to do it. When I was a kid, he would nap in front of the TV and I would try to change the station. As soon as I did so, he would wake up and tell me to put the channel back where it was.If he falls into a deeper sleep than this while listening or reading the Megillah, he must go back and read from the beginning when he wakes up.
  IntroductionMost of today’s section deals with writing scrolls by memory. Is this permissible, or can one write a new scroll of Scripture only by copying an already existent one?
  The mishnah says that if someone is writing a Megillah, and when reading it has intention to fulfill his obligation, then he has fulfilled his obligation.The Talmud examines how this could have occurred. If he was thinking of each verse in his head, and then writing it down from memory, then even if he had intention he has not fulfilled his obligation, because he is not reading it from a scroll. The scroll was not yet written when he recited it.Rather, he must first write each verse and then recite it. This is not the normal way of writing a scroll, but if he wishes to fulfill his obligation, this is how he must do it.
  The problem with the scenario as we understood it above is that the Megillah must be entirely written before he begins to read it. Later in the Talmud we shall see that some tannaim hold that one need not read the entire Megillah; he can start from 2:5 (and some hold even later). Nevertheless, even those tannaim who hold that one can start later in the book, the parts that must be read must be written before any of the reading begins.Therefore, the mishnah must refer to a case where he is not writing a scroll from memory. He is copying from a book that he already has in front of him. First he reads it, verse by verse, then he writes the new scroll. This would be a normal way of copying a scroll.
  Above, we interpreted the mishnah to refer to a case where one copies the Megillah from another scroll. It is at first suggested that this supports R. Yohanan who said that it is forbidden to write a Megillah except based on an already existent scroll.The Talmud rejects the use of the Mishnah as proof, for it may be that the Mishnah just happens to refer to a case where a person copies from such a scroll. One could theoretically write a Megillah from memory, but one would not be able to fulfill one’s obligation to hear the Megillah while doing so.
  The Talmud now discusses R. Yohanan’s prohibition against writing a Megillah by heart. This statement is contradicted by a story in which R. Meir goes to Assia (Turkey) to add a month to the year. While there during the month of Adar, he sees that they do not have a Megillah and he writes one by heart. Thus we seem to see that one can write a Megillah by heart.Abbahu says that R. Meir is different for R. Meir’s eyes are “straight.” This is interpreted to mean that when R. Meir lifts his eyes away from Torah, the Torah remains “straight before him.” He can reproduce it correctly. In contrast, others, when their eyes fly away from Torah, it is gone, and they cannot produce it correctly. Only R. Meir was allowed to write a Megillah from memory. All others must copy it from an already existent copy.
  The Talmud now cites a story where R. Hisda prohibits R. Hananel from writing scrolls by heart, even though R. Hananel could certainly do so. This seems to mean that even exceptional individuals may not write scrolls by heart.But R. Meir did write a Megillah in Assia. If this was forbidden, how did he do so?The answer is that it is permitted only in a case of an emergency. In Assia there was no other Megillah from which to copy, so he had to write one by heart.
  Tefillin and mezuzot are not like full scrolls. They contain familiar verses and therefore may be written from memory. Tefillin may be written on unlined parchment, but mezuzot require lines.
  
  Daf 19a
  
  IntroductionThis week’s daf goes back to explain the mishnah from 17a. The last clause of the mishnah said: If it was written with arsenic, with red chalk, with gum or with sulfate of copper, or on paper or on scratch paper, he has not fulfilled his obligation, unless it is written in Assyrian on parchment and in ink.
  The Talmud defines the terms used in the Mishnah. None of these are valid as the ink or the surface.
  The Talmud provides a midrash explaining how we know that the Megillah must be written in Hebrew letters, which is elsewhere called “Assyrian” script. These are the script used to write Hebrew to this day.
  The Megillah must be written in ink on parchment. This is derived from Jeremiah 36:18 which uses the word “writing” in connection with a book (parchment) written in ink. Since “writing” is also used in the Megillah, we can derive the law that it too must be written on parchment with ink.
  IntroductionThe mishnah which opens today’s section first discusses a person who travels from a walled city which reads the Megillah on the 15th of Adar to a town which reads it on the 14th or vice versa.
  The mishnah states simply that if a person travels from one type of town to another he retains the custom of the town of his origin if his intention is not to move to his new town. If his intention is not to return to his previous town, then he reads with the new place.
  This is the second section of the mishnah. Today we read the entire book of Esther, but whether this is necessary is debated by the sages. Rabbi Meir says that one has to read the whole thing. Rabbi Judah says that he only has to read from 2:5, where Mordecai is first mentioned. Rabbi Yose says he only has to read from 3:1, where the actual plot by Haman (make a lot of noise when you say this) begins.
  We have proved this for a villager. How do we know that it applies also to inhabitants of walled towns? It is reasonable: If a villager of one day is called a villager, a walled-city-dweller of one day is called a walled-city-dweller.According to Rava, a person from a walled city (reads on 15th) who goes to a village (14th) and spends the night there, reads with the people of the village. This is derived from a superfluity in the verse. Villages are by definition unwalled. So why would the Megillah need to say “Jews of the villages who dwell in the unwalled towns”? This teaches that if one spends the night in the village, he is called a villager and reads on the 14th.Logically, the same holds true for one who spends the day in the walled-city. Although he is a village dweller generally, he reads with the walled city.
  Earlier in the tractate we learned that villagers can move up the day of reading to the market days so that they could come to the city to provide food and drink to their brothers. Rava says that if a villager goes to a town that reads on the normal day, he reads with them, even if he doesn’t even spend the night. This is true even if he already read the Megillah with his village on the earlier date. Allowing villagers to read earlier is only a leniency instituted by the rabbis. The leniency applies only when he is with the villagers. If he is with the people of the town, he must read with them, even if he ends up reading twice.
  Abaye raises a difficulty on Rava from a baraita. The baraita seems to say that if a resident of a walled city who would normally read on the 15th goes to an unwalled town, he reads according to the custom of his own place, on the 15th. But above, Rava said that it depends on whether he intends to return. If he does not intend to return, then he reads on the 14th.This causes Abaye to change the language of the baraita to read, “A villager who went to a town.” The baraita now reads that a villager who goes to a town reads like the people of his village, and not as Rava said, like the people of the town.Rava responds by saying that if Abaye is going to emend a baraita, he too can emend it. According to Rava the baraita says that a villager who goes to a town reads with the rest, which accords precisely with what he had said above.
  IntroductionToday’s section deals with the second section of the Mishnah where there was a dispute as to where one must begin the Megillah reading.
  There were three opinions in the Mishnah as to where we start reading the Megillah:  1) From the very beginning. 2) 2:5, “There was a Jew… 3) 3:1, “It happened after these events…” Here we read of a fourth opinion, that we start even later in the book, from 6:1 (Ahashverosh’s dream).
  Yohanan says that all four opinions can be derived from a dispute over what “acts of power” Esther and Mordecai wrote of in 9:29. Chapter one begins with the acts of Ahashverosh. In 2:5 we begin to learn about Mordecai. In 3:1 Haman enters the picture. And the miracle only begins to unfold in 6:1. So we see that the dispute over where to begin reading is a dispute over whose story we are telling: Ahashverosh, Mordecai, Haman or God.
  Huna says that they all derived their opinions from a different verse, this time 9:29. The one who says all of it must be read interprets that verse in connection with Ahashverosh. Ahashverosh saw that the time had come for the Jews to be redeemed from exile and they had not yet been redeemed. This led him to throw a sumptuous feast, and ultimately led him to kill Vashti. Were it not for that act, Esther would not have been queen and the Jews would not have been saved from Haman.
  The one who says that the reading begins with the first mention of Mordecai sees the incident where Mordecai provoked Haman by not bowing down to him as the catalyst for all the future events, including the miracle that the Jews were saved.
  According to this opinion, the events really begin with Haman deciding to kill all of the Jews.
  Finally, the one who says we begin to read from “On that night” says that the verse refers to Ahashverosh’s ordering of the book of Chronicles to be read. It was from this point that the miracle that saved the Jews began to unfold.
  IntroductionThis section opens with a halakhic ruling related to the dispute over where one begins to read the Megillah.
  The halakhah is that we read the entire Megillah from beginning to end. It’s really not that long. Furthermore, even the position that holds that it is okay to start from later in the Megillah, the scroll from which he reads must contain the entire book.
  The pages of a book are stitched together with sinews from animals. The pages of a letter are stitched with flax, a cheaper material. The Megillah is called both a book and a letter, so with regard to the stitching, the halakhah falls somewhere in between. One cannot use flax for all of the stitching. At least three threads must be of sinew. And they must be evenly spaced.
  Judah says that the Megillah scroll used for the ritual reading of the Megillah cannot be part of a larger scroll containing the rest of the Writings. It needs to be a separate scroll so that it is recognizable.Rava said that if the Megillah is on parchment that is slightly larger or smaller than the remainder of the Writings, then it can be used. This will make it recognizable that it he is reading not just from the Writings, but from Megillat Esther.
  Interesting that Shmuel’s own son did not know that one cannot fulfill one’s obligation with a Megillah written among the rest of the Writings.Also interesting to me whether it was common to have larger scrolls with multiple books in them or whether it was more standard to have scrolls with only one book in them. Perhaps several of the “Megillot” were written in one scroll. These are not so long, so it may have been more possible to write them all together.
  
  Daf 19b
  
  IntroductionToday’s section continues where we left off yesterday, discussing someone who reads from a Megillah written in a scroll which includes the other Writings.
  If one reads the Megillah alone, he may read it from a scroll that contains other Writings in it as well. The rule that the Megillah must be written in a separate scroll is only for reading in public, when there is the function of letting people know of the miracle.
  The Talmud now proceeds with another case in which R. Hiyya b. Abba transmitted a statement something and then immediately qualified the remark. There is a halakhah that one must leave the top stitch and the bottom stitch in a Torah scroll undone. At first he says that this is a halakhah from Moses on Sinai, meaning it is considered a very ancient practice. But then he qualifies his remark and says that this is a halakhah enacted only so that the scroll should not be torn. If the whole connection between the sections is sewn up tight, then when a person begins to roll it tightly he won’t notice that he is overdoing it and it will tear. However, if there is an undone stitch on the top and bottom, he will notice when it begins to pull and he won’t roll it too tightly.Since the halakhah is not a “halakhah from Moses on Sinai” a Torah scroll without the top and bottom stitches undone is still valid.
  This statement is here because it is stated by the same amoraim as above. Both Moses and Elijah are placed in a cave over which God passes (Exodus 33:22; I Kings 19:10-13). The cave was completely sealed, according to R. Hiyya b. Abba, for had they been able to see the light of God’s presence, they would not have been able to live.
  This is a theme we have seen several times throughout the tractate. Purim and the reading of the Megillah were instituted later in Jewish history, by the Scribes, another word for rabbis. But the reading of the Megillah was already revealed to Moses on Sinai. It is an innovation that is really not an innovation.
  IntroductionThis section interprets a new mishnah. It’s a bit complex so be prepared.
  All are valid to read the Megillah except a deaf person, an imbecile and a minor.Rabbi Judah validates a minor.
  Most of our sugya will be taken up by comparing our mishnah in Megillah with a mishnah in Berakhot. In that mishnah, R. Yose and an anonymous opinion debate whether one has to make the Shema audible to his ears. R. Yose says that if he doesn’t hear it, he has not fulfilled his obligation. R. Matanah holds that R. Yose is the author of our mishnah in Megillah as well. He would hold that a deaf person who can speak still cannot fulfill the mitzvah of the Megillah since he cannot hear it himself. And if he cannot fulfill the mitzvah himself, he cannot fulfill it for others. The first opinion would hold that he can fulfill the mitzvah, and therefore could, at least ex post facto, fulfill it for others as well.
  The Talmud will now question whether our mishnah can accord only with R. Yose. Perhaps it could accord with R. Judah, who is identified as the opinion that disagrees with R. Yose in Berakhot (the mishnah about Shema). Perhaps our mishnah means that a deaf person should not read the Megillah ab initio, but that if he does, it is valid ex post facto.This understanding is rejected because the mishnah equates a deaf person with an imbecile and a minor—just as their reading cannot fulfill the obligation of others, so too the reading of deaf person cannot.
  It might be possible that there would be a different rule for the minor and imbecile than there is for the deaf person. This would allow R. Judah to be the author of the first half of the mishnah. A deaf person should not read, but a minor and an imbecile cannot read.But this is problematic because if R. Judah is the author of the second half of the mishnah, then he cannot be the author of the first half.
  This entire section is erased by Rashi, so I will not explain it here.
  The Talmud now suggests emending the mishnah so that the whole thing accords with R. Judah. This would then mean that the deaf person should not read the Megillah, but that if he does read the Megillah, those who heard it from him have fulfilled their obligation.
  Up to now, we have said that the mishnah follows R. Judah who says that the deaf person should not read the Megillah, but that if he does, his reading is valid. R. Yose would hold that even if he does read the Megillah, his reading is valid. The problem is that we have a mishnah concerning the separation of terumah (given to the priest) which allows a deaf person who can speak and therefore say the blessing, to give terumah ab initio. But this opinon would not accord with either R. Judah or R. Yose!
  The Talmud now allows for a minute that R. Judah would allow the deaf person ab initio to give terumah. The problem is that we have yet another baraita that allows the deaf person to recite a blessing only ex post facto. So we’re up against the same problem again—how to explain the dispute between R. Judah and R. Yose such that all tannaitic sources can be explained according to it.
  
  Daf 20a
  
  We now find another baraita that allows us to posit that Rabbi Judah himself holds that a deaf person may ab initio recite a blessing. This is the mishnah about dedicating terumah. It was his rabbi, R. Elazar b. Azariah, who held that a deaf person should not read because he cannot hear, but if he does, it is still valid. This matches the baraita about birkat hamazon.
  The baraita that we just taught contains a dispute between R. Judah (in the name of his teacher) and R. Meir. According to R. Judah he should make his blessing audible, but if he does not, it is still valid, whereas R. Meir says it need not be audible even ab initio.Now that we know of this dispute, we can attribute the baraita about terumah which R. Judah son of R. Shimon b. Pazzi taught to R. Meir. It need not be R. Yose or R. Judah.In the end there are three opinions concerning a deaf person who can speak. According to R. Judah ab initio he shouldn’t read because he cannot hear, but ex post facto, his reading is valid. According to R. Meir, even ab initio he can read. There is no need for him to hear. And according to R. Yose, even ex post facto, his reading is invalid.
  IntroductionThis week’s daf opens by relating back to the Mishnah where R. Judah allowed a minor to read the Megillah.
   Judah himself remembers reading the Megillah in front of the sages when he was a young boy. This is assumedly the basis for his ruling that a minor can read the Megillah. He himself did it!Alas, his testimony is to no avail. The recollections of a minor are not valid testimony as to a halakhah.
  Rabbi Judah Hanasi also remembers reading when he was a young boy, in front of R. Judah. But this evidence is doubly problematic. First of all, he can’t bring evidence that this is the halakhah from the very rabbi who allows it. We already knew that R. Judah allowed minors. Second, Rabbi Judah Hanasi was also a young boy, and as we learned above, a young boy’s testimony is not valid.
  IntroductionThis section explains the mishnah which explained which mitzvoth must be performed during the day.
  The verse demonstrates that the Megillah must be read at day.Joshua ben Levi says that one must read it at night, and then read it again during the day. The mishnah which says that it must be read after the rise of the sun seems to contradict him.The resolution is that the Mishnah refers only to the reading during the day. It does not mean that one does not have to read it at night. It just means that the day reading must be done after the rise of the sun....
  The Talmud provides verses for how we know that circumcision, immersion in the mikveh, and sprinkling with purificatory waters must be done during the day.
  This long section answers one relatively straightforward question—why did the mishnah have to specify that a woman who is counting one day for each day in which she saw abnormal genital discharge (zivah) has to immerse during the day. All people who immerse must do so, as the mishnah specifically said.The answer is that there are some who do immerse during the day. Namely a man who had a seminal discharge. Similarly, a man who had an abnormal genital discharge immerses during the day. These people immerse during the day and at night are already pure. There is no counting. But a woman who has had a genital discharge must count one clean day for every impure day. She can’t immerse the same day that she had the discharge. So you might have thought that she could count the night as the day without discharge, therefore it comes to teach you that she must count a full day of cleanness, and only then immerse.
  
  Daf 20b
  
  IntroductionThe Mishnah states that one should perform certain mitzvoth (including reading the Megillah) after the sun has already risen. But it added that if one performed any of them after dawn, meaning after it was already a bit light outside but the sun had not yet risen, the act is valid. Our sugya comments on the source of this halakhah.
  Rava proves that day mitzvoth may be performed after dawn and before sunrise from the first day of creation. God called the light “day” even though there was no sun—it wasn’t created until the fourth day. Thus even now that we have a sun, the light that appears in the sky before the sun is a sign of day.
  The problem with Rava’s statement is that it would imply that night could begin without the stars. After all, God calls the darkness night even without the stars.
  Zera proves that day begins at dawn from two verses in Nehemiah. In v. 15 we learn that while the workers were working, the guards watched over them from the rising of the morning (dawn) until the stars appeared. In v. 16 we see that these are the parameters of day—it begins at dawn and ends when the stars come up. Thus if any of these mitzvoth are performed after dawn, the mitzvah is still valid.
  Introduction
  Today's section consists of the next two mishnayot. My commentary is taken fromMishnah Yomit. One can fulfill one’s obligation of hearing the Megillah at any time during the day. Our mishnah gives a very long list of numerous other rituals that one can perform at any time during the day. Since this list is very long, I will not explain each item in detail, but rather mostly make reference to the relevant biblical verse(s) which deal with the issue. I will not even comment on issues that seem abundantly clear. 
  Sections 6-7: On Shabbat, holidays and Rosh Hodesh there are musaf sacrifices and musaf prayers. The sacrifices can be offered at any time during the day and the prayers may be recited throughout the whole day. Section 8: For confession over the ox—One who brings an ox as a sacrifice also confesses to the sin for which the ox is brought (Leviticus 4:3,14). Section 9: For the confession over the tithe—On the fourth and seventh years of the sabbatical cycle one makes a confession that he has “removed all of the holy produce from his home” (Deuteronomy 26:13). Section 10: For the confession of sins on Yom HaKippurim—The high priest recites a confession over the sacrifices (Leviticus 16:21; see also Yoma 3:8, 4:2, 6:2). Section 11: For laying on of hands—one lays one’s hands on an animal sacrifice before it is slaughtered (Leviticus 1:4).Section 13: For waving [them]—one waves the innards and the breast of wellbeing offerings (Leviticus 7:30).Section 14-16: these are all elements of the minhah offering.Section 17: For pinching off [the head of a bird-offering]—Leviticus 1:15, 5:8. Section 18: For receiving the blood [in a vessel]—in order to sprinkle it on the altar. Section 20: For breaking the neck of the heifer—if a dead body is found in a field and the identity of the murderer is unknown (Deuteronomy 21:1) Section 21: And for purifying the metzora—Leviticus 14.
  IntroductionToday's section provides proof texts for why the mitzvoth we learned in yesterday's section must be performed during the day. 
  I think that most of these are pretty self-explanatory. As long as the Torah/Psalms uses the word "day" the mitzvah must be performed during the day. The musaf prayer is obviously not mentioned in the Tanakh—no fixed prayers are mentioned in the Tanakh. But it must be performed during the day because it is like the musaf, additional sacrifices. 
  The confession that the High Priest makes over the oxen on Yom Kippur must be during the day because it is analogized to the other confession he makes on Yom Kippur, which is just words. There it explicitly mentions "day" so all of the confessions must be by day. 
  All of these should be pretty clear as well. Yesterday's section explained what all of these actions were. Today the Talmud explains how we know that they have to be performed during the day.
  This is sort of a catch all verse used to prove that the rest of the actions performed in the sacrificial service must be performed during the day. 
  The rule that the sotah (suspected adulteress) ritual must be performed during the day is derived from the use of the word Torah in that context and in the context of judgment. Since we know that court cases can be tried only during the day, we can conclude that the sotah ritual must also be carried out during the day. 
  
  Daf 21a
  
  The breaking of the neck of the heifer is an act of atonement for murder. Since we learned above that acts of atonement must be performed during the day, so too must this ritual.
  The mishnah listed two mitzvoth that are performed at night: the harvesting of the omer and the burning of the fat and limbs of the sacrifices on the altar.
  IntroductionToday is the last section of chapter two. It relates to the last clause of the mishnah.
  The Talmud assumes that when the Mishnah mentions a general principle it includes cases that were not already cited in the mishnah’s list of examples. Here the Talmud answers the question—what specific example is the mishnah including?On the table in the Temple were two rows of the showbread and two cups of frankincense. When they were removed, the bread would be eaten by the priests and the frankincense would be turned into smoke. Our mishnah teaches that this removal can be done all day. And it accords with R. Yose who holds that the old showbread and with it the frankincense can be removed in the morning and only replaced in the evening, which here means after midday. This shows that the removal of the cups of frankincense can occur any time during the day.
  According to the talmudic reading of the mishnah, the Pesah offering can be eaten all night. This disagrees with R. Elazar b. Azariah who says that one must eat the Pesah before midnight. Just as God passed over Egypt before midnight, so too the Pesah must be eaten before midnight.
  Congratulations on finishing another chapter. Short chapter, but a good one !
  IntroductionToday we begin a new section. Most of the last chapter of Megillah is about the public reading of the Torah. The one main difference between how we read today and how they read in their time is that today the person who receives the aliyah and recites the blessing is usually not the same person who actually reads the Torah. This allows people who don’t know how to read from the Torah to receive aliyot. In mishnaic and talmudic times, the person who read the Torah was the same person who received the aliyah. There are other differences which we will discuss throughout the chapter.My commentary is taken from Mishnah Yomit.
  Section one: One may read the Megillah while either standing or sitting. Today the custom is to stand but this is not mandatory. In contrast, when reading the Torah one has to stand.Section two: Two people may read the Megillah together when reading in front of the community. However, when it comes to reading Torah only one person at a time can read. The idea behind this is that it is harder for people to hear two people chanting together than one chanting alone. Since hearing the Megillah is halakhically less significant than hearing the Torah, they allow to people to read simultaneously.Section three: According to the simple reading of the Mishnah, there were various customs with regard to reciting a blessing over reading the Megillah. Some did and some did not. The Talmud however explains that this only refers to the blessing after the Megillah. In all places they would recite the blessing before reading. Today our custom is to recite a blessing before and after.Section four: The mishnah now begins to discuss regular Torah reading. On Mondays, Thursdays and on Shabbat at minhah only three people receive aliyot (go up to the Torah). This number may not be increased nor may it be decreased. There is no haftarah (portion from the Prophets section of the Bible) on these occasions.Section five: In the time of the Mishnah the first person to read would recite the first blessing and the last person to read would recite the concluding blessing.   Those reading in between would not recite any blessing at all. Today, each person receiving an aliyah recites a blessing before and after.Section six: Rosh Hodesh and the intermediate days of the festival both have a musaf service (and when the Temple still stood there was a musaf sacrifice). However, they are not festivals, meaning that work is permitted on these days. These are sort of “in-between days.” Therefore they have four aliyot—more than a normal day but less than a festival. The mishnah reiterates the rule that the first person who receives an aliyah recites the blessing before and the last person recites the blessing after.Section seven: On the first and last day of Pesah, on the first day of Sukkot, on Shmini Atzeret (the last day of Sukkot), on Shavuot and on Rosh Hashanah there are five aliyot.Section eight: On Yom Kippur there are six aliyot. Note that this makes Yom Kippur unlike all other holidays.Section nine: Shabbat differs from other occasions in several key ways. First of all, there are more aliyot on Shabbat than at any other time of the year. On other occasions there are a maximum of six aliyot and the mishnah states explicitly that they may not add to this number. Indeed, the mishnah may emphasize this to make sure that people do not try to turn other holidays into Shabbat by adding more aliyot. In contrast, on Shabbat they may add aliyot. Finally, there is a haftarah on Shabbat. Today we read a haftarah on festivals and on Yom Kippur as well. Finally, the same rule about the blessings still applies.
  IntroductionToday’s section discusses the mishnah which says that one may sit or stand while reading the Megillah.
  The Talmud limits the mishnah’s rule that one can read while sitting to the Megillah. When reading Torah one must stand.Abbahu derives this from the verse where God tells Moses to stand with him. Moses, who is learning Torah directly from God, must be standing. Rabbi Abbahu goes on to say that the verse may even imply that God is also standing, for it uses the word “with me.” However, he admits that such an anthropomorphism is a bit heretical.Finally, R. Abbahu learns another halakhah from this verse. A teacher should not sit on a couch and teach his students. Rather both should be on the couch or both on the ground. There should not be a hierarchical distinction between the two.The sugya now continues to discuss the issue of standing or sitting while learning Torah. I should note that there are discussions among Greek philosophers as well as to whether one should sit or stand while studying philosophy.
  This baraita imagines that Torah used to be studied while standing, but now people are weaker or sicker and have to sit while studying Torah. The full honor of Torah was achieved when it was studied while standing, and not as it is now, while sitting.
  Two verses are cited here that seem to contradict each other. One verse seems to say that Moses sat on the mountain, whereas the other verse seems to say that he stood on the mountain. So which was it?Rav says that he learned Torah for the first time while standing, but that when he wanted to repeat things over to learn them better, he sat down. Interesting that Moses is pictured repeating his lessons already on Sinai.Hanina says that Moses was stooping—neither sitting or standing. Must not have been an easy forty days!Yohanan interprets the verse according to its simple meaning—Moses doesn’t mean to say that he “sat” on the mountain. He simply means to say that he stayed there for forty days.Finally Rava says that he stood while learning the easier material, but when he got to the harder material, he sat down.I should also note that we should remember that all of this studying was done without books. Therefore, walking around while talking about Torah is not being compared to sitting and studying from a book. In both cases people are just talking. Personally, I find that my best conversations are when easy running or walking.
  
  
  Daf 21b
  
  IntroductionThe mishnah taught that people can simultaneously read the Megillah. This section again limits the mishnah’s rule to the Megillah.
  It is more difficult to hear two people speaking at the same time. Therefore, the Torah, which seems to be the most difficult and most important text, must be read and translated by only one person at a time.The Prophets, from where the Haftorah is drawn, can be translated simultaneously by two people, but it must be read by only one person at a time.Finally, Hallel and the Megillah may even be read by ten people at a time. People love those texts so much that they will strain to hear them even from many simultaneous voices.The translation the Talmud refers to here is not reading Onkelos or any other translation. In the time of the Talmud the translation into Aramaic was not yet composed, even if there were normal translations. This would seem to make it quite difficult for two people to translate at the same time.
  IntroductionToday’s section discusses the clause in the Mishnah about blessing before or after the Megillah.
  The mishnah says that the recitation of a blessing over the Megillah is dependent on custom. Abaye limits this to the blessing after the reading. One must bless before reading the Megillah, as was stated by R. Judah, that one must bless before performing any mitzvah.Judah uses a slightly unusual phrase to mean “before their performance”—”over le’asiyatan.” The Talmud now asks how we know what this phrase means.
  The Talmud now cites three verses in which the root “over (עבר)” is used to mean in front of.
  Before the Megillah three blessings are recited: M=mikra megillah, for reading the Megillah. N=nissim, over the miracle of Purim. H=shehehiyanu. These are basically the same three recited over Hannukah candles.
  The Talmud now turns to the blessing after the Megillah. As we can see it focuses on vengeance, which is certainly a prominent theme in the Megillah. It also is something that must have resonated with the rabbis, living under a foreign regime. They dream of a time when they can take vengeance on their foes, when they have the upper hand. That is what Purim means to them. An opposite time, when Jews are on top and their constant oppressors are being paid back.There is a dispute about the concluding formula. Rava focuses on God’s saving power, whereas the earlier version focused on vengeance. R. Papa, as he often does, harmonizes the two, claiming that both should be said.
  IntroductionToday’s section begins to discuss the three readers on weekday Torah readings, as well as how many verses each is to read. We should remember that in mishnaic times readings had not yet been fixed. Some flexibility seems to have still remained as far as how many verses each reader would read.
  The three who read on Mondays, Thursdays and Shabbat at minhah are representative of either the Tanakh (the three parts) or the division of Israel into three groups, Priests, Levites and Israelites.
  Shimi says that every Monday, Thursday, Shabbat minhah Torah reading must have at least ten verses, and that the opening verse, “And God spoke to Moses” counts. What are these ten representative of?The first version is that the men of leisure who are in the synagogue. Elsewhere we learn that in order for a place to be called a city, it must have ten men of leisure, people who have no other work to do. Where else to go but the synagogue?!Joseph says they represent the ten commandments.Levi’s statement holds that they are representative of the ten times the word Halleluyah appears in the last five psalms of the book of Psalms.Yohanan says it refers to the ten statements with which the world was created.
  The Talmud now explains R. Yohanan’s statement, that the ten verses are representative of the ten statements with which God created the world. These refer to the nine time that the Torah says “And God said,” plus the phrase “In the beginning” which created the original heavens and earth. This last line seems to be stating something that is not so clearly stated in the Torah itself—God’s word created the heavens and earth. It is possible to read the Torah as if the sky and earth were there before God began creating. This was a point of some contention among ancient interpreters.
  In the time of the Talmud, as I said above, the number of verses each person was to read was not yet set. If there are three readers and ten verses must be read, then one of them must read four verses. Rava says that any of the three readers who reads four verses is praiseworthy. The Talmud now explains by analogy how first, second or third is the best position elsewhere.
  The mishnah cited here is from Tractate Shekalim. They would gather the shekels collected from all of Israel into three baskets, labeled by the order in which they were collected. Why should we know the order? Because it is a mitzvah to use the shekels collected to first to buy the first sacrifices. This shows that being first is best.
  The menorah was shaped so that the three branches on either side of the middle branch faced the middle one, and the middle one was drawn in to face the Holy of Holies, where the Shekhinah, God’s presence dwells. From here R. Yohanan learns that the middle one is praiseworthy, proving that sometimes the middle position is the preferred one.
  The final position is praiseworthy because of the principle that we always increase holiness, never decrease. Thus in conclusion any of the positions may be considered praiseworthy.Nevertheless, R. Papa praised the person who read four verses during the first Aliyah.
  Originally, the first Torah reader would say the blessing before he reads and the last Torah reader would bless after the reading. If there were three aliyot, then the first and last would say a blessing and the middle person would not recite any blessing.This custom had changed already before the end of the Talmudic period. The custom had become for each person receiving an Aliyah to recite a blessing before and a blessing after, as we do it today. This was because of people who come in and out of synagogue. If they missed the opening blessing, they might think that one does not bless before reading Torah. And if they missed the closing blessing, they might think that one does not bless after reading Torah. To prevent that error, the rabbis decreed that everyone should bless both before and after.
  IntroductionToday’s section deals with the Rosh Hodesh Torah reading. On Rosh Hodesh four people read, but as we shall see, splitting the reading into four parts is challenging, because the reading consists of three paragraphs: the first has eight verses, the second two verses and the third five verses.
  The first paragraph of the Rosh Hodesh reading has eight verses. If the first two readers each read three verses, then only two verses will be left in the paragraph. There is a rule that we don’t leave two verses left over at the end of a paragraph. This is just too little to be left over.
  If the first two readers each read four verses from the first paragraph, then that paragraph is finished. We are now left with seven verses, two in one paragraph and five in the next paragraph. The first person cannot read three because once someone starts to read a paragraph, he must read at least three verses. If the first reader reads two verses in the first paragraph and three in the next, then only two are left, and all readers must read at least three verses.
  
  Daf 22a
  
  There are two solutions. Rav says he should repeat a verse and Shmuel says he divides a verse into two, thereby creating six verses.
  Rav did not allow dividing the verse because he held that the division of the Torah into verses was from Moses, and if he did not divide the verse, we are not allowed to do so.
  Shmuel holds that in times of great need we are allowed to divide verses that were not divided by Moses. Just as R. Hananiah divided up verses when teaching them to children, so too a Torah reader may divide them up when it is necessary.
  Shmuel doesn’t allow the repetition of verses lest someone goes out or comes in between the readings and thinks that the person before he came in read only two, or that the person who is reading after he leaves is going to read only two.
  IntroductionIn yesterday’s section we learned that on Rosh Hodesh in order to fulfill all of the rules of Torah reading (how much of a passage must be read, how much may be left over at its end, and how many verses each reader must read), Rav says that they would repeat a verse and Shmuel says that they would split a verse in half. Today’s section raises some difficulties on these exceptional solutions.
  The baraita cited here is raised as a difficulty on both Rav and Shmuel. It describes a regular Torah reading. As I stated earlier, what exactly a person was to read was not determined in the Talmudic period. So if he had an Aliyah and the section had six verses, the first reader could read three and the next could read three. No problem. But if there were only five, then the best option would be for the first reader to read them all. But if he read only three, one opinion holds that the second reader could read the remaining two of this section, and the first verse of the next section. But others say that the second reader would have to read three of the next section, because one does not begin a section by reading less than three verses.In any case, neither opinion holds that we do what Rav and Shmuel would suggest—read a verse twice or divide a verse in half. Therefore the baraita is a difficulty on both opinions. [It seems more of a difficulty against Rav, because according to Shmuel if the first reader read the entire third verse, the next reader would not have the option of dividing it. Some commentators do read it this way.]The Talmud resolves the difficulty by stating that in this case it was possible to continue with the next section, because the baraita refers to a regular Torah reading. In the case of Rosh Hodesh (and the ma’amad, see yesterday’s section) there are prescribed sections to read. One cannot continue with the next section.
  Tanhum says that the halakhah follows the opinion attributed to “the others say”—once one begins reading a section, he must read at least three verses.He also says that just as one may not begin a passage without reading three verses, so too one must not leave less than three verses in a section.The Talmud thinks it obvious that one should not leave less than three verses and explains why. The first tanna in the baraita said that one could start a section and read less than three verses. The alternative opinion was stricter. But when it came to leaving verses at the end of a passage the first opinion said that if there were five verses the reader should read them all. Even he was strict on this issue because he doesn’t want one to leave less than three verses. If the usually lenient first opinion is strict, all the more so we would know that the alternative opinion is strict.So why did R. Tanhum need to tell us something we could have figured out on our own?
  This section answers what we might have thought had R. Tanhum not told us that we don’t leave less than three verses in a section. The reason we don’t leave less than three verses is that someone might go out after the first person had read and think that the next reader would read only two verses, which is not sufficient for a Torah reading. The reason we don’t begin with less than three, is that someone who came in and heard the third verse of a section being read as the first verse of an Aliyah might have thought that the previous reader had read only two. We might have thought that it is common for people to come in late, but not common for them to walk out in the middle of a Torah reading (anyone who has been to my shul would never think such a thing). Therefore, we shouldn’t allow people to read less than three in the beginning of a section, but we could allow them to leave less than three. They won’t walk out so they’ll hear the next reader reading at least three verses. To let us know that people do come in late and leave early, R. Tanhum states that one should not begin a passage with less than three verses.
  The Talmud now asks why the first opinion allows one to begin with less than three verses, but not end leaving less than three.The answer is that he assumes that when someone comes in late to the synagogue he will ask what the previous person read. He won’t just assume they read only one or two verses for the entire Aliyah. Since people won’t make a mistake, one is allowed to begin a passage and read less than three verses.
  This ends the passage about Rosh Hodesh, and reflects how we observe the halakhah today. The halakhah accords with Rav who says that we repeat a verse. R. Joseph says that it is the middle reader, the second one, who goes back a verse and repeats the third verse said by the first reader. Thus the first reader reads the first three verses, the second reader reads verses 2-5. The third reader reads verses 6-8, completing the first passage, and the next passage which has only two verses. The fourth reader reads the final passage.
  IntroductionThe Mishnah does not tell us how many people read on a public fast day. In the Talmud a “public fast day” refers mainly to fasts called due to lack of rain. However, the word can also be used in reference to Tisha B’av and the other fasts, not including Yom Kippur, on which six people read, as we learned in the Mishnah.
   The question is what category do we put public fast days in? On the one hand, there is no additional sacrifice on public fast days, so they are lesser than Rosh Hodesh and Hol Hamoed. This would indicate that three should read. On the other hand, there are additional prayers on public fast days. This might indicate that like Rosh Hodesh and Hol Hamoed which also have an additional prayer (the musaf prayer). 
  This section seems to just prove that we can’t learn one way or another from the mishnah. If we deduce from the absence of public fast days in the second section listing days on which we read four, we would conclude that we read three. But if we were to deduce from the previous section and its absence from the list of days on which three are read, we would conclude that we read four. So we can’t learn anything.
  In order to understand this section, we must remember that in the time of the Talmud (or at least in the beginning of this period) the first reader would bless and the last leader would bless. Those reading the intermediate aliyot would not bless at all. We hear in this story that Rav came to Babylon and blessed in the beginning and not at the end. Since we know that Rav was not a Kohen, we can assume that he did not read the first or second Aliyah. He assumedly read the third Aliyah. The fact that he didn’t bless after is for now explained by the fact that there will be a fourth reader on a public fast day.[For now put aside the question of why Rav would bless before if he was reading the third Aliyah. Also put aside the issue of “falling on the face”. The Talmud will do with this later on this page of Talmud].
  The Talmud rejects the idea that Rav read the third Aliyah. Rav read the first Aliyah, usually reserved for kohanim. The same is true for R. Huna who also read the first Aliyah despite his not being a Kohen.The Talmud notes that only a rabbi to whose authority all other rabbis are subject should read the first Aliyah. Rav doesn’t seem to fit this category, because he showed deference to Shmuel, his contemporary and also a Kohen. He should not be reading the Kohen Aliyah..The answer is that Shmuel was subject to Rav’s authority, but Rav nevertheless showed him deference. However, he would do so only when in front of Shmuel. When not in front of him, he did not show such deference and thus he would read the Kohen Aliyah.
  The Talmud now bolsters our assumption that Rav read the first Aliyah. As I stated above, originally only the first person said the blessing before reading. Since we know that Rav blessed before reciting the Aliyah, we can assume that he read the Kohen (first) Aliyah.Now the Talmud retracts this last statement by asserting that Rav may have lived after the “enactment.” This refers to the enactment to bless before and after each Aliyah as we do to this day. The reason for this was lest people who leave early or come late miss out on the blessing before or after and don’t realize that one blesses before and after reading the Torah in public. The Talmud posits that Rav may have lived after the enactment, and therefore may have blessed before reading the third Aliyah. Of course, now we have to figure out why he didn’t bless after. The answer the Talmud provides is that Rav didn’t have to worry about people leaving where he was. They might come in late, therefore the rabbis instituted that everyone should bless before reading. But once in they would stay till the end, therefore only the last reader needed to bless.I should note that the Talmudic editors are willing to play with history to solve difficulties. Talmudic historians know that Rav lived before this change in halakhah, and that is why he said only one of the blessings. But the Talmud wants to raise all possibilities for explaining his behavior. This is typical of the Talmud. It wishes to explore all theoretical possibilities and is less concerned (if concerned at all) with what actually happened.
  
  Daf 22b
  
  IntroductionThe sugya continues to try to answer the question of how many people read from the Torah on public fast days.The baraita says that on days where an extra reader would delay people from getting to work only three aliyot are read. The examples are public fasts and Tisha B’av. On days where people don’t go to work anyway, such as Rosh Hodesh and the intermediate days of the festival (Hol Hamoed) we can allow for an extra Aliyah and four are read.
  The baraita says that on days where an extra reader would delay people from getting to work only three aliyot are read. The examples are public fasts and Tisha B’av. On days where people don’t go to work anyway, such as Rosh Hodesh and the intermediate days of the festival (Hol Hamoed) we can allow for an extra Aliyah and four are read.It is interesting that the baraita assumes people don’t work on Rosh Hodesh. This may have been a custom in the Mishnaic period. Rashi says it only refers to women, who had a custom not to work on Rosh Hodesh. Today people work on Rosh Hodesh.In any case, the baraita seems to conclusively prove that we read three aliyot on all public fast days.
  Ashi rejects the proof from that baraita, because the Mishnah did not teach that way. The general rule in the Mishnah was that only on days on which there is Musaf do we read four aliyot. This, according to R. Ashi, would include fast days—although there is no musaf sacrifice, there are additional prayers. Therefore, four aliyot are read.
  The problem R. Ashi has is that there is a debate in a baraita over how many people read on the ninth of Av. We can easily see that no one holds that we read four aliyot. Indeed, the first opinion holds that if it falls on Tuesday or Wednesday only one person reads! So how can R. Ashi read the Mishnah as if it says that four read.In light of the baraitot which both said that three read on the public fast days, the Talmud now offers a reading of the Mishnah. The general principle does not come to teach that since public fast days have an extra prayer they have four aliyot, as R. Ashi learned it. Rather, it comes to teach that Rosh Hodesh and the intermediate days have less aliyot than Yom Tov, because only on the latter is work prohibited. Each time there is some distinguishing mark, an Aliyah is added, as the Talmud explains.
  In light of the baraitot which both said that three read on the public fast days, the Talmud now offers a reading of the Mishnah. The general principle does not come to teach that since public fast days have an extra prayer they have four aliyot, as R. Ashi learned it. Rather, it comes to teach that Rosh Hodesh and the intermediate days have less aliyot than Yom Tov, because only on the latter is work prohibited. Each time there is some distinguishing mark, an Aliyah is added, as the Talmud explains.
  IntroductionToday’s section returns to the brief mention from above that Rav would not “fall on his face” as the other people in Babylon did. This is the source of the custom that remains to this day to fall on our faces after the Amidah, the section of the service called “Tahanun.”
  This is a repeat of the story from above.
  “Falling on the face” in this time period seems to have been literally prostrating oneself fully on the ground, not as we do today, where we bend over and just put our hands on our forearm. There is a prohibition of prostrating oneself onto stone pavement, based on a midrash on “figured stone” in Leviticus 26:1. Only in the Temple is one allowed to prostrate oneself onto a stone floor.As an aside, this is why some people put a cloth under their heads when bowing onto the floor on Yom Kippur. In Israel it is not just the shaliach tzibbur who bows to the ground—most people do. If the floor is made of stone, then one should not bow all the way down. However, if one puts a piece of cloth there, then one can bow one’s face all the way down.
  If Rav didn’t bow down because it was forbidden, then why did the rest of the congregation? The answer is that the stone floor was only where Rav was. The rest of the congregation was not on a stone floor. Perhaps it was plain dirt (carpeting?).In any case, why then didn’t Rav just go over to the congregation? The Talmud answers that he didn’t want to trouble them, for had he gone over to them, they would have had to stand up to honor him. He was quite the thoughtful rabbi!
  Alternatively, Rav didn’t bow down because it was his custom to spread out his hands and feet, which was prohibited. He didn’t want to change his custom and bow down in a permitted way, so he refrained from bowing down altogether. Evidently, everyone else bowed down without spreading their hands and feet.
  Alternatively, Rav did not fall on his face for he is an “important man.” R. Elazar teaches that an “important man” is not allowed to fall on his face unless he is sure that God will answer him. If he were to fall on his face and God did not answer him, people would call into question whether God hears their prayers. Therefore, the important man should not fall on his face at all. This is also derived from the book of Joshua where God asks Joshua why he fell on his face, implying that he should not have done so. God, in this case, does not answer Joshua’s prayer.
  This baraita explains the different forms of bowing referred to in the Bible.
  Evidently, there was a tradition that Levi had become “lame.” [I realize that this is a derogatory word, but it captures the intent of the Talmud.] According to one explanation, this was a result of him trying to pull off the difficult “kidah” maneuver. Rashi explains that this is done by putting one’s thumbs on the ground and leaning on them fully when bowing down until his face is on the ground. This would require tremendous core strength, because one can’t put all of one’s weight on one’s thumbs. It was too much for Levi and he went lame. Don’t try it at home.According to another tradition he went lame because he “casted words against Heaven.” In Tractate Taanit we learn that he accused God of going up to the Heavens and not caring about what happens in the world. In other words, he called into question whether God is involved in the world. You might not want to try this at home either.The Talmud resolves the difficulty by saying that he went lame for both reasons. I think this is a bit of a “lame” resolution, but I’ll live with it.
  When doing “Tahanun” Abaye and Rava, both “important men” would not fall on the way down on their faces. They would simply lean on their sides. This is closer to what we do today. We don’t bow all the way down to the ground, we just put our head down on our arm.
  
  Daf 23a
  
  IntroductionThis week’s daf begins with a discussion of the number of aliyot on festivals, Yom Kippur and Shabbat.
  The Mishnah and R. Ishmael agree on the number of aliyot read on each of these days. But they disagree over whether one can add to the number of aliyot. R. Ishmael says they may not, while the Mishnah says they may. R. Akiva disagrees with the Mishnah over the number of aliyot on Shabbat and Yom Kippur. R. Akiva says six for Shabbat, seven for Yom Kippur, whereas the Mishnah reverses these numbers. So the Mishnah does not seem to agree with either of these tannaim.
  Rava solves the problem by finding another tanna that does follow the Mishnah—the tanna of the school of R. Ishmael. This tanna teaches R. Ishmael’s opinion in a way that is identical to that in the Mishnah.As far as the contradiction between R. Ishmael of this baraita and R. Ishmael of the previous baraita, the Talmud just says that these are two different traditions, transmitted by two different tannaim, as to what R. Ishmael said.
  The baraita cited here seems to explain the number of aliyot for each day. On festivals people come late and leave early. They want to celebrate the festival with food at home and since they can cook at home, they need to be there more. Therefore there are only five aliyot. No food on Yom Kippur so they are okay with being in shul all day. Hence seven aliyot, according to R. Akiva. On Shabbat they come early because all of their food was prepared the night before, but they still want to get home early to eat it, and therefore there are six aliyot. Thus the baraita seems best to accord with R. Akiva.The Talmud says that it accords even with R. Ishmael (and the Mishnah). On Yom Kippur the service is quite long, therefore there are only six aliyot. On Shabbat, the service is shorter and therefore they can have one more aliyah without the overall length becoming too problematic.
  There is a dispute over what the three readers on Mondays, Thursdays and Shabbat Minhah, the five readers on Yom Tov and the seven readers on Shabbat represent.One opinion holds that they represent the three priestly blessings (Numbers 6:24-26). The first blessing has three words, the second five words and the seventh seven words. The other opinion holds that they represent various verses in Tanakh.
  In this somewhat strange exchange R. Joseph teaches one of the same traditions that we learned above. Abaye asks him why R. Joseph never taught that before, and R. Joseph responds that he never asked.
  The six on Yom Kippur represent the six who stood on Ezra the Scribe’s right and left hand sides when he read the Torah upon renewing the covenant. While it seems that on his left hand there were actually seven, Zechariah and Meshullam are identified as being the same, the latter being a pun on his perfect conduct.The Jacob identified here is called a “Min.” Usually the word means “heretic” but here it is difficult to interpret it as such, for the question does not seem heretical at all. It is possible that the correct reading should be some other word and not “Min.”
  This baraita teaches that anyone can have an Aliyah, even a woman or child. However, the rabbis consider it to be disrespectful to the community for a woman or child to have an Aliyah because it suggests that the men could not read the Torah themselves. We hear of this in other areas as well—birkat hamazon and Hallel. It is not respectful for it to seem that men cannot recite these texts.This baraita was foundational among minyanim (Conservative and later on Orthodox) who wanted to allow women to read from the Torah and receive aliyot. To this day it is the source for the emergence of such minyanim in the Orthodox movement. The claim was that a community could waive its own honor. But since this is a Talmud shiur and not a halakhah one, I will refrain from expanding on the subject.
  There is a dispute here about whether the person who reads the “Maftir” Aliyah counts as one of the seven readers. The Maftir reader reads from the Torah and then reads the Haftorah. According to one opinion, since he too reads from the Torah, he too counts as one of the readers. According to the second opinion he only reads from the Torah to show respect for it, so that he not read from the Prophets and not the Torah. Because it is not inherently crucial that he read from the Torah, he does not count as one of the seven.
  The Talmud raises a difficulty. According to this baraita, the person who reads the haftorah should read at least 21 verses, to correspond to the 21 verses of Torah read by the seven readers. But if eight read, including the maftir, then he would have had to read 24.The answer is that the three extra verses that the maftir reads are only because of the respect for the Torah. Since they are not quite essential, they do not need to read corresponding verses in the haftorah.
  
  Daf 23b
  
  Rava raises a difficulty against the baraita that states that every haftorah must have 21 verses. The haftorah of Parshat Tzav, taken from Jeremiah 7, has only seventeen verses.The answer is that as long as the subject is completed, then less than 21 verses can be read. The 21 verse minimum did not mean that two subjects would have to be covered.
  IntroductionToday’s section opens with a mishnah that teaches what rituals require a minyan of ten men in order to perform them.
  Section one: In the time of the mishnah they recited the Shema in a way that we might call responsively—the leader would recite one half of the verse and the congregation would respond with the second half. This practice changed some time during the talmudic period. There are actually many different explanations for what they did, but this seems to be the most accepted by scholars.Section two: Passing before the ark refers to reciting the Sh’moneh Esrei or Amidah. Without a minyan there is no public Amidah or repetition—everyone just does it silently.Section three: The priestly blessing is recited before the end of the Amidah, but only with a minyan.Section four: Without a minyan there is no public reading of the Torah.Section five: Nor is there a haftarah, lest one think that although they can’t read from the Torah, they might be able to read from the prophets.Section six: On the way to the cemetery and on the way back they would make formal stops at which they would recite eulogies. They would do this seven times, but it was only done with a minyan.Section seven: The blessing for mourners was recited in the public square, whereas “comforting mourners” was done on the return from the cemetery. The blessing of the bridegrooms refers to the blessings recited under the huppah (the wedding canopy). In mishnaic times they probably recited three blessings, but by the time of the Talmud this had been increased to seven. None of these blessings is recited without a minyan.Section eight: Before Birkat Hamazon, the blessing after the meal, there is an invitation to bless. This invitation is recited with God’s name only if there are ten present.Section nine: If someone wishes to dedicate a piece of land to the Temple they estimate the value of the land and then he must pay that amount. The estimate is carried out by ten people, only one of whom must be a priest. Similarly, if a person dedicates himself or someone else to the Temple, and he can’t afford to pay the price mandated in Leviticus 27, then they estimate how much he can afford. This estimate is again done by nine regular men and one priest.#...
  This section offers a complicated derivation of the notion that anything that entails “sanctification” must be done with ten, and that a minyan consists of ten. From the verse in Leviticus we learn that God wishes to be sanctified “among the children of Israel.” But from there we don’t learn any number. But the verse uses the word “among.” This connects us to Numbers 16 which uses the word “among” and also the word “congregation.” The word “congregation” leads us to Numbers 14, where congregation is clearly ten. This is God speaking about the spies. There were ten spies who had an evil report, therefore a congregation is ten. So too a minyan consists of ten.
  IntroductionThis section interprets some of the elements of the mishnah we learned yesterday.
  A minyan is required for the formal procedure of stopping and starting during the funeral procession, because there are formal announcements of when to rise and when to sit. It would not be proper to make these announcements without a minyan of ten.
  The blessing for mourners was recited in the public square. It is a formal blessing, but one that we no longer recite. When such a blessing was recited, mourners did not count as part of the minyan. The parallel blessing, the blessing of the bridegrooms (which is still recited), also requires a minyan, but in this case the bridegroom counts towards the requisite ten.
  To recite the full “zimmun” for Birkat Hamazon, ten are necessary. Without ten the word “our God” is omitted.
  IntroductionToday’s section contains a few last comments on the previous mishnah.
  Leviticus 27 deals with sanctifying land and people and with the evaluation of that which was sanctified so that its value could be dedicated to the Temple. The word “priest/Kohen” is mentioned ten times in the passage. One mention is needed to teach that a priest must be present at the evaluation. The other nine are considered limitations that follow a prior limitation—all of them limit the evaluator to a priest. We have a rule that a limitation after a limitation has the force of an inclusion (sort of like two negatives make a positive). Therefore, the other nine people need not be kohanim.The problem is that the second “Kohen” is a limitation after a limitation, but the third is not, because the prior mention was not a limitation. In reality only the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th and 10th are limitations and therefore, five of the people should be priests and only five can be Israelites. The Talmud admits that this is a difficulty, and in the end, we have no source for this halakhah.
  The mishnah says that nine Israelites and a priest are required to evaluate a person sanctified to the Temple so that his worth can be redeemed. The Talmud asks how a person’s value is dedicated to the Temple. The answer is that the person says, “My monetary value is upon me.” His value is estimated by assessing how much he would be worth as a slave. Since slaves are compared with property (both are passed down as an inheritance), just as land requires nine and a priest when being evaluated, so too does a person.
  
  Daf 24a
  
  IntroductionToday’s section opens with mishnah teaching various rules about reading the Torah in public.
  Section one: An aliyah may not consist of less than three verses.Section two: In mishnaic times the spoken language was Aramaic. Many people, perhaps most people, would have had trouble understanding the Torah in its original Hebrew. Therefore, as part of the public reading of the Torah, there was a translator who would translate verse by verse. The reader was to read one verse and then the translator would translate this verse. However, when it came to reading the haftarah from one of the prophets, they allowed the reader to read three verses at a time. They were less exacting on the precision of the haftarah translation than they were for the translation of the Torah. However, if each verse is its own section, then the reader must read each one on its own. This refers to Isaiah 52:3-5 where there are three verses, each considered to be its own section.Section three: When reading the haftarah, he may skip from place to place so long as he doesn’t have to roll the scroll so far that they translator has completed his translation before he gets to the new verse. Today there are many haftarot where we skip from one place in the book to another, or if reading from one of the twelve minor prophets, from one prophet to another. However, when it comes to the Torah it is forbidden to skip around.
  The number three is considered representative of the three parts of the Bible—Torah, Nevi’im and Ketuvim.
  Sometimes one verse can constitute a single paragraph. In such a case the reader must read each verse to the translator one at a time. The Talmud cites an example of this from Isaiah.
  The Mishnah states that one may not skip in reading from place to place when reading the Torah. However, a baraita describes the reading of the High Priest in the Temple on Yom Kippur. He begins with Leviticus 16 and then skips to Leviticus 23. How can he skip?Abaye answers that if the skip is short enough to get to the next place before the translator has completed his translation, it is okay to skip. These two passages in Leviticus are close enough that it is allowed to skip.
  Abaye now refines his previous resolution. One is not allowed under any circumstances to skip from one topic to the other when reading the Torah. The two passages in Leviticus are both about Yom Kippur and since they are in close proximity one can skip from reading one to the other.Thus there are two conditions needed to allow skipping around in the Torah: one subject and close proximity. The congregation should not be confused by skipping from subject to subject nor should they be inconvenienced by having to wait for the Torah to be rolled to some far off place.
  It is forbidden to skip from one book of the Prophets to another. The Twelve Minor Prophets were all written in one scroll, and therefore one can skip from one prophet to another within the scroll. But skipping from the beginning to the end is overdoing it, for it would take too long.
  IntroductionToday’s section is a mishnah dealing with who is qualified to receive certain honors in the synagogue.I have explained this mishnah according to Albeck’s explanation. There are some parts that are explained differently by others.
  Section one: The person honored by reading the haftarah is worthy of also being the leader of the other crucial elements of the service. He can lead the responsive reading of the Shema (explained in yesterday’s mishnah), he can pass before the ark (meaning recite the Amidah and thereby aid other’s in fulfilling their obligation) and if he is a priest, he can lift up his hands to bless the people with the priestly blessing. In the following sections we will see that not everyone is worthy of these honors.Section two: A child is allowed to read the haftarah, but he may not pass before the ark. The person who recites the amidah (passes before the ark) helps others to fulfill their obligation to recite the amidah. In order to help others fulfill their obligation, the person himself must also be obligated. A child who is not obligated cannot fulfill the congregation’s obligation. Therefore, if a child read the haftarah either his father or teacher takes his place in passing before the ark.Section three: A child may read from the Torah and he may also serve as the translator of the Torah reading. However, he may not pass before the ark, since he is not obligated in prayer (see above). He also may not lift up his hands to recite the priestly blessing if he is a priest because it was considered disgraceful for the community to have to be blessed by a minor.Section four: A person in rags, meaning one who is dressed shabbily and whose flesh can be seen through his clothes, may still lead the responsive reading of the Shema because this was done from one’s seat. One didn’t have to get up in front of the community. Since he would not be seen by the entire congregation, he was allowed to fulfill this role. He was also allowed to serve as the translator, since this was not considered all that important of a function. However, he was not allowed to read from the Torah because it would be disgraceful to read the Torah while dressed in rags. He was not allowed to pass before the ark or lift up his hands (if he was a priest) for the same reason—everyone would see him and his improper clothing.Section five: One of the blessings before the Shema is “who creates light.” According to the first opinion in the mishnah, a blind man can recite this blessing even though he can’t see the light. He may also translate the Torah because translating does not require one to read.Rabbi Judah holds that a person blind from birth cannot recite the Shema because he can’t thank God for having ever seen the light. 
  IntroductionToday’s section asks why the one who reads the Haftorah also receives so many other functions including the public recitation of the Shema, and being the shaliah tzibbur, the prayer leader.
  The mishnah we learned in yesterday’s section listed all sorts of synagogue roles that the one who reads the Haftorah also fulfills (see yesterday’s mishnah). R. Papa says that this is to compensate him for receiving the lesser honor of reading the haftorah. Reading the haftorah is not as great of an honor as reading the Torah. Therefore, to compensate the one who agrees to do so, we give him other honors.Rabbah bar Shimi says that there would be arguments between the haftorah reader and others—why should I read Haftorah while you get to be the shaliah tzibbur (prayer leader)? It seems that in Talmudic times this may have also been a paid position, making it all the more understandable why he would argue. Therefore, they designated the one who reads the Haftorah to be the shaliah tzibbur as well.The Talmud, as it often does, asks what the practical difference is between the two explanations of the mishnah. The practical difference is where the shaliah tzibbur is not paid. In such a case, the one who receives the haftorah would not argue over receiving the honor. Therefore, according to Rabbah bar Shimi’s reasoning, the honor could be given to another person. But R. Papa would say that he should still give it to the same person, to compensate him for the lesser honor of reading the Haftorah.
   The mishnah said that if the child read the Haftorah his father or teacher acts as shaliah tzibbur in his place. The Talmud now evaluates the above dispute in light of this line of the Mishnah. If we were concerned about quarrels, are kids really going to quarrel over not receiving these honors?But if we say the reason is to show him respect, do we really need to show a child respect? He should be happy with whatever he gets.If you say that he should give his father or teacher the honors in order to show respect to them, we could say the same thing about his father or teacher quarrelling with another shaliah tzibbur. Thus in the end both reasons work with this line in the Mishnah. If the child receives the haftorah, we give the other honors to his father or teacher either to honor them, or so that they don’t fight with someone else who received the honor. 
  
  Daf 24b
  
  Abaye explains that it doesn’t matter whether the person is an adult who is publicly reciting the Shema with rags on or a child who is reading Torah dressed in rags: In either case it is not respectful for the congregation so it should not be done.
  According to R. Judah, whose statement was found in the Mishnah, since a blind man does not benefit from light, he cannot recite the Shema publicly because it includes the blessing, “Who creates the light.”The rabbis argue that people can understand something without directly experiencing it with their senses. The study of the “Chariot” is the mystical study of God through the lens of the first chapter of Ezekiel. People have seen the Chariot in their minds, even if they’ve never actually seen it with their eyes.Judah responds that the two matters are not comparable. The mystical speculation about God is about understanding—one can have such understanding without actually seeing the Chariot (or God). But the blessing over the Shema is thanking God for benefiting from light. Since this person has not benefited, he should not recite the blessing.
  The rabbis who say that a blind man can recite the blessing “Who creates the lights” and with it the whole Shema, point out that a blind person does indeed benefit from the light. R. Yose noticed this when he was out walking on a pitch black night and saw a blind person carrying a torch. Obviously, the torch would not help him see. Nevertheless, he does derive benefit from it, for through its light others can protect him. We all can benefit not just directly from the wonders of the world, but indirectly through the good use that others make of them.
  IntroductionToday’s mishnah teaches that priests who have something distracting on their hands, either a deformation or a discoloring should not lift up their hands because this makes the people look at them and not think about the blessing that they are receiving. The mishnah considers it crucial that the congregation focus not on the external attributes of the priest but the contents of the blessing that they are receiving.We should note that today people refrain from looking at the priests’ hands when they are reciting the blessing and their hands are also covered with a tallit.
  A priest whose hands are deformed should not lift up his hands [to say the priestly blessing].Rabbi Judah says: also one whose hands are colored with woad or madder should not lift up his hands, because [this makes] the congregation look at him.
  According to the Talmud, if the deformity is on hands, feet or face, the Kohen should not go up to do the priestly blessing. This is because people might see the face, hands and even the feet when the Kohen takes off his shoes.
  Both spotted and curved hands are considered a distraction and therefore a priest with such hands should not lift up his hands and perform the priestly blessing.
  This disqualification is not about deformed hands but about mispronunciations. The people of Haifa, Bet Shean and Tivonim switch their alefs and ayins. Therefore, they should neither perform the priestly blessing, nor should they serve as shaliah tzibbur (pass before the ark). Today Ashkenazim and many Sephardim do not distinguish between the pronunciation (or lack thereof) of these two letters. But in the past neither was silent as it is today. Yemenites and some other Sephardim still pronounce the ayin.
  Hiyya and R. Shimon b. Rabbi have an acrid exchange. R. Hiyya tells R. Shimon b. Rabbi that if he had been a Levite and had been around when the Temple still stood, he would not have been able to sing from the platform because he has a “thick” voice, assumedly gravelly and not pleasant.Shimon b. Rabbi is stung and goes back to tell his father, the great R. Judah Hanasi. R. Judah Hanasi provides his son with an insult to hurl back at R. Hiyya. R. Hiyya evidently confuses his hets with his hehs. Therefore, when saying the verse “I will wait” he will end up saying “vehikiti” which means to strike [God], an unintended blasphemy.
  A person’s whose eyes run will also be a distraction to the congregation. But if people are used to looking at him, then he can lift up his hands in the priestly blessing. They will no longer be distracted. This is an important caveat to all that we have learned. Once people get used to each other, their physical differences are no longer distracting. We might even suggest to people—get used to it! I think that this certainly remains true to this day. We naturally look twice at someone who looks very different from most people. But once we get used to his looks, we don’t think about it twice.
  Similar to above, people would be distracted by a blind person’s blindness, even if he is blind in only one eye. But if people are used to looking at him, then he may lift up his hands, if he is a priest.
  Hands that are discolored from work are a distraction and one with such hands should not perform the priestly blessing. But if most of the men have this occupation and therefore have colored hands, then it is permitted because it will not be as distracting.
  IntroductionToday’s section opens with a mishnah that describes behavior during tefillot that may be considered heretical, or at least to show that the person acting in such a way identifies with a heretical group.
  Sections one or two: In the first two sections we learn of people who refuse to pass before the ark (to lead the Amidah) either while wearing colored robes or while wearing shoes. The rabbis suspected that one who demanded to wear white clothes or go barefoot may have had heretical beliefs. Therefore, they said that such a person cannot pass before the ark at all, even in white clothes or barefoot. In other words, wearing white clothes and going barefoot seem to have been valid practices but one who insists upon them is suspected of heresy.We should note that the groups being described here seem to be taking Temple practice and applying it to the synagogue. In the Temple the priests’ robes were white and they went barefoot. The mishnah may be trying to emphasize that the synagogue is not the Temple and one who insists on dressing in the synagogue as if it were the Temple is potentially a heretic. There also may be a covert battle for leadership in this mishnah between priests and rabbis. Rabbis may be telling priests that when in the synagogue leading the Amidah (as opposed to reciting the priestly blessing) they are functioning as regular Jews and not as priests.Section three: The boxes of tefillin are supposed to be square. Our mishnah deals with a period of oppression when the Romans prohibited Jews from wearing tefillin. In response someone makes his tefillin round so that the Romans will not notice that he is wearing tefillin. According to the mishnah this attempt is doubly mistaken. The Romans will realize that he is wearing tefillin and therefore it is still dangerous. Secondly, by making his tefillin round he is not fulfilling the mitzvah of tefillin. There is also the idea that tefillin can protect a person from danger. But since these tefillin are not valid they offer no protection from the Roman oppressors.Section four: The Torah says that you should place tefillin “as a sign upon your hand and as a remembrance between your eyes.” Non-rabbinic groups of Jews (sectarians) interpreted these verses literally; tefillin are put on one’s hands and on the forehead between one’s eyes. The rabbis did not interpret the verses literally—tefillin go on top of one’s head, where the hairline ends, and on one’s arms, next to one’s heart. A person who wears his tefillin between the eyes or on the hand is acting as a heretic. I should note that I have seen many, many instances of people wearing their tefillin to low on their heads. One who wears tefillin between his eyes has not fulfilled his obligation.Section five: Covering tefillin in gold or wearing them on one’s sleeves is not proper fulfillment of the mitzvah. The mishnah deems this as the practice of “outsiders”—those who have separated from the rabbinic fold.
  As I explained in my commentary above, one who acts in such a way is suspected of heresy. However, the Talmud does not identify at all what the particular form of heresy is. In any case, one suspected of heresy cannot serve as a shaliah tzibbur.
  The Mishnah says that one who makes his tefillin round has not fulfilled his mitzvah, and moreover, that this is a dangerous practice. The Talmud notes that we have already learned this in another baraita, which states that the halakhah that tefillin must be square goes all the way back to Moses. Rava adds that when the bottom is stitched, it should remain square, as should the diagonal across the box.Papa resolves that our Mishnah referred to really round tefillin, like the shape of a nut. The other mishnah referred to tefillin that were not quite as round. In either case, the tefillin are disqualified.
  
  Daf 25a
  
  Introduction
  The last daf of this chapter continues to deal with particular manifestations of heretical leanings. The Mishnah then moves on to the issue of translating the Bible using euphemisms and other non-literal translations
  Section one: The heresy here seems to be one of dualism. Saying “May the good bless you” sounds as if there are two gods, one that governs the good and one that governs the bad. This was a common theology at the time of the Mishnah, especially among groups dubbed “Gnostics” by modern scholars. The rabbis were insistent that one God was responsible for both evil and good.Section two: There are three “heretical” saying in this mishnah. I’ll try to explain them one at a time. The mishnah says that for each “they silence him.” This implies that the mishnah is describing one who “passes before the ark,” meaning one who leads the Amidah prayer. If he tries to enter in one of these prayers they remove him as prayer leader.““May Your mercy reach the nest of a bird:” This line is explained in the Talmud in several different ways. One is that he is complaining to God saying, “Your mercy is on the nest of this bird” but not on me. God commanded shooing away the mother bird before taking the young, an act of mercy for the mother (Deuteronomy 22:6). The person praying complains that God has not shown similar mercy to him. A different explanation is that this saying understands God’s commandments as being only about mercy, when really they are decrees which we are to obey without questioning their reasoning. Another explanation is that he says “Your mercy reaches only to this nest” but cannot extend any further. In such a way he limits God’s power.“May Your name be mentioned for the good:”   This implies that God’s name should not be connected with the bad or the evil. As in the first section, this might imply some sort of dualism—we thank God for the good and don’t mention the evil because its source is a different god.“We give thanks, we give thanks:” Again the problem seems to be one of dualism—giving thanks twice sounds like it is being given to two different gods. However, in this section the dualism may not be of a good god and a bad god, but simply two gods. There were ancient sects of Jews (including Christians) who while professing monotheism, gave divine roles to other characters, such as God’s word (the Logos), God’s spirit or Jesus.Section three: Leviticus 18:7 says, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father.” If a person translates this as “you shall not uncover the nakedness of his father,” in an attempt to use a more innocuous third person, he is silenced. The translation of the Torah is to be literal, and even in the section concerning forbidden relations.Section four: The Torah prohibits “passing one’s child to Moloch.” Some ancient translators understood this as a prohibition against impregnating or having sexual relations with a Gentile (Aramean) woman or perhaps against giving one’s child to a Gentile to raise. Since passing one’s child to Moloch is a capital crime, this might imply that having sexual relations with is a capital crime. Therefore the rabbis insisted upon a literal translation of the verse.
  Two of the three heretical sayings prohibited by the Mishnah are easily explained. The explanations here accord with my explanations above.
  These two explanations were quoted above when I explained the Mishnah.In this story a person serving as shaliah tzibbur actually says what the Mishnah explicitly says not to say. He also adds in another line, in reference to the halakhah that one is not allowed to slaughter a mother and its young on the same day [this line is missing in some textual traditions]. In both cases, God has mercy on an animal. I find it very interesting that despite the fact that the Mishnah says not to say something, we hear of a shaliah tzibbur actually saying it. Perhaps this shows that the Mishnah was directed at actual practice.In any case, Rabbah seems to actually praise the person for what he said. This is especially perplexing to Abaye, who correctly notes that he Mishnah said that we silence such a prayer leader.The Talmud answers that Rabbah was just checking Abaye to see if he would respond correctly. Always a good excuse—I was just testing you!
  In this story the shaliah tzibbur adds on some adjectives to the traditional three used to describe God—”God, the great, the mighty, the terrible.” These three adjectives used in the Amidah were based on Moses’s words in Deuteronomy 10:17. R. Hanina rebukes the prayer leader for adding on to God’s praise. There is simply no way for a human being to adequately express God’s praise. Therefore we are to stick with the traditional formula, initiated by Moses and instituted as part of the Amidah by the Men of the Great Assembly. To add on to these three adjectives is presumptuous.
  IntroductionToday’s section opens with another statement by R. Hanina, and then continues to deal with issues related to the mishnah
  This famous statement is really about free will. The classic theological question—how can God control the world and yet leave human beings with the free will to choose their own paths, and thereby lead moral or immoral lives? R. Hanina basically limits God’s power to everything but human being’s free choice to obey or disobey. “Fear” here means obedience to God’s will.
  To us normal human beings, fear of God is no small thing, for fear of God is something we lack. For Moses, to whom God is speaking, fear of God was easy. This is clearly one of the truest observations of life. That which we possess in abundance we do not appreciate, and that which we lack and strive for seems almost impossible to attain.
  Zera says that one who repeats the Shema is like one who says, “We give thanks, we give thanks” and he should be silenced. He too seems to imply that there are two powers in heaven.A baraita says that repeating the Shema is only disgraceful, but we do not silence him. This seems to contradict R. Zera. The Talmud resolves that if he repeats every word, word by word, it is only disgraceful. It is just a foolish way of reciting the Shema. But repeating the whole verse twice is potentially heretical, so we silence him.I have explained this section according to Rashi. Other commentators explain opposite—repeating every word seems like heresy, whereas repeating the whole sentence is only disgraceful.I should also note that at the end of the Yom Kippur service we do repeat Shema Yisrael. Commentators say that since this is a set custom, it clearly is not performed with heretical intent.
  Papa brings up another reason why someone might repeat a verse of the Shema. He might not have had proper intention the first time he said it, and the recitation of the Shema must be done with proper intention. So why would we accuse him of heresy if he only was correcting his prior recitation?Rava responds that a person reciting the Shema should not act like he is simply speaking to a friend. He should not casually recite the Shema, then realize he wasn’t paying attention and go back and say it over again.Rather, Rava says that if he doesn’t have intention, he will slam him over the head with a hammer until he learns to say it right the first time. Ouch! That would seem to put the fear of the Lord into him!
  Leviticus 18:7 says, “The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover.” One who uses a euphemism, “the shame” rather than say, “the nakedness” should be silenced. One should not use euphemisms when translating the Torah.
  Yishmael interprets the Aramaic in the Mishnah. The Mishnah ruled that one should not interpret Leviticus 18:21 “do not pass your child over to Molech” as if it prohibits one from bearing a child with a Gentile woman. Here R. Yishmael just interprets that Mishnah. Evidently the rabbis were adamant that Jews should not read the verse this way, perhaps because they didn’t believe that it was actually prohibited to have a child with a non-Jew. Rabbis believed in conversion, and while we think of a convert as a Jew, some ancient Jews did not consider conversion possible.
  IntroductionToday’s section consists of a mishnah, the last in the chapter. It teaches that some portions of the Torah are not translated at all because of the nature of their content.
  Section one: Reuven sleeps with Bilhah, his father’s concubine (Genesis 35:22). This story is not translated in order not to shame Reuven.Section two: Tamar tricks Judah into sleeping with her (see Genesis 38). This story is read and translated because it is actually to Judah’s credit. When he discovers that he has committed a wrong (vs. 26), he doesn’t try to hide his crime, as embarrassing as it might be. Note that Judah serves as a foil for Reuven. Reuven intentionally commits a crime, so we must hide it from the public. Judah accidentally commits a crime and then confesses, so we make public the entire story.Section three: The first part of the golden calf story is from Exodus 32:1-20. This part is translated either because Israel does receive atonement, or in order so that the congregation will learn from their mistakes. In verse 21 Moses questions and accuses Aaron. In order not to embarrass Aaron, this section is not translated.Section four: The version of this mishnah in good manuscripts says that these sections are neither read nor translated. The priestly blessing is not read, perhaps because it is a regular part of the prayer service. According to the version of the mishan in the Talmud, these verses are read but not translated. The Talmud explains that they are not translated because one of the verses says, “May God show favor to you” and people might think that God shows favor in judgment and doesn’t judge justly.The story of David and Bathsheva (II Samuel 11) is not read as a haftarah because it is embarrassing to David.In the story of Amnon (II Samuel 13), Amnon rapes Tamar and then wants to abandon her. He eventually is killed by Absolom, David’s other son. This is also quite embarrassing to David and to his house.Section five: We don’t read the description of the chariot contained in Ezekiel, chapter one, as a haftarah because ordinary people are not supposed to study this mystical chapter. However, Rabbi Judah allows this.Section six: Rabbi Eliezer prohibits reading Ezekiel 16 as a haftarah because its content is simply too graphic. Read the chapter for yourself to get an idea of its disturbing content.
  This baraita is an introduction to the rest of the passage which lists which passages are read and translated, and which are not. The mnemonic is there to help remember all of the passages referenced below.
  One might have thought that translating the story of the creation of the world would lead one to speculative questions that one should not ask, such as what is above the heavens and what is below. Today we might say that reading Genesis leads to potentially difficult scientific questions. Nevertheless, the rabbis still rule that is read and translated.
  
  Daf 25b
  
  One might have thought that translating the story of the creation of the world would lead one to speculative questions that one should not ask, such as what is above the heavens and what is below. Today we might say that reading Genesis leads to potentially difficult scientific questions. Nevertheless, the rabbis still rule that is read and translated.
  The story of Tamar and Judah is found in Genesis 38. It is read and translated, even though one might have thought that it is not respectful to Judah, who after all, lies with his daughter-in-law. It is read and translated because ultimately, the fact that he admits to his sin means the entire story is to his credit.
  We might have thought that we don’t read and translate the first story of the making of the calf because it is disgraceful to Israel, reminding us of our worst transgression. The mishnah teaches that we do read it because in the end we did receive atonement.Later we shall discuss the second story of the making of the calf.
  The curses and blessings found at the end of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are read and translated, even though they might cause the people to become disheartened. Hearing bad prophesies about your future is frightening, but ultimately the point of these verses is to serve as a warning to repent. As such, it is important that they be understood.
  The warnings not to transgress the commandments and the penalties for having transgressed them are read and translated. We are not afraid that by reading them we will cause people to perform mitzvot only out of fear.
  The story of Amnon and Tamar is one of the ugliest stories in the Tanakh. Amnon desires Tamar, his half-sister, and when she refuses to lay with him immediately, he rapes her, and then is revolted by her. Later, as revenge, Avshalom kills Amnon, setting off a rebellion, which leads to Avshalom’s death as well. It’s ugly. And it doesn’t say good things about David and his dysfunctional family. But we read it and translate it anyway.
  The story of the concubine of Gibeah (Judges 19-20) is one of the most brutal ugly stories in the Tanakh. A man visits the town of Gibeah with his concubine in tow. The depraved men of the town brutally rape her. She eventually makes her way home to her husband, but then dies upon arrival. He cuts her up into pieces and sends a piece to each tribe of Israel, calling for war against the town of Gibeah and the Benjamites. This sets off a civil war.We might have thought that we don’t read this passage because it is a disgrace to Benjamin.
  IntroductionToday’s section continues to discuss which parts of the Torah are read and translated and which are not.
  Ezekiel 16 is a harsh and almost pornographic, metaphorical description of Israel’s playing the whore with the gods of other nations. It is understandable why we might have thought that it is not read. The Talmud relates a story of a person who read the passage in front of R. Elazar. R. Elazar seems to have strongly objected to the reading, telling the man to go look up his own lineage before he disparages Jerusalem by reading this chapter. In the end, they do go look up the lineage of this man and find that one of his ancestors was indeed illegitimate.The mishnah basically disagrees with R. Elazar and holds that despite its harsh descriptions, this passage is read.
  In Genesis 35 Reuben sleeps with Jacob’s concubines. Again, not a pretty story (and one they didn’t really cover in Hebrew school). This story is read, but not translated, for it truly is dishonorable. In the story that follows the translator translates only the second half of the verse, “And Jacob had twelve sons.” This is the kosher part of the verse, and can be translated.
  The “second account of the calf” is Exodus 32:21-24. The problematic verse is verse 24, where Aaron says he just cast the gold into the fire and the calf came forth on its own. This gave evidence to the heretics who believed that there were many gods. The golden calf was indeed a true god and it created itself. This they could have learned from Aaron himself.
  The first line of the priestly blessing is “May God show favor to you” (this word can be translated in other ways, such as “May God lift you up.”) This is somewhat controversial—a judge is not supposed to favor one of his constituents. Therefore, the word is not translated.
  Above the Talmud said that the story of David and Amnon (David’s son who raped Tamar, David’s daughter and then was killed by Avshalom, another of David’s sons) is read and translated. Yet here the Talmud seems to say that this story is read but not translated. The Talmud resolves this by saying that when Amnon is mentioned without his father’s name, it is read and translated. Such cases do not impinge upon David’s honor. But if David’s name is mentioned, the verse is not translated so as to spare poor David the ignominy.
  IntroductionThe last section of this page and chapter discusses the use of euphemisms in reading the Bible.
  There are a few places in the Bible where euphemisms have been introduced into the text. The word “yishagelnah” is a coarse way of saying “have sex.” It is replaced with “lie with her.” “Ba’afolim” is a coarse word for hemorrhoids. “Hiryonim” means dung, but “divyonim” is a word for something that comes from doves. In II Kings 18:27 more delicate words for feces and urine are used. “Lemoza’ot” is a gentler word for latrines.Joshua b. Korha says that we read the actual word “lamahara’ot” because it is in description of idolatry and we can use coarse words when referring to idolatry.
  There are “bathroom” jokes hidden in each of these verses, at least according to Rashi’s understanding. Both refer to a “burden” (the second only by changing the vocalization). According to Rashi the “burden” referred to is the burden of carrying the excrement of the idolatrous calves. This is a way of mocking idolatry—they mourn over the loss of the calf whose excrement they joyfully carried.
  “Shin tof” is a reference to the word “shet” in Isaiah 20:4. It means, “bared buttocks.” Basically a Jew can tell an idolater to take his idol and put it where the sun don’t shine.Ashi uses a different acronym “gimmel shin.” Rashi translates this as “son of a prostitute” which remains a curse in modern Hebrew. One is allowed to use a disgraceful term in reference to a person who has “bad reports” about them, meaning there is substantial reason to suspect that the person has been guilty of bad behavior. The chapter does not end with this ill remark. Rather, it notes the opposite—just as one is allowed to say something bad about a person of ill-report, so too a person is allowed, and is even rewarded for saying something good about a person of good report.
  Congrats, you’ve finished another chapter. Only one more to go, and we’ll have finished the tractate!
  
  Daf 26a
  
  IntroductionThe first three mishnayot of this chapter and the Talmud that comments on them deal with the holiness of the synagogue and the articles found in it. The chapter begins with a mishnah discussing what one may do with the proceeds of a sale of the synagogue or the things in it.
  Explanation
  Section one: One can sell an object and buy something that is somewhat holier. The town square has some holiness to it because it is occasionally used for gathering in prayer, such as during a public fast (see Taanit 2:1). “Scrolls” refers to books of the Tanakh not part of the Five Books of Moses.
  Section two: Conversely, one cannot sell an object and buy something with an object of less holiness.Section three: If there is money left over from a permitted sale then they must still use that money to buy something with greater holiness. Thus if they sell covers and use the proceeds to buy scrolls and there is money left over, they must use the proceeds to buy other scrolls, or a Torah.The other sages respond that it is problematic to quantify holiness based on the number of people within an entity. If a community is holier than an individual, than a large community is holier than a small community. Since this doesn’t make sense, the sages reject Rabbi Meir’s halakhah altogether.
  The mishnah accords sanctity to the town square. If the people sell it, only something of greater sanctity may be bought. Rabbah b. Bar Hannah says that that is only a minority opinion. Most rabbis accord no sanctity to the town square. Thus if it is sold anything could be purchased with the proceeds.The Talmud then explains R. Menahem b. Yose and the rabbis’ dispute. R. Menahem holds that there is sanctity to the square because it is occasionally used for prayer. Specifically people pray there on fast days and on gatherings of the ma’amad. This refers a group of people who would pray and read from the Torah in the townsquare at the same time that the priests from the town were serving in the Temple.But the other sages say that these temporary occasional gatherings are not enough to justify considering the space sacred. Therefore it can be sold.
  IntroductionThis sugya is about selling a synagogue. It brings up an interesting issue—is a synagogue to which many people come considered as if it belongs to the public, and therefore cannot be sold under any conditions.
  The mishnah allowed a community to sell a synagogue as long as they use the proceeds to buy a Torah ark (or something of greater sanctity). But R. Yonatan limits this to a synagogue found in a village. A synagogue in a larger town cannot be sold under any circumstance because it really belongs to the public and there would simply be no way to get their permission.Ashi says that he can sell the synagogue in his town, although people stream to it from all over (who wouldn’t miss the opportunity to pray with R. Ashi!). It is in essence his choice because Jews from all over come to pray near him. Humble guy, this R. Ashi!
  The baraita seems to say that it is permitted to sell a synagogue even in a large town such as Jerusalem. This would reject the statement of R. Yonatan from above. The Talmud resolves the difficulty by saying that although the synagogue was in a large town, it was a small synagogue built by private individuals.It is interesting to note the existence of a synagogue of “coppersmiths.” Did people divide up by profession to pray?
  This baraita is a midrash on the passage in Leviticus that discusses some sort of “leprosy” that occurs to houses. The first opinion says that none of Jerusalem can be considered to have this “leprosy.” The Talmud will explain this more deeply later on. R. Judah says that this is true only of the Sanctuary itself. The rest of Jerusalem, including the synagogues and study houses can be defiled, even though they belong to the town, for many people come there. Thus we can see that there is no consideration of “general ownership” for public synagogues. Their status is the same as that of the houses—both are subject to leprosy defilement.The Talmud emends the baraita so that R. Judah says that any sanctified place, including the synagogue is not subject to the laws of leprosy. This implies that synagogues belong to the public, and therefore could not be sold.
  IntroductionYesterday’s section included the following baraita: “In a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34): Your possession is defiled by leprosy, but Jerusalem is not defiled by leprosy. R. Judah said: I have not heard this said except about the area of the Sanctuary alone.” Today’s Talmud explains the basis for the dispute in this baraita.
  The two tannaim in the baraita from yesterday’s section disagree over whether the city of Jerusalem was apportioned to the tribes. R. Judah says that it was and therefore the houses of Jerusalem are subject to the laws of house leprosy. They are part of “your inheritance.” The first tanna holds that Jerusalem was not part of any tribe’s inheritance and therefore its houses are not subject to the laws of house leprosy.The Talmud now cites a baraita which accords with R. Judah’s view, that Jerusalem was appointed to the tribes. Jerusalem is right on the border between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. So part of Jerusalem belongs to Judah and part belong to Benjamin.The baraita then goes back and describes why Benjamin merited having the best parts of Jerusalem in his territory. There was a strip that went out from Judah’s territory and into Benjamin. This strip belonged to Judah, but Benjamin really wanted it. He “crouched over it all day” a verse that appears in Moses’s blessing of the tribes at the end of the Torah. As a reward for his intense desire, Benjamin merited being the “Host of the Shekhinah” for the Holy Ark was in his territory.
  The tanna from above who holds that Jerusalem was not apportioned to any of the tribes agrees with the tanna found in this baraita here. This tanna holds that since Jerusalem belongs to all of the tribes, homeowners cannot rent out their homes for a fee to guests coming to visit Jerusalem. Their homes do not really belong to them. R. Elazar b. Zadok says they may not even rent out beds. Of course, this sounds great—free rooms in Jerusalem. But even the baraita admits that such a halakhah can have deleterious consequences. The householders wishing to recoup the cost of hosting guests would actually seize property belonging to their guests, the hides of the sacrifices offered by their visitors. These are valuable items, probably worth more than the cost of renting out a place.To the economist in me, this little baraita proves the danger in playing with a free market economy. While we would all love free rooms, we probably realize that forcing people to let out their homes for free, or at least preventing them from renting them out for a fee, will not end up in anyone’s benefit.Abaye learns a normative lesson from here. A person who is a guest at someone’s home should leave the host with some gifts. This is a good lesson, one my mother tried to teach me and I try to teach my children as well.
  
  Daf 26b
  
  IntroductionToday’s section returns to a discussion of the Mishnah–if one sells a synagogue the proceeds can be used to buy a Torah ark. This implies that the proceeds from the sale of the synagogue retain their holiness and cannot be put to a secular purpose.
  Rava says that the Mishnah’s rule that if one sells a synagogue the proceeds remain holy refers only to a case where it was not sold by a group called “the seven good men of the town” in front of the town assembly. But if they sold the synagogue with the permission of the assembly, then the holiness leaves the money and the proceeds can be used for anything, even to buy a bar (you might not want to tell the board about this one). This seems to be a case where the will of the people trumps the inherent holiness of space. If the people wish to sell the synagogue, they have a right to do so.
  This story illustrates what we learned above about selling the synagogue in front of the town assembly. In addition, it shows a real setting in which someone might want to sell the synagogue. In this story, the synagogue has already fallen apart and Ravina wants to use the land on which the synagogue once stood in order to plant a field. This contrasts with Rava’s abstract halakhah—one can sell the synagogue even to make it into a bar. Abstract halakhah takes principles to extremes, whereas real life tends to be more nuanced. In real life, a standing synagogue is not being sold in order to build a drinking hole; a field on which once stood a synagogue is merely being used to plant a field.
  Hisda had said that one may not tear down one synagogue unless a new synagogue was built. Rami b. Abba, a later sage, wanted to know if that meant that it was prohibited to remove the building parts from one synagogue that was old and use them to build a new synagogue. He thought that perhaps as long as he was in the process of building a new synagogue he could use the bricks and beams from the old synagogue, because it is clear that he won’t be left for long without any synagogue. He asked his question in front of two authorities and both of them forbade him from doing so.
  Rava says that one may sell or exchange a synagogue or its bricks for something that is not sacred (secular). However, one may not lend the synagogue out, rent it or pledge it to secure a loan. This is because a sale or exchange would mean that the synagogue is no longer holy. Therefore it could be used for secular purposes. But if the synagogue and its bricks remains a synagogue and it is just used for some secular purpose, then one is making secular use out of sacred space, which is prohibited.However, this applies only to bricks that have been used already in building the synagogue. If, however, the bricks were merely designated for use in building a synagogue, they are not yet holy and secular use may be made of them. They remain raw material. This is not similar to one who weaves a shroud for a dead body. In that case, merely designating the shroud to be used for the dead body prohibits it from other use. In that case designation has force—it as if the item has already been used in the way that it is intended to be use. The bricks made to be used in the synagogue are more like a case of one who makes thread to use in making the cloth that will be used in making the shroud. The thread is still raw material and the intent to use it to make a shroud is not halakhically significant. So too these bricks are still raw material.
  Aha and Ravina disagree over whether a synagogue that the townspeople gave to someone as a gift remains holy. According to one opinion, it does. This is different from a sale, for in a sale, the synagogue loses its holiness, but the money used to purchase it becomes holy. Thus the holiness has somewhere to go. But in a gift, there is nothing which can be used to take away the holiness from the synagogue. Its sanctity is not removed.The other opinion holds that the giver receives satisfaction from giving the synagogue away and that satisfaction is enough to remove the holiness from the synagogue.It is an interesting view because it says that an act of altruism (giving something away) is really like a sale—the giver benefits. It’s an interesting concept that appears in several places throughout the Talmud.
  IntroductionToday’s section discusses what religious items must be put away in a geniza when they are worn out, and which can be thrown away.
  This baraita outlines what religious items may be thrown away and what must be stored away. The sukkah, lulav, shofar and tzitzit are items used to perform a mitzvah, but when the mitzvah is completed they are not inherently holy. They may be thrown away. However, anything used around a scroll of Scripture is holy and must be put in the geniza. As we shall see, holiness here is equated with the Torah scroll.
  Rava thought that the stand on which a Sefer Torah is placed is not an “accessory of holiness” because a cloth is placed on it before the Torah is put down. This would mean that it could be thrown away when worn out, and that it has no inherent holiness. But then when he saw that they sometimes place the Torah directly on the stand, he decided it was an accessory of holiness and could not be thrown away.
  This is similar to the above statement by Rava.
  If a large Torah ark is falling apart one can use its parts to make a smaller ark because that is not a reduction in holiness. However, one cannot make a stand on which to place the Torah because that is a lessening in holiness.
  The curtain in front of the ark is like a Torah mantle for the whole Torah. Therefore, if it wears out it can be used as a mantle for a full Torah scroll. But to make it a mantle for a single humash, one fifth of the Torah, is prohibited. It is interesting to note that in the Talmudic times they had Torah scrolls that were only in parts. This probably was slightly less expensive.
  We might have thought that bags used to store humashim (actual scrolls, not books) and boxes for scrolls are not made out of respect for the scrolls. Rather, they are just there for protection, and therefore they are not “accessories of holiness” like Torah covers. Rava teaches us that this is not true—even boxes and bags made to hold Torah scrolls are considered accessories of holiness.
  Some kohahim want to pray in a synagogue, but there was a room off the synagogue in which a dead body is found. The problem is that the defilement of the dead body leaves the room and goes through the synagogue. Rava suggests that they place the Torah stand in the opening for the Torah stand is made of wood and is meant to be stationary. It will block the defilement from entering the synagogue. The other rabbis tell Rava that sometimes the stand is moved even when a Torah scroll is on it, and therefore it is not meant to be stationary. Thus it will not block the defilement. The kohanim are out of luck and will have to wait till the dead body has been removed.
  Someone can take the worn out covering of a Torah and use it as a shroud for a “met mitzvah” a body found without anyone to bury it. In addition burying it with the body constitutes its being placed in the geniza. The “met mitzvah” is being equated here with the Torah scroll, both the body and the Torah are powerful sources of holiness.
  Rava says that when they bury a Torah scroll it should be buried next to a Torah scholar, even if he is a lesser scholar who can only repeat halakhot. This is clearly symbolic—the scroll is the written Torah and the human is the oral Torah.Aha b. Yaakov says that the Torah scroll should be protected by being put into an earthenware vessel. This is what Jeremiah instructed to be done with the documents that he had written.
  IntroductionToday’s section contains a very interesting dispute over which is greater—the house of prayer or the house of study.
  According to one opinion, it is permitted to convert a synagogue into a study hall for rabbis, but not the opposite. But according to another opinion it is permitted to turn a study hall into a synagogue, but not the opposite. This seems to be a dispute over which takes priority—the study of Torah or prayer. I find it interesting that both opinions are given voice, even if the first opinion is preferred. This is not an easy question and one can make arguments for both sides.
  
  Daf 27a
  
  The interpretation of the verse from II Kings is related to the above debate over which is greater, the house of prayer or the house of study. The verse says that Nebuchadnezzar burned “every great house.” What were these “great houses”?One opinion (R. Joshua ben Levi) holds that they were study halls and uses as proof a verse that refers to the Torah as great. The other opinion holds that they were synagogues and uses as proof a verse that refers to the great things accomplished by the prophet Elisha through prayer. These opinions match the opinions from the above dispute about whether one can convert a study hall into a synagogue and vice versa.
  IntroductionToday’s section deals with the issue of selling a Sefer Torah in order to buy another.
  The Talmud asks the question whether it is allowed to sell an old Torah scroll in order to use the money to buy a new one. On the one hand, he is not raising the level of sanctity by buying something of an equivalent level of sanctity. Thus, perhaps it is prohibited, and one can sell sacred items to buy other things of a higher level. On the other hand, the Torah is already of the highest level of sanctity and therefore maybe it is permitted to sell a Torah to buy a Torah.The first attempt at an answer is from the mishnah itself. The mishnah says that one may not buy other biblical scrolls. It doesn’t say that one may not buy another Sefer Torah.However, the Talmud says that the mishnah refers only to an “ex post facto” case. If one already sold a Sefer Torah he may use the proceeds to buy another Sefer Torah. But this does not mean that ab initio one may sell a Sefer Torah with the intention of buying a new one.
  The baraita talks about using the coverings of one scroll to cover another. The principle here is that coverings can be moved to cover scrolls of higher sanctity but not those of lower sanctity. A full Sefer Torah is of the highest sanctity, below it is the humash, a scroll containing only one of the five books of the Torah. Lower yet are scrolls containing the prophets or the writings.From this baraita the Talmud tries to conclude that it would be prohibited to wrap a Torah scroll in the wrapping used for another. The common idea is that one may only go up in sanctity and not move within the same level of sanctity.However, we could draw the opposite conclusion from the second clause—it is prohibited to go down in sanctity, but one can stay on the same level. Therefore, in its totality, there is no way to learn anything from this baraita concerning our question.
  One Sefer Torah may be put on top of another Sefer Torah. This seems to prove that one could also sell an old Sefer Torah to buy another one. As long as they are of the same level of sanctity, it is permitted.This is rejected because putting one scroll on top of another is sometimes inevitable, such as for storage. If it were not allowed to do so, then we would not even be allowed to roll up a Torah scroll because one sheet is placed on top of the other. Since it is inevitable in the case of rolling a Torah, it is also allowed in general to put one Sefer Torah on top of the other. But from here we cannot draw the conclusion that one can sell a Sefer Torah to buy another. This is not something that is unavoidable.
  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel seems to say explicitly that one may not sell a Sefer Torah to buy another one. This seems to answer our question conclusively. However, the Talmud presses on, proposing that Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel referred only to a case where the new Torah had not yet been written. In such a case we might be concerned that he will sell the old one and not buy a new one. This would clearly be a problem. But if a new one is already on hand and only needs to be paid for, we would not have such a concern. Thus it might be permitted.
  The baraita says that a person cannot sell a Sefer Torah except to pay for the costs of studying Torah or getting married. From here we could conclude that just as it is permitted to sell a Torah to study, it is permitted to sell a Torah to buy another Torah.This answer is also rejected. It may be allowed to sell a Torah in order to study Torah because study leads to the observance of the commandments. In other words, studying Torah is more sacred than the Torah itself! [I find this to be a very powerful message. The object itself is sacred, but the contents are even more sacred for they are what lead to a higher goal]. And marriage and procreation are the reason why God created the world in the first place. They are at the highest level of sanctity [another powerful idea] and therefore one can sell a Torah to afford marriage. But one cannot deduce from here that it is allowed to sell one Torah to buy another.
  The baraita says that it is strictly prohibited to sell a Sefer Torah. Even if the Torah is not needed, one should not sell it. And if one sells the Torah (or his daughter, see Exodus 21:7-10) he will never receive any blessing from the proceeds.We should note that the passage never really answers the question of whether it is prohibited to sell one Sefer Torah to buy another. Like many questions in the Talmud, it remains unresolved.
  The mishnah says that if one sells something sacred all of the proceeds must be used to buy something even more sacred. If he buys something more sacred and money is left over, then he must also use the extra money to buy another more sacred item.Rava limits this to a case of selling one sacred item to buy another. If money is collected to buy a Sefer Torah and there is left over from the purchase, the money can be used to buy less sacred items, and potentially even non-sacred items.
  Abaye cites a baraita in objection to Rava. The baraita says that if they “made a stipulation” and money is left over, they may even give it to the “dukhsusya” a word which the Talmud will interpret below. The question is what does this refer to? If it refers to a sale, then the left over money can certainly not be used for any purpose. Therefore it must refer to a collection. But even when it comes to a collection they have to stipulate at the outset that if there is leftover money it can be put to other purposes. Otherwise, even in the case of a collection it is prohibited. For instance, if they collect money to write a Sefer Torah and they stipulate at the outset that any left over money will be used to pay to have the pipes fixed, then it is okay. But without a stipulation the money could not be used in this way.
  Rava emends the baraita so that it reads something else entirely. If the seven good men of the assembly who are allowed to sell sacred items do not stipulate that if there is left over money they may use it for other purposes, then the left over money remains sacred. But if they stipulated that the left over could be put to other use, then they may do so. The implication is that if they just collected the money, they can put it to whatever use they want.
  Abaye sees a student who used to recite and arrange his mishnah, the halakhot that he knew, in front of R. Sheshet. This refers to a type of memorization learning that was common in Talmudic times. Abaye asks the student what a “dukhsusya” is. The answer is the town horseman. Under certain circumstances the extra funds from the sale of a Torah or from a collection to fund a Torah may even be used to pay the town horseman to bring packages and messages from place to place.Abaye learns from here that it is in general a good idea to ask questions of students who are frequently in front of “great men” such as R. Sheshet. In my opinion, this is still good advice.
  If a group of people from one town visit another town, and the charity collectors there assess them to pay the charity tax, they should pay it. But when they leave, they may reclaim the money and use it to provide for the people of their own town. This is sort of like a tax agreement between the two towns.However, if an individual goes from one town to another and pays the charity tax there, he may not reclaim it. The Talmud does not explain why there is a difference between these two situations. Probably the assumption is that if there is a group of people, then their charity really belongs to the people of their own town.
  Huna declared a fast day, probably due to some distress that his city was experiencing. R. Hana b. Hanilai and other men were visiting him and R. Huna made them give some charity. When they were leaving, they asked for it back, in accordance with the baraita from above. R. Huna cites a different baraita that said that he has to give it back only when there is no person in charge of the tzedakah in that city. But if there is a person in charge of giving out the tzedakah, then he receives it. R. Huna would have made a great fundraiser in our times as well.
  
  Daf 27b
  
  According to Rabbi Meir there is an additional restriction when it comes to selling holy items. The community cannot sell an item belonging to the community to an individual. So if the synagogue owns scrolls and they wish to sell them to buy a Torah, they may not sell the scrolls to an individual. This means that according to Rabbi Meir there seems to be holiness in the community. The item is more holy because it is owned by a community, an entity which has greater holiness than an individual. Alternatively, an item is holier if it is used by more people. The other sages respond that it is problematic to quantify holiness based on the number of people within an entity. If a community is holier than an individual, than a large community is holier than a small community. Since this doesn’t make sense, the sages reject Rabbi Meir’s halakhah altogether. 
  The mishnah concludes with the rabbis' words; no response from R. Meir is offered. The Talmud says that R. Meir could have responded that when something holy is sold from a large to a small community, it still remains holy. Any community is holy, no matter how small. However, if it is sold from a community to an individual, then it loses its holiness. Holiness is vested in the community, regardless of its size. But not in an individual. 
  The rabbis stick to their guns, citing the verse from Proverbs that would imply that the more people there are to praise "the king," i.e. God, the better. If one could not sell to an individual then even a sale to a smaller community would be prohibited. But since we know we do not prohibit sales to smaller communities, sales to individuals are allowed as well.
  IntroductionToday’s section begins with a mishnah concerning selling a synagogue.
  Section one: Rabbi Meir holds that the community can sell the synagogue but only on condition that the synagogue can be bought back any time they wish. It sounds like Rabbi Meir intends to say that while the community may sell the synagogue because they need to buy holier items, what the community should really do is save up so that they can buy the synagogue back. Also, if they saw that the synagogue was being put to improper use, they could demand to purchase it back immediately.Section two: The rabbis are more lenient when it comes to selling the synagogue and do not require the seller to be able to buy it back whenever he should so please. The one restriction is that the sellers may not sell it knowing that it will be used for a something smelly (a tannery, a urinal) or for something where people will be naked (a bathhouse or a ritual bath).Section three: Rabbi Judah points out that if the synagogue’s owners cannot by right repurchase the synagogue, then the new owners can trick the system by first buying it to be a courtyard and then doing with it whatever they like, including turning it into a urinal. It is unclear whether Rabbi Judah says that this is permitted and there’s nothing that can be done about it, or what he is really doing is criticizing the sages’ position by pointing out that they can’t really enforce their halakhah. As we shall see in the next mishnah, Rabbi Judah believes that a synagogue retains its sanctity even after it is destroyed. It therefore seems less likely that Rabbi Judah would condone the synagogue becoming something like a urinal.
  The problem with R. Meir’s position in the mishnah is that by making the sale conditional on its return, the people living in it are in a sense benefiting from interest. When the people sold the synagogue they received money and they gave the building to the buyers. The buyers lived in it for a while and then returned it to the sellers and got their money back. Because the sale was only temporary, it was in essence a loan and by living in it, the buyers/lenders are enjoying interest. So how can this be allowed?The answer is that R. Meir holds that if the loan was only contingent, then interest is allowed, a position ascribed to R. Judah. In the situation described by the baraita Reuven loans money to Shimon. Shimon in returns gives him the field as security on the loan, a type of conditional sale. If Shimon defaults, the field will go to Reuven in return for Shimon’s debt. According to the first opinion, Shimon may derive benefit from the produce of the field, but Reuven may not because that would be interest. Should Shimon repay his debut, Reuven will get his money back and meanwhile have received benefit from the field. But R. Judah says that even Reuven may take the produce.Based on R. Judah, R. Meir allows the purchasers of the synagogue to live in the building because it is not certain that it will be returned to the sellers. The sellers have a right to repurchase it, but there is no certainty that they will do so.
  This is the continuation of the baraita from above. R. Judah proves from an actual case in which a man sold a field, meaning he used it to secure a loan, and the purchaser, that is to say, the lender, ate the produce. This seems like interest, but because the sale was contingent, it is permitted.The other rabbis revise what actually happened. It was not the purchaser of the field, i.e. the lender who ate the produce. It was the seller, i.e. the borrower, who at it.
  The Talmud now explains the dispute in the baraita. R. Judah holds that since the use of the produce will be considered interest only if the borrower repays the loan and takes back his field, it is permitted. In other words, since the produce is interest only if one possibility occurs (repayment of loan), it is not interest and the lender/buyer may eat the produce. The other position holds that even though the borrower may repay the loan, since he might not, the lender cannot take the produce.
  Rava reinterprets the dispute in the baraita. Rava says that if this was simply a case of using the field as security for the loan, the lender is not allowed to take the produce. However, in this case the lender promised to return the produce if the borrower repays his debt. In other words, he took interest but promised to return it later, if it turned out to be a loan and not a sale. R. Judah would say that in such a case it is permitted to take the interest, because if the produce of the field turns out to be interest, he will return it anyway.The other opinion holds that since when he takes the produce it is interest, it is forbidden to do so.
  IntroductionIn the mishnah the sages said that a synagogue can be sold for it to be used as anything except for a bathhouse, a tannery, a ritual bath, or a urinal. R. Judah says that the synagogue can be sold for it to be used as a courtyard but then the person buying it could turn it into whatever he wants.
  Judah says that a person can urinate within four cubits of a place of prayer. [They did not have indoor plumbing inside the synagogue back then].Joseph says that we could have learned this ourselves from the mishnah. First of all, R. Judah said that a person who purchases a synagogue can do what he wants in there once he has bought it. He could even turn it into a urinal. Obviously one can pray within four cubits of a urinal.Second, even the rabbis said only that he could not turn the synagogue itself into a urinal. But this does not mean that he could not urinate within four cubits of the synagogue. So if this is so obvious, why did R. Judah even need to say it.
  A tanna says that a person who has just urinated should move away four cubits before praying. R. Nahman confirms this with a baraita.However, the tanna also said that one who has just prayed must move four cubits away before praying. If that were the rule, then all of Nehardea would be holy because there are not four cubits in which a person has not prayed. [R. Nahman was from Nehardea, a city in Babylonia].
  Due to the above difficulty, R. Nahman emends the baraita recited by the tanna. Instead of having to actually walk four cubits away before praying or urinating, now he only needs to wait the amount of time it would take to walk four cubits. I can’t imagine this would take more than two seconds. Completely knocks the wind out of the original halakhah.The Talmud still tries to explain the baraita. One who has urinated should wait a few seconds before praying because he is still dripping for a few seconds. Obviously, he should not pray while still dripping. [Sorry for the yuckiness of this sugya].However, why should he have to wait after praying before he urinates? R. Ashi answers that it takes a few seconds to sort of cool down after praying. Even though he is done praying, the words are still on his mouth and lips for a few seconds. Therefore he should wait before urinating.
  IntroductionThe Talmud now begins a series of stories in which students ask their rabbis how they lived so long. It’s truly a fascinating discussion, one that we still ask today. What can help us live longer, and most importantly better lives?
  Zakai lived a long life by virtue of three things. 1) He didn’t urinate within four cubits of a place where prayers had been said. To us, this might sound like a trivial matter, but in a world without indoor plumbing, or fixed places of urination and prayer, this was probably a big deal. By extension, I would take this to mean that he had a high level of respect for places sanctified by prayer.2) He had respect for his friends, and never called them by their nicknames.3) He always recited Kiddush. He had respect for the holiness of Shabbat and festivals.
  This is an addendum to the story of how R. Zakai lived so long. His grandmother sold her head covering so her grandson could have wine for Kiddush. Wow! I can just imagine how happy my own grandmother would have been to sell her possessions so her grandchildren could observe Judaism. She was truly an amazing woman. Back to R. Zakai, when his grandmother died, she left him 300 barrels of wine. Enough for plenty of Kiddush! And when he died, he left his sons 3000 barrels of wine. Clearly, this seems to be a reward given to him by Heaven. The story begins with the family so poor that the grandmother has to sell her head covering to buy wine for Kiddush. It ends with them rich enough to have 3000 barrels of wine.
  This story emphasizes how seriously the rabbis took the mitzvah of Kiddush. They even used pieces of their clothing as pledges to buy wine so that they could make Kiddush. R. Huna was rewarded by being rich enough so that his daughters and his daughters-in-law could all wear silk clothing. And the blessing of Rav came true literally—he was eventually smothered in silk.However, the story does not have the happiest of endings. Rav is a bit angry at R. Huna for not blessing him in return.
  Three things also helped R. Elazar b. Shammua live a long life. These are similar to those stated by R. Zakai above. 1) He had respect for the sanctity of a synagogue and never simply cut through there to get somewhere else. 2) He had respect for people and never stepped on their heads. This refers to students sitting in rows at the Yeshiva. He would not trample them when going up front. 3) He always said a blessing when reciting the priestly blessing. Note that as with above he mentions have three things: 1) respect for the synagogue; 2) respect for people, 3) respect for blessings.
  
  Daf 28a
  
  IntroductionThis week’s daf continues the series of questions asked to rabbis—how did you live such a long life?
  Peridah did three things that went beyond the letter of the law, and thereby he merited living a long life. First of all, he was always the first person at the Bet Midrash, the study hall, in the morning. Second, when it came time to Birkat Hamazon, he always lets a Kohen do the “zimmun” the invitation to recite Birkat Hamazon. The Talmud will discuss this below.Third, he never ate meat (cows, sheep or goats) from which the portions given to the priest had not been removed. This law is stated in Deuteronomy 18:3. One who slaughters one of these animals must give the right foreleg, the cheeks and the stomach to a priest.According to R. Yitzchak, eating from an animal from which the priestly dues have not been removed is like eating from untithed produce, which is strictly prohibited. However, the halakhah does not follow R. Yitzchak. One can eat from an animal whose priestly dues have not been removed. R. Peridah however, acted stringently, and did not eat any meat unless the priestly dues had already been removed.
  Peridah said that he lived a long life partly because whenever he ate he allowed the Kohen to recite birkat hamazon (the zimmun). But R. Yohanan said that a “talmid hakham,” a Torah scholar that allows anyone else who is an “ignoramus” to bless birkat hamazon in front of him is deserving of death. This is true even if the ignoramus is the high priest himself. This idea is derived from a midrash on Proverbs 8:36. Instead of reading simply that anyone who hates Torah loves death, the midrash vocalizes the verse to read “anyone who causes Torah to be hated.” Someone who sees an ignoramus reciting birkat hamazon in front of a talmid hakham will cause the Torah to be hated, because he will think that being an ignoramus is more honorable than being a talmid hakham.The resolution is that R. Peridah referred to a Kohen who was also well versed in Torah learning. Such a Kohen would bless birkat hamazon in front of R. Peridah. But if the Kohen was an ignoramus, R. Peridah would not let him recite birkat hamazon.This section is an excellent example of the tension between two values in the rabbinic world—Torah learning and genealogy. The Kohen gadol has the quintessential pedigree, but if he is an ignoramus, it is not worth anything, at least not to the rabbis.
  Nehuniah b. Hakaneh did three things to earn long life. The Talmud explains each one at a time. First of all, he didn’t protect his own honor at the cost of his fellow’s honor. This is illustrated by the story of R. Huna carrying a spade. R. Hana b. Hanilai wanted to carry it so that he could honor R. Huna, even if R. Hana would thus be degraded. R. Huna refused to let R. Hana to so, for he did not want to achieve his own honor through the degradation of his fellow human being.
  Mar Zutra would forgive all who had troubled him when he went to bed at night. This sounds like a very healthy psychological strategy.
  Nehuniah ben Hakaneh would always leave extra change with the shopkeeper. He was generous in the sense that he would make sure that he never accidentally cheated anyone out of money he owed them.
  IntroductionToday’s section continues with the same question asked of rabbis: How did you live for so long?
  Before R. Nehuniah the Great has time to answer R. Akiva, R. Nehunia’s students beat R. Akiva for asking such a hutzpahtic question. Asking someone how they have lived so long somewhat implies to them that their time should be up. Not the way to treat a respected rabbi.Akiva runs away and climbs up a tree. From there, seemingly out of the blue, he asks R. Nehuniah a talmudic sounding question. The Torah says, “The one lamb they shall prepare in the morning.” This is repetitive—the Torah could have stated either just “one” or just “lamb.” Why did it need to say both?By his question, R. Nehuniah recognizes the legitimacy of R. Akiva, and tells the other students to leave him alone. Just goes to show you—if you want to sound smart, ask a good question.After calming his overeager students down, R. Nehuniah answers the question itself. The word “one” doesn’t mean one, it means “singular” or unique. For the daily sacrifice, the best animal of the flock should be offered.
  The first thing that R. Nehuniah did to live a long life was to refuse presents, which here seem to be like bribes. R. Elazar would not accept presents from the Patriarch’s house, for he was afraid they were in essence bribes. He would not even go over there when invited lest by benefiting from them he become indebted to them. These are ethics from which our politicians could certainly learn.
  Zera didn’t accept presents either, but he would go to the Exilarch’s (the head of the community in Babylonia) house. He reasoned that they were not honoring him, he was honoring them. Hmm. I’m not sure whether I read this as a justification or not.
  One who “waives his right to retribution” is one who has been wronged, but refuses to act in revenge. It is the person who forgives another for insulting him or for hurting him in some way. Rava says that God forgives the sins of a person who forgives the sins of others. In my opinion this is simply one of the most admirable of all character traits. A person who has the strength to not respond when he has been wronged, to end the cycle of hurt, that is the type of person I most admire. It is a person who teaches others to do the same, and to bring greater peace into the world. It is truly a rare trait, and I also believe that there must be a link between this trait and living a good long life.
  IntroductionThis is the final section in which rabbis ask their masters how they lived such a long life. 
  R. Joshua b. Korha says that he lived a long life because he never looked at a wicked person. I don't think this means that he never saw a wicked person. This would be out of a person's control. What it means is that he stayed away from wicked people, and tried not to learn from their wicked ways. He didn't look at them with any regard. We know that people are deeply impacted by the company they choose to keep. When we choose to be around good people we raise ourselves to their standards, and we probably increase the longevity of our life (this is harder to prove, but I'm sure that we live better lives). The opposite is true as well. When we surround ourselves with shallower people, people who do less for others, people whose morality is lesser, our standards deteriorate as well.R. Yohanan proves this point from a verse in II Kings in which Elisha the prophet speaks to Yehoram, the evil king of Israel. Elisha says that were it not for the righteous Yehoshaphat, king of Judah, he would have nothing to do with Yehoram the wicked.R. Elazar proves the point by citing Yitzchak. As Yitzchak grew old, his eyes grew dim. As is typical, the rabbis explain physical ailments as being the result of  transgression. Yitzchak should not have even looked at Esau his evil son. His favoring of Esau is what caused his eyes to grow dim. Paradoxically, it was his dim eyes that led him not to recognize Jacob's disguise and give the blessing to Jacob instead of Esau.
  There is another midrash as to why Yitzchak's eyes went dim. In chapter 20 when Avimelech returns Sarah to Abraham, he says to her that the money he is giving her will be "a covering of the eyes." While the simple reading seems to mean he is bribing her to keep her mouth closed about the incident, the rabbis expound upon the strange phrase, "covering of the eyes." They read this as a curse, as if Avimelech cursed Sarah that her son (from Avimelech?!) would be blind. Although Avimelech was just an ordinary man, not a prophet or sage, his curse ended up coming true. Yitzchak's eyes did end up weakened. The Talmud offers a typical weak resolution as to the difficulty—both incidents cause Yitzchak to go blind—the curse from Avimelech and the fact that he looked at his wicked son, Esau. 
  This is yet another source for the idea that one should not look at a wicked person. The simple meaning of the verse is that one should not favor a wicked person. But Rava expounds it to mean that one should not even look at such a person.
  When Rabbi Joshua b. Korha died he offered a strange blessing to Rabbi [Judah Hanasi]: May you live half as long as I do! Rabbi is stunned by this blessing. Why shouldn't he live out a full, long life, as did R. Joshua b. Korha. The cryptic answer refers to Rabbi Judah Hanasi's children. If Rabbi lives a very long life, his children will not be able to fill his role as Patriarch. They will be left grazing cattle in the field, with little time left in their own lives to make their mark on Judaism and the community as Patriarch. This seems to me a deep message about the mixed blessing of longevity. Of course, by living long we don't really prevent the success of our children, but it is worth remembering that at a certain time we need to step aside and make room for the new generation. I hope I'll remember this sugya when my time approaches. But I also hope that's still quite a while away. 
  These two amoraim profess strong anti-non-Jew sentiments, asking for a reward in the world to come because they have either never looked at a non-Jew or never had a partnership with a non-Jew. When reading statements such as these I contextualize them in a world in which there was strong ethnic and religious hostility between Jews and non-Jews, and I do not internalize them into my world. I wish for a world in which Jews and non-Jews look deeply at each other, respect each other's differences, recognize the fundamental similarities and engage in partnerships to better us all. That's the world I live in.
  Most of these are quite self-explanatory. There are two versions of the last statement. According to the first, R. Zera never called a friend by an embarrassing nickname that  he had. According to the second, he never called a friend even by an acceptable nickname for his family. This seems to be like a family name. Even today calling someone by their last name is not particularly polite.
  IntroductionIn the mishnah which opens today’s section, Rabbi Judah teaches that the holiness of a synagogue remains even if it has fallen into ruins. Rabbi Judah applies the holiness of the Temple in Jerusalem to the synagogue of the post-destruction period. Just as the holiness of the Temple and the Temple Mount remained even when Jerusalem was destroyed, so too the holiness of a synagogue remains when it physically lies in ruins. There is a deep message in this mishnah. The holiness of the synagogue is not dependent upon the existence of its physical structure. Once people have treated the place as holy, it will retain that sanctity forever.
  Section one: One may not use a synagogue that lays in ruins for a profane, every day purpose. One cannot deliver eulogies in it because eulogies are not delivered in synagogues, even when they have been destroyed. [As an aside, the custom to deliver eulogies and conduct funerals inside synagogues is a modern custom, probably borrowed from the Christians. Jews used to deliver eulogies either at the cemetery on the path on the way there.] One can’t use it as a place of work. The mishnah uses the example of “twisting rope” because twisting rope requires space, but it means that no work should be done there. It should not be used to trap animals nor should its roof be used to dry out fruit. One shouldn’t use it as a short cut. In summary, it should only be entered for its intended purpose—as a place of worship and Torah study.The mishnah uses a midrash, exegesis of a biblical verse, to prove this point. In a section in which God rebukes Israel, He threatens that He will “desolate your holy places.” The fact that the verse calls these places holy implies that they retain their holiness even when they have been destroyed.Section two: The mishnah now changes direction and seems to acknowledge that there is some significance to the synagogue’s having been destroyed. According to the theology reflected in this mishnah, a destroyed synagogue is sign of God’s wrath, which comes as a result of Israel’s sin. When one sees grasses growing in a synagogue, a person will surely experience deep sadness. It will remind him that the synagogue was destroyed and that he should repent. It will also remind him that he should dedicate himself to rebuilding the synagogue as quickly as possible.
  
  Daf 28b
  
  There are certain activities that should not be done in the synagogue. It should not be turned into a cafeteria. One shouldn’t use it as a place for dressing, putting on makeup, jewelry or other such acts considered “adornment.” Synagogues shouldn’t be used as a place to escape from the heat or the cold. In talmudic times eulogies were not delivered in the synagogue unless it was for a public figure such as a sage.In general we should note that the structure of synagogues today is very different from back then. Today, at least in North America, a synagogue is a community building, with a social hall, a school, offices, etc. In talmudic times it was only a sanctuary. This is an important point to keep in mind.
  When the synagogue is still in use, it should be kept up so that grass does not grow on its dirt floors. R. Judah adds that when it is destroyed (or at least no longer in use) they may let grass grow. When it does grow, they should not pluck it up for this would cause them even greater sorrow. There is little sadder than a destroyed synagogue.
  Assi says that in Babylonia they build the synagogues with the stipulation that they can be used for other purposes. It is not clear what these purposes are, but they may include meetings or other such events, including eating and funerals for individuals. However, one still should not use them for business, by doing calculations in them.Assi even goes so far as to say that as a punishment for doing business calculations in a synagogue, they leave a dead body in there overnight. This is too gruesome for the Talmud to simply accept. It is also not particularly respectful to use a deady body as a sort of punishment for the synagogue. Therefore, the Talmud emends his statement to read, that in the end a “met mitzvah”—a dead body with no one to bury it—will be left in there. This is not an actual punishment but a prediction of one. A community that allows its synagogue to be used as a place for calculating debts and other such matters, will in the end spur on violence in the community.
  IntroductionThis section continues the interpretation of the Mishnah.
  According to the Mishnah, it was forbidden to get dressed in the synagogue, or adorn oneself in some other way. Rava says that this rule does not hold for rabbis, since the synagogue (or bet midrash) is called the “rabbis’ house.”There is some confusion or perhaps overlap in these sources between the synagogue and the bet midrash. This probably reflects the fact that synagogues were used for study and rabbis prayed in the bet midrash. To this day, there is no clear distinction between the two.
  Ravina and R. Ada b. Matanah are asking questions from their teacher Rava when it starts to rain hard outside. They go into the synagogue, but are quick to declare that they have not done so merely to escape the rain. Rather, in order to concentrate on their studies they need to be able to focus as if it was a clear day. Studying Torah outside in the rain is not a good way of learning.
  Since one is not allowed to go into a synagogue unless there is some sacred reason, he cannot just go in to call someone out. So what is he to do if he does need someone who is inside?The first option is to go in and recite some teaching or tradition he knows: either a halakhah, a Mishnah or a verse. A halakhah a tradition that also explains the reason for the tradition. It may include a midrash. A tanna recites a “mishnah,” a short teaching with no explanation, from memory, even if he does not fully understand it. A “kara” is one who memorizes the Tanakh. If the person does not know even know a verse, then he can ask a child to recite the last verse that the child had been learning.If he can’t use one of these options, then he should just sit around outside and hope the person he wants comes out. The Talmud does not allow him to go into the synagogue just to call someone out. The synagogue’s holiness was taken very seriously.
  The mishnah had stated that a public eulogy can be done in the synagogue. This seems to be a eulogy for a public figure that died, assumedly in the eyes of the rabbis, a rabbi.Hisda and R. Sheshet both say that if the other is present at the eulogy, then it must be a “public eulogy.” Rashi explains that their presence implies that one of the rabbinical students in their bet midrash had died. Although it wasn’t the leading member of the bet midrash who was being eulogized, the fact that it was a rabbi is sufficient for the eulogy to be considered public.In the second half of this section, two rabbis eulogize others in the synagogue, claiming that by doing so, many people will come. The fact that the rabbi is offering the eulogy ensures that it will be considered a public eulogy.
  IntroductionThis section begins with another eulogy.
  This is an example of a short eulogy, offered for a rabbinical student who would repeat halakhot in front of a large number of students.
  This story is brought here as a contrast between the sages of the Land of Israel and those in Babylonia. The person who died was a professional reciter of rabbinic traditions. His memory was enormous and he knew all of the rabbinic compositions. “Halakhot” refers to the Mishnah. Sifra and Sifre are midrashic compositions and the Tosefta is a collection of material supplementary to the Mishnah. This man knew them all. And yet when they ask R. Nahman to say a eulogy for him, he responds by calling him a “bag of books.” This is a disparaging remark. Just as a book can’t understand its content, so too a professional memorizer, according to R. Nahman.Now the Talmud notes how much more respectful Resh Lakish was than R. Nahman. Rashi explains that Resh Lakish was such a great person that he wouldn’t even talk to another rabbi in public because anyone seen talking to Resh Lakish would be considered so trustworthy that business matters could be conducted with him without witnesses. Resh Lakish was modest and did not want others to risk money based merely on their having spoken to Resh Lakish. On the other hand, R. Nahman was known elsewhere for being extremely arrogant, as we can see in this tradition as well.
  The Mishnah teaches that if someone uses the “crown” he will pass away. This refers to the “crown of the Torah” condemning one who uses Torah for personal gain. Resh Lakish interprets it to mean that one cannot “accept service” from a person who knows enough to repeat halakhot. One must treat such a person with a high degree of respect, and not allow him to act as a servant. Ulla says that one does not owe such a high amount of respect to someone just because they can repeat Torah. To earn such a high level of respect the person must also be able to teach it.Ulla refers to “four orders of the Mishnah.” By the amoraic period two orders of the original six were not being learned. In Israel they taught: Zeraim, Moed, Nashim and Nezikin. In Babylonia they taught: Moed, Nashim, Nezikin and Kodashim. In neither place was Toharot taught. I think I can understand why.
  This story illustrates Resh Lakish’s principle that one must honor someone even if the best they can do is recite Mishnah. The person carrying Resh Lakish across the river turns out to be one who can recite four full orders of the Mishnah. Upon hearing this, Resh Lakish refuses to receive any more service from him and orders him to cast him back into the river. The man has “hewn four rocks”—learned four full orders of Mishnah—and now he lowers himself to carry Resh Lakish. Disgraceful.The man refuses to throw Resh Lakish into the water, asking instead that Resh Lakish teach him something.
  The particular halakhah that Resh Lakish teaches the man has to do with the laws of menstrual purity. According to Toraitic law a woman who menstruates does not need to wait seven days without blood before going to the mikvah. When a woman menstruates, she counts seven days from the start, and as long as she is no longer menstruating by the time the week is over, she goes the mikveh and she is clean immediately. Jewish women were strict however, treating any blood as if it may be non-menstrual blood. Furthermore, non-menstrual blood requires seven clean days only if the woman bleeds three days in a row. Jewish women treated one issue of blood as if it were three days of non-menstrual blood. They were doubly strict.I’m not sure why Resh Lakish chose to teach the man this particular halakhah. Perhaps it illustrates the problem of relying on the mishnah alone to rule in matters of halakhah.
  It was taught in the house of Eliyahu: Whoever repeats halakhoth is assured of the world to come, as it says, “His goings [halikoth] are to eternity” (Habbakuk 3:6). Read not halikkot but halakhoth.The sugya concludes with this teaching from the house of Eliyahu—whoever repeats halakhot is guaranteed a place in the world to come.
  
  Daf 29a
  
  IntroductionThis sugya deals with three of the most important mitzvoth in the eyes of the rabbis: study of Torah, marriage and proper care for the dead.
  Studying Torah is of supreme value to the rabbis. Nevertheless, if one is studying Torah and a funeral or wedding procession goes by, he should suspend his study and go and accompany the dead or the wedding. This shows that as important as Torah study is, it does not supersede these two values: burial and marriage.However, when it comes to a funeral, this is only true if his presence is necessary. But if there are already enough people to honorably accompany the dead, he should not suspend the study of Torah.
  The piece here refers to how many are sufficient for a funeral procession. Rav says that a proper number is no less than twelve thousand men either including or not including another six thousand trumpets! Less than that is not enough and therefore he should stop studying Torah to join the procession.Ulla provides a large but more reasonable answer—enough so that a line could be made from the cemetery to the town gate.
  Sheshet gives an even higher number. Just as at Mt. Sinai the Torah was given in the presence of 600,000 men (not including women and children) so too its taking away, meaning the burial of a person who knew Torah should be in the presence of 600,000. Ironically what this means is that if someone is buried and there are not 600,000 people to attend his funeral procession, one studying Torah can cease doing so.The sugya concludes with another value statement. 600,000 is sufficient for one who merely knows how to read Scripture or recite Mishnah. But one who knows how to teach Mishnah, a teacher, there simply is no measure. [Okay, I expect you all to attend my funeral and bring 600 friends, that should get us to around 600,000]. 
  IntroductionThis section continues to discuss the importance of the synagogue.
  This baraita conveys one of the most central theological messages of the rabbis—God was with Israel in their times of trouble, when they were exiled in the past, and God has not abandoned them now that they are in exile for the foreseeable future. The baraita cites a variety of verses that teach this message. Clearly after the destruction of the Temple and with competing groups, including Christians, claiming that God had abandoned Israel, it was very important for Jews to believe that God remained with them. This was surely a message of great comfort.
  Abaye has a very concrete view of where God is, indeed I would argue that this is what the above source itself said as well. This is not the idea that God is everywhere at all times. Rather, God’s presence is in a particular place at a time. In Babylonia He goes back and forth between two synagogues. I’m sure there’s a third one even God never sets foot into. He’s Jewish after all.Abaye even makes sure he sets foot in each of these synagogues when he passes by them. If you knew that God was in synagogue, wouldn’t you go out of your way to go there?
  The synagogue Shaf Veyativ seems to have been prone to earthquakes. Its very name means “was destroyed and then rebuilt.” In any case, the rabbis interpret these movements as being signs of the presence of the Shekhinah.When this occurred to R. Sheshet, he stayed in the synagogue. The angels came and threatened him, trying to get him to leave. R. Sheshet brazenly says to God—why should I, a person afflicted with blindness, leave? In general, an afflicted person does not give way to one who is not afflicted. God tells the angels to leave R. Sheshet alone. Lesson learned.
  In Ezekiel, God promises Israel that he will remain with them in exile, that He will be for them a “little sanctuary.” To R. Yitzchak this refers to synagogues and study houses. Indeed, historically the synagogue has been called a “little sanctuary”— a “mikdash me’at.”Elazar provides a more limited and particular definition—the house of our teacher in Babylonia. Rav, the Babylonian amora, was R. Elazar’s teacher. It may be that this is a subtle jab at Babylonia. God, according to R. Elazar, is not found everywhere in Babylonia, in any old synagogue or study house. He is only found in one particular place, the house of Rav.
  Rava’s midrash provides another source for the idea that God is present in synagogues and study houses.Abaye’s midrash relates to Rava’s for both verses use the word “maon—dwelling place.” Abaye says he used to study at home and only pray at the synagogue. But when he heard Rava’s interpretation of “meon” he started studying in the synagogue. I should note that this statement contradicts a statement found elsewhere that at first he would study at home and pray in the synagogue but later he started praying at home too. I should also note that “home” here may really be synonymous with the Bet Midrash.
  Elazar HaKappar reads Jeremiah as if it says that Mt. Tabor and Mt. Carmel came to Sinai to hear the Torah being given. If these places which only heard the Torah being given once merited being returned to Israel and planted there for eternity, all the more so the synagogues and study houses in Babylonia will be restored at the end of times to the land of Israel.This source is very interesting in terms of the value of Israel vis a vis Babylon. It seems that the source is in essence saying that right now, the highest level of Torah is found in Babylonia, but the land of Israel is the holiest place. At the end of times, this Torah will be restored to its proper place—Israel.
  In this derashah the mountains come to Sinai with a complaint (a litigation)—why was the Torah given on you and not on us? [Note this is based on a pun on the word “terazedun.”] God responds that in comparison with Sinai, these mountains are full of blemishes. This is cleverly based on another pun on the word “gavnunim” which here means “mountains of peaks” but sounds like the word for “humpbacked” in a list of blemishes that disqualify a kohen from serving at the altar.Ashi adds a lesson learned from this derashah. The mountains were disqualified due to their arrogance. This is a blemish as much as any physical blemish.
  IntroductionToday’s section continues to explain the mishnah which taught what one is not allowed to do in a synagogue.
  “Kapandaria” is a Greek word for short cut. The rabbis explain it that way, and then make a pun in Hebrew hinting at its meaning. This is something that they often do with Greek words.
  There are three limitations to the Mishnah’s rule that one may not make a short cut through a synagogue.If the synagogue was built around an already existing path, one may continue to use the path.If one entered for another purpose he can then use it as a short cut.If one entered it to pray, he can use it as a short cut.There are commentators who say that reasons two and three are really the same.
  While the Mishnah said that one should not pluck the grass that grows in a destroyed synagogue, the Talmud limits this to plucking and giving the grass to an animal. This would cause a high level of distress, seeing the synagogue in essence being used as a grazing area. But just plucking the grass and leaving it is taking care of the synagogue and would not be distressful.
  The baraita teaches that one does not act disrespectfully in a cemetery. As we said above with regard to the synagogue, if one does gather/pluck grass in them, they should not use it to feed an animal. The baraita says that if he does gather grass, he should burn it immediately.
  Introduction
  The rest of this chapter deals mainly with the portions of the Torah read on holidays and special Shabbatot. In mishnaic times they did not complete the Torah once a year as they did in Babylonia and as we do today, but rather about once every three years. Another difference between the ancient custom and that of today is that today when certain holidays fall on Shabbat we read the regular Torah portion and then we add a special reading for that day. In mishnaic times, since they didn’t really have a regular Torah portion, they only read the special reading. Thus if Rosh Hodesh fell on Shabbat they would read only the portion for Rosh Hodesh and interrupt the regular continuous reading of the Torah.
  Today’s mishnah deals with the four special Shabbatot that precede Pesah. They are:1) Shekalim—to remind people that on Adar they would have to bring the half-shekel to the Temple (see tractate Shekalim). This was read before Rosh Hodesh Adar.2) Zakhor—Deuteronomy 25:17-19. This is read before Purim and connects Amalek with Haman.3) Parah—Numbers 19. We read about the red heifer to remind people that before Pesah they must be pure in order to eat the Pesah sacrifice.4) Hahodesh—Exodus 12:1-20. Read the Shabbat before Nissan to remind people that Pesah is approaching and that they must begin preparing.
  Section one: On Rosh Hodesh Adar which falls on Shabbat they read Shekalim, which is Exodus 30:11-16. However, if Rosh Hodesh Adar falls during the week, they would read Shekalim on the Shabbat before Rosh Hodesh. On the Shabbat following Rosh Hodesh they would go back to reading where they had last left off in the regular cycle. This week would then be a break from the four special portions enumerated in our mishnah.Sections 2-5: The mishnah now enumerates the four special portions, described above in the introduction. After Hahodesh, the order returns to its regular cycle. We should note the concept of Shabbat Hagadol, the Shabbat before Pesah, did not exist in mishnaic or talmudic times.Section six: The regular reading of the Torah is interrupted for any special occasion. This includes all holidays. On fast days, meaning Mondays or Thursdays when they would fast for rain, they would not read the regular portion but rather the special readings for fasts. Ma’amadot were described in greater length in tractate Taanit. These were gatherings by people in towns when their kohanim would go to the Temple. The people in the town would read from the beginning of Genesis and not from the regular Torah portion.
  
  Daf 29b
  
  In Mishnah Shekalim we learned that on the first of Adar they would make two announcements: 1) That people should check their fields to make sure that diverse seeds are not growing together. If they are, they must be uprooted. 2) That people should bring their shekels to the Temple.It is understandable why the announcement about the kilayim was made at this time, for spring is the planting season. But why make the announcement about the shekels?
  The answer is that there is a month on which public offerings must be brought from new contributions, i.e. new shekels. That month is Nisan (this is derived in Rosh Hashanah). To give people some time to get their act together, they would let people know about this in the beginning of Adar. In the time of the Temple, they would make a public announcement. By the time of the Mishnah, this had been replaced with a Torah reading, as we read in our Mishnah.
  The idea that they would announce the shekels thirty days before Nisan seems to accord with the first opinion in the baraita about teaching the laws of Pesah and not R. Shimon b. Gamaliel who says we only begin talking about Pesah two weeks before.
  There was a custom to begin to set up the tables to exchange money to the proper currency as early as the middle of Adar. Therefore, the mishnah accords even with R. Shimon b. Gamaliel since the first of Adar is only two weeks before money began to be collected in the provinces.
  IntroductionThis entire sugya is about what passage in the Torah is read on Shabbat Shekalim, the special Shabbat that falls before or on Rosh Hodesh Adar.
  Shmuel says that the portion of Shekalim is Exodus 30:12 and onward, for that is where Israel was told to bring shekels during the census. This, according to many rabbis, is the source of the Second Temple practice of bringing a half-shekel to the Temple once a year.But Rav says that it is the beginning of Numbers 28, which discusses the musaf and tamid offerings. Why that passage?The answer is that this accords with R. Tabi’s statement from yesterday’s section, where he said that this verse teaches us that from the month of Nisan and onwards we use the new donations to fund the public sacrifices. Therefore, we need to let people know from Adar and onward that they should bring the shekels. According to Rav, we read this portion in the Torah as well.
  Shmuel’s opinion, that we read Exodus 30 is also problematic, for the collection there was taken to pay for the sockets used in the construction of the Tabernacle (this is alluded to in Exodus 38:25-27). It was not used to finance public sacrifices, which is what the half-shekel was used for. [As an aside, this shows that it is not simple to draw a straight historical line from the collection taken in Exodus 30 to the Second Temple custom of the half-shekel. There is actually quite a bit of research about the subject.]The problem is solved by an allusion to a statement made by R. Joseph, that there were actually three contributions, one for the altar, one for the sockets and one for the general repair of the Tabernacle/Temple. Thus according to R. Joseph there is a connection between Exodus 30 and the collection of the half-shekel.
  In order to understand this section we need to understand some background concerning Torah reading during the Talmudic period. When a special Shabbat occurred, they would not read the regular portion of the week and then add on the special reading for that Shabbat as we do today. Rather, they would suspend the portion of the week and just read the special reading for that Shabbat. The problem is that if the portion of Shekalim is Numbers 28, then that is the same reading as every other Rosh Hodesh. So how would anyone know that it is a special Shabbat?The answer is that in other cases of Rosh Hodesh six people would read the regular portion and the seventh would read the Rosh Hodesh reading as maftir (we do this slightly differently, seven people read and then an additional person reads the reading for Rosh Hodesh). On Shabbat Shekalim the entire reading would consist only of Numbers 28. I should note that this would mean there would be a lot of repeating because the passage is not that long.
  The above difference between a regular Rosh Hodesh that falls on Shabbat and Shabbat Shekalim works only according to the opinion I described above, that they would interrupt the regular parshat hashavua reading and then return to it the following week. But there is another opinion, that on the special Shabbat the only thing that would be interrupted is the regular haftorah reading (as we do today). So if they read Numbers 28, how is Shabbat Shekalim different from a normal Rosh Hodesh?Again, there is a difference as to how it is read. On a regular Rosh Hodesh six people would read the regular Torah reading and one would read the Rosh Hodesh portion. On Shabbat Shekalim three would read the regular portion and four would read the special portion for Shabbat Shekalim. [Again, this is not how we do things today].
  The chapter of Yehoyada seems to allude to Exodus 30:12 and uses similar terminology. Indeed, many scholars trace a line between this Torah reading, Yehoash the king’s interpretation of it and the Second Temple custom. This haftorah accords well with Shmuel’s opinion, that we read Exodus 30. But what is the connection between that haftorah and Numbers 28?Again, the connection is drawn through R. Tabi’s derashah, which connects the shekels with the new contributions used to fund the sacrifices.
  The baraita brought here says that if the portion that is read on Shabbat Shekalim falls a week before or after they read the same portion as part of the regular cycle, then they just read it two weeks in a row. In the Babylonian tradition of reading the entire Torah in one year, this can only happen with Exodus 30, for Ki Tisa falls around this time of year. Parshat Pinhas, which includes Numbers 28, is in the summer. So this baraita seems to support Shmuel.However, the Talmud explains that the baraita reflects the custom of Eretz Yisrael where they read the Torah in a triennial cycle (actually not exactly three years, possibly twice in 7 years). Thus there is no set time of year in which Exodus 30 or Numbers 28 would be read. Either could fall in Adar.
   It has been taught in agreement with Shmuel: When Rosh Hodesh Adar falls on Shabbat, the portion “When you count” is read, and they read the haftarah concerning “Yehoyada the Priest.”The sugya ends with a baraita that supports Shmuel’s opinion—we read from Exodus 30. This remains the custom to this day.
  IntroductionToday’s section deals with what we do with Rosh Hodesh Adar and Rosh Hodesh Tevet, each of which have various complications.
  This is one of the occasions in which three Torah scrolls are used, to avoid having to roll from one to the other.
  This is another of the occasions when three Torah scrolls are used.
  The Talmud now asks a typical question: Why did R. Yitzchak have to make both statements? The first statement is definitely necessary for in it he lets us know that he rules like Shmuel, that we read from Exodus 30 on Shabbat Shekalim. Rav said we read from Numbers 28, the same passage used for Rosh Hodesh, in which case two would have been sufficient.However, R. Yitzchak could have stated the former and not the latter? The answer is that indeed the latter statement was not actually stated by R. Yitzchak b. Nafha, it was derived from the former statement.
  R. Yitzchak and R. Dimi disagree over what to do when Rosh Hodesh Tevet falls during the week. There need to be four aliyot because it is Rosh Hodesh. But do three read from Rosh Hodesh and one from Hannukah (R. Yitzchak) or three from Hannukah and one from Rosh Hodesh (R. Dimi).
  R. Mani says that since Rosh Hodesh is more frequent than Hannukah (12-8) the first three should read from Rosh Hodesh and the fourth from Hannukah.R. Abin says that since the fourth Aliyah is necessary only because of Rosh Hodesh, the fourth reads from Rosh Hodesh. The first three would read from Hannukah.
  R. Joseph and Rabbah continue the dispute begun above. In the end the halakhah is that we “take no notice of Hannukah.” This means that we read three aliyot from Rosh Hodesh and then one from Hannukah.
  IntroductionToday’s section deals with the issue of Shabbat Shekalim falling on a Shabbat in which the regular portion of the week is either before or after the reading for Shekalim itself.
  The portion read for Shekalim is Exodus 30:11-16 (“When you count”). This falls right after parshat hashavua Tetzaveh (“And you shall command”). According to R. Yitzchak Nafha, he reads the first six aliyot from Tetzaveh (starts at Exodus 27:20) and then the seventh Aliyah is from Shekalim, the next seven verses.
  
  Daf 30a
  
  The problem with reading the seventh Aliyah from the Shekalim reading is that it looks just like the continuation of Tetzaveh. In other words people will not know that he is reading a special portion for Shekalim. They will think he is just continuing on with Tetzaveh.Therefore to let people know what is going on, what he should do is read six aliyot from the beginning of Tetzaveh through the end of the special section for Shekalim (30:16). Then he should go back and read the Shekalim Aliyah over again. This will make it noticeable that he is reading a special Aliyah.
   This baraita accords with Abaye who said that if Shabbat Shekalim falls on an adjacent parshat hashavua they read the regular portion and then repeat it. This is exactly what Abaye said we do. But the baraita does not accord with R. Yitzchak Nafha who said we just read Tetzaveh and then as the seventh Aliyah we read Shekalim. There is no repeating here.
  Yitzchak Nafha could respond that the baraita does not work so well for Abaye either. Doubling the reading for Shabbat Shekalim makes sense if it occurs with the portion that comes before it, Tetzaveh, as Abaye said. But the portion for Shekalim occurs at the beginning of parshat Ki Tisa. If Shabbat Shekalim falls on the portion of Vayakhel, the week after Ki Tisa, there is no repeating of the portion, so what could the baraita mean.Therefore, the baraita does not mean that the portion for Shekalim is read twice on the same Shabbat. It means that it is read two weeks in a row. This could happen if Shekalim falls on Tetzaveh or on Vayakhel. In either case that portion would be read twice in a row.I should add that according to the custom we now observe, there is no problem distinguishing the maftir Aliyah from the other seven aliyot for we say the kaddish after the first seven aliyot. Therefore, whatever the special portion for that day is can be read as maftir and everyone would understand what is going on.
  The issue here is if Shabbat Shekalim falls on parshat Ki Tisa, which begins with the very portion read for Shekalim. According to R. Yitzchak Nafha he would skip the beginning of Ki Tisa and only begin with 30:17, right after the reading for Shekalim is over. The rest of Ki Tisa would be divided into six aliyot and then he would go back and read the seven verses of Shekalim as the seventh Aliyah.The problem with that is that he is reading backwards. People might think that one can read the Torah in any order. In other words, someone hearing wouldn’t notice that this was Shabbat Shekalim. Rather he would just think that the reader for some reason read the aliyot out of order.Therefore, what he should do is read from the beginning of Ki Tisa. And then when he has completed the parsha, he should go back and read the special section for Shekalim.A baraita is taught that accords with Abaye.
  IntroductionAccording to the mishnah, if Rosh Hodesh Adar falls during the middle of the week, Parshat Shekalim is read on the previous Shabbat. In today’s sugya the amoraim dispute when Parshat Shekalim is read if Rosh Hodesh Adar falls on Friday.
  The purpose of reading Shabbat Shekalim is to give time to discuss the laws of the half-shekel before the fifteenth of Adar, when tables will be set up to exchange coins so that people can pay their Temple tax. If we wait till Shabbat, the day after Rosh Hodesh, to read Shabbat Shekalim, there will be less than the necessary two weeks between the reading of the portion and the setting up of the tables. Therefore Rav says they read the week before.Shmuel points out that if Rosh Hodesh Adar falls on the day before Shabbat then the fifteenth will also fall on Friday and the tables will not be taken out until Sunday. In the end, even if they read Parshat Shekalim on Shabbat, the day after Rosh Hodesh, there will be two weeks between the reading and the taking out of the tables. So it is possible to delay the reading till Shabbat.
  The Talmud tries to use the mishnah to prove that no matter when Rosh Hodesh falls during the week, Shabbat Shekalim is read the previous Shabbat. This would present a difficulty to Shmuel. But this difficulty is rejected because the mishnah can be read as referring to a case where Rosh Hodesh falls during the middle of the week, not Friday.
  This baraita explains when the series of special Shabbat readings begins. It states that the series begins on the Shabbat following the week in which Rosh Hodesh falls. This seems to make no distinction between a case where Rosh Hodesh falls during the week and one where it falls on Friday. In either case, it would seem that we read Parshat Shekalim on the previous Shabbat. Again, this is a difficulty on Shmuel.Shmuel emends the baraita to read “on it.” Thus the baraita teaches that if Rosh Hodesh Adar falls on Shabbat, the special series of Sabbaths begins on that Shabbat. The baraita adds that if it falls on Friday, the same holds true. The special series of Sabbaths begins on the following Shabbat, not the Shabbat before.
  According to R. Judah the Prince, unless Rosh Hodesh Adar falls on Shabbat, the first two special Shabbat readings will be interrupted by a Shabbat without a special reading. Thus the Shabbat before Rosh Hodesh will be Shekalim, the Shabbat after Rosh Hodesh will have no special reading, and the Shabbat after that will be Zakhor. R. Shimon b. Elazar disagrees if Rosh Hodesh falls on Friday. Like Shmuel he would hold that Parshat Shekalim would be read on the day after, and then Zakhor the following week. In such a case there would be no interrupting Shabbat.Thus in this baraita the opinion of R. Shimon b. Elazar matches that of Shmuel, whereas the opinion of R. Judah Hanasi matches that of Rav. Custom follows the opinion of Rav.
  IntroductionToday’s section deals with the reading for the second special Shabbat, Shabbat Zakhor.
  Parshat Zakhor where we read of the mitzvah to remember what Amalek did to us when leaving Egypt is usually read the Shabbat before Purim. If Purim falls on Friday, Rav says we still read Parshat Zakhor the Shabbat before. This way remembering Amalek comes before celebrating Purim, which is the correct order—remembering the enemy, then celebrating his defeat. Shmuel says that it can be pushed off till the Shabbat after, since this is the same day as Purim for walled cities which read on the fifteenth of Adar.
  If Rosh Hodesh Adar falls on Shabbat, Purim will fall on Friday. The mishnah seems to say that in this case Zakhor will fall on the second Shabbat of the month, the week before Purim, as Rav said. But this is a difficulty on Shmuel.Papa resolves this by saying that the mishnah doesn’t refer to a case where Rosh Hodesh was on Shabbat. Rather, Rosh Hodesh fell during the week. There will then be a week off with no special reading on Shabbat, and then the “second to the interruption” will be Zakhor. But this did not refer to a case where Purim fell on Shabbat.
  The baraita seems to teach that if Purim falls anytime in the week, even on Friday, Parshat Zakhor is read during the preceding Shabbat. This is again a difficulty on Shmuel.Shmuel emends the baraita to read “on it.” If Purim falls on Shabbat itself, or even if Purim falls on Friday, we read Zakhor on that Shabbat. In both of these cases the remembrance and the observance of Purim will come on the same day.
  According to R. Huna, if Purim falls on Shabbat, both Shmuel and Rav would agree that Zakhor is read on Shabbat itself, the fourteenth of Adar. We should note that in this case, we would really observe Purim the next day, on the fifteenth, because we do not observe Purim on Shabbat.But R. Nahman says that the same dispute continues—Rav would still hold that we read Zakhor the week before. This is borne out by the statement of R. Hiyya b. Abba.
  IntroductionThis section is about the third of the special Shabbatot, Shabbat Parah, when the reading is about the sacrifice and preparation of the red heifer.
  It looks as if the baraita and the statement of R. Hama b. Hanina contradict each other, one saying that Parshat Parah falls on the Shabbat after Purim, and one saying that it falls the Shabbat after that, the Shabbat before Rosh Hodesh Nisan. But the Talmud resolves these two statements. Parshat Parah usually falls on the Shabbat after Purim. And then there will be another Shabbat before Rosh Hodesh (Parshat Hahodesh). But if Rosh Hodesh Nisan falls on Shabbat, then Parshat Parah falls on the Shabbat right before Rosh Hodesh Nisan. Indeed, this is the case this year. Purim was on Friday. The following Shabbat was not a special reading. The week after was Parshat Parah, and the week after that is Shabbat Rosh Hodesh Nisan. In other words, Parshat Parah fell a week before Rosh Hodesh Nisan, not the week after Purim.
  IntroductionToday’s section lists the four special Shabbatot, when they fall, and what haftorah is read on each.
  This baraita outlines the entire system of special Shabbatot, which parsha is read and what the haftorah is. Some of the baraita was explained above in earlier sections.The first Shabbat is Shabbat Shekalim. It always falls either the Shabbat before Rosh Hodesh Adar, or on Rosh Hodesh Adar.The second Shabbat is Zakhor. It falls on the Shabbat before Purim.The third Shabbat is Parah. It is always read the Shabbat before Parshat Hahodesh. Usually this is also the Shabbat after Purim, but not always.The fourth Shabbat is Parshat Hahodesh. It is either the week before Rosh Hodesh Nisan or on Rosh Hodesh Nisan itself.
  
  Daf 30b
  
  IntroductionToday’s section discusses what was interrupted by the special Shabbatot—the regular cycle of Torah reading, or just the haftorah. We should note that many scholars believe that in Israel during the special Shabbatot they did not read the regular Torah reading, whereas in Babylonia they read the regular parshat hashavua and read only a special maftir and haftorah, as we do today.
  Ammi says they go back to the regular order of Torah readings. This implies that during the special Shabbatot, they did not read the regular portion of the week.But R. Jeremiah seems to imply that only the haftarot were interrupted by the special Shabbatot. The regular Torah reading cycle was not interrupted (this is how we behave today). On the fifth Shabbat they go back to the regular order of haftarot.
  Abaye cites the mishnah to support R. Ammi, who said that they interrupted the cycle of Torah portions. The mishnah refers to interrupting the cycle for events that can only occur during the week, such as fasts (for rain on Monday or Thursday) or “ma’amadot” (readings by the local population when the local priests are serving in the Temple). Thus it must mean that the regular Torah reading is interrupted, not the haftorah, for there is no haftorah during the week.Jeremiah resolves the mishnah by saying that if the holiday falls during the week, then the there is no haftorah and only the Torah reading is interrupted. But if it falls on Shabbat, then the regular Torah reading is not interrupted; only the haftorah. [Again, this is how we behave today].
  Theoretically, according to R. Jeremiah’s position that we don’t interrupt the regular Torah reading, we could read the regular Torah reading at Shacharit on fast days and then the special Torah reading at Minhah, for we do read Torah on Minhah of fast days. So why interrupt if it’s not necessary?The answer is that on fast days people gather in the morning to examine their deeds, to try to understand why the troubles have occurred. Thus there will be no time to read in the Torah. [Remember, the fast days referred to here are those called because it has not rained, or because of other national crises. These are not the fast days we usually still observe today.]Today we read Torah on mornings and afternoons of fast days. But this was not customary during the Talmudic period.
  Abaye explains how they would act on the day of a public fast, in line with what was stated above, where we learned that they would not read Torah in the morning. This practice is loosely based on a verse from Nehemiah, describing the confessions and prayers of the Jews who returned to Israel after the Babylonian exile. During the second half of the day the Jews would first read the Sefer Torah and then confess and bow down to God.
  The Talmud asks how we can be so sure that Ezra 9:3 is referring to the second half of the day. Perhaps they read Torah, prayed and confessed on the first half of the day?This is ruled out by the following two verses. In v. 4 the exiles gather around Ezra to discuss the sins of the returning exiles. This, according to the Talmud, occurred during the first half of the day. During the second half of the day Ezra prays and asks God for mercy.
  Introduction
  This mishnah lists the portions read first on the holidays, then on non-biblical holidays and concludes with some general rules.I have explained the mishnah only where I felt that it requires explanation.The one slightly confusing issue is the readings for Sukkot. On the first day of Sukkot we read from Leviticus 23, the same reading as on Pesah. On the remaining days we read the sacrifices listed for that day in Numbers 29:17 ff. Sukkot differs from Pesah in that on Pesah the same musaf offerings are made every day. On Sukkot each day has a different number of offerings. As an aside, this is one reason why we recite the full Hallel for all seven days of Sukkot but only on the first day of Pesah.
  Section six: Hannukah literally means “dedication” and refers to the dedication of the Temple after its restoration in the time of the Maccabees. The portion in the Torah read on Hannukah is a list of the gifts brought by the princes of each tribe at the dedication of the Mishkah, the tabernacle.Section seven: On Purim we read about Amalek because Haman was, according to the rabbis, from Amalek.Section nine: On Ma’amadot people would gather in the Temple or in their own cities while their local kohanim took there turn at service in the Temple. See Taanit 4:2-3.Section ten: The curses (called today the “tochekhah” or rebuke) are read on fast days as a warning to people that they must repent. When reading the curses we don’t interrupt, making them into two or more aliyot—rather they are all read by the same person. This is still the custom today, making one of the aliyot in Ki Tavo the longest aliyah of the year.Section eleven: Besides Shabbat morning, the Torah is also read on Mondays, Thursdays and Shabbat at minhah (the afternoon service). These readings go according to the regular cycle but they don’t count toward the regular progression. This means that the same portion that is read at all three occasions and then again on Shabbat. We only move forward on Shabbat.Section twelve: The chapter ends with a midrash on Leviticus 23:44. The verse states that Moshe told the holidays to the people of Israel, but this verse is superfluous—Moshe taught all of the commandments to the people. Therefore the midrash teaches that not only did Moshe teach the holidays, but he taught each one at the time that it fell. By his example we learn that on all holidays we read the Torah portion relevant to that holiday.
  
  Daf 31a
  
  IntroductionToday’s section presents a fuller picture of what passages are read on what holidays. It also includes the readings for the haftarah and it explains what sections of the Torah are read in the Diaspora where there are two days of the festival at the beginning and end of each holiday.Some of these sections are pretty straightforward and do not require explanation. I have only explained those sections that I believe require explanation.
  The only part here that requires explanation is R. Papa’s mnemonic to remember the readings for the intermediate days of Pesah.M=Exodus 12:21-51 (משכו).A=Exodus 22:24-23:19 (אם כסף תלוה)P=Exodus 34:1-26 (פסל לך)U=Numbers 9:1-14 (וידבר ה’ אל משה)
  Abaye lists a different practice for Torah reading on Pesah and provides a way to remember the order as well. His order differs from that found in the Mishnah and R. Papa’s statement.“Draw”—Exodus 12:21-51.“the Ox”—Leviticus 22:26-23:44.“Sanctify”—Exodus 13:1-16.“With money”—Exodus 22:24-23:19.“Hew”—Exodus 34:1-26.“In the wilderness”—Numbers 9:1-14.“Send”—Exodus 13:17-15:26.“The firstborn”—Deuteronomy 15:19-16:17.By the very existence of all of these lists we can see that there was still a great degree of fluidity in Torah reading during the talmudic period.
  The first opinion as to what we read on Shavuot accords with the Mishnah—from Deuteronomy 15-16. This emphasizes Shavuot as a harvest holiday. But at some time during the tannaitic period Shavuot came to be associated with the giving of the Torah. This is reflected in a shift in Torah readings to Exodus 19 concerned with the giving of the Torah on Sinai. We should remember that the Torah itself does not describe revelation as occurring on Shavuot.
  The first opinion again accords with that stated in the Mishnah, according to which we read from the list of festivals in Leviticus 23.And again the other opinion gives a historical reading for the holiday, connecting it with the birth of Isaac and his binding on the altar.
  One interesting question is why we read the section about forbidden relationships on Minhah of Yom Kippur. One possibility is that these types of sins are either common or at least desired by many people and therefore on the Day of Atonement are most appropriate to be read.Others note that there was a custom on that day for women to go out in the field dressed in white to try to attract men’s hand in marriage. This reading was enacted to warn them to keep it legit.
  IntroductionToday’s section continues with a comment related to one of the verses read on Yom Kippur. Then we continue on with the list of Torah and haftarah readings for holidays.
  Yohanan’s midrash is tied to one of the verses read on Yom Kippur described in the end of yesterday’s section.In his statement he mentions a word that I have translated as “humility.” This is probably the most common translation, but still not an exact one for “anavah.” “Anavah” as understood by the rabbis is a quality in which one’s value in the eyes of God is not dictated by one’s social standing, but rather by the concept that all people were created in the image of God. The “anav” is not a wealthy person who does not take pride in his wealth or standing. The “anav” is the persecuted poor person, the lowly of society. God is portrayed as the champion of the oppressed “anavim.” God uses God’s might to raise these people up.
  These are the instances in which God is first presented as mighty and then His might is expressed in terms of championing the orphan, widow and oppressed poor.
  The reading for Sukkot is from Leviticus, as was stated in the Mishnah. This same reading is used in the Diaspora for the second day of the festival.The haftarah for the first day is from Zechariah’s vision of a battle at the end of days, at the end of which people will stream to Jerusalem to greet the Messiah.The second day’s haftarah is about Solomon’s dedication of the Temple which took place on Sukkot.The rest of the festival we read about the festival sacrifices as stated in the Mishnah.
  On Shemini Atzeret (the last day of Sukkot) we read from Deuteronomy 15. On the second day we read the end of the Torah to celebrate Simchat Torah.We should note that in Israel where there is only one day of Shemini Atzeret (it’s both Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah), we still keep the Babylonian custom of finishing the Torah every year. Therefore, we read the end of the Torah and not, as the baraita says, Deuteronomy 15.As far as the haftarah, on Simchat Torah today we do not follow this Talmud, rather we read from the beginning of Joshua and not from I Kings. The Tosafot say that this is a takannah, an enactment of R. Hai Gaon from the 10th century, although others question the accuracy of this ascription. In any case, the purpose is clearly to begin reading the section of the Bible that immediately follows the conclusion of the Torah.
  Huna lists the Torah reading for Shabbat Hol Hamoed on Pesah and Sukkot as well as the haftarot for both occasions.
  
  Daf 31b
  
  IntroductionToday’s section deals with readings for the month of Av.
  On Rosh Hodesh Av that falls on Shabbat we do not read the regular haftarah for Shabbat Rosh Hodesh. Rather, we read a haftarah from Isaiah.Today we do not follow this custom. Rather we follow a custom mentioned in a midrashic source to read special haftarot from the 17th of Tammuz all the way through Rosh Hashanah. The first three are haftarot where we read of punishment and for the next seven we read messages of consolation.The “burden” upon God mentioned in the verse from Isaiah is interpreted as the trouble of determining what punishment Israel is deserving of.
  This section contains various customs as to what we read in the Torah and for the haftarah on Tisha B’av. Today we follow the custom mentioned by Abaye.
  IntroductionThe “ma’amadot” refers to the gathering of people in towns when the local priests are serving in the Temple. The priests were divided into 24 groups each serving a week at a time in the Temple. Each group of priests has a parallel “ma’amad.” While the priests were in the Temple serving at the altar, the parallel ma’amad would gather in the home town and read the Torah, every day a different portion of the story of creation. These institutions are described in much greater detail in Tractate Taanit.
  There are several central ideas to this section. First of all, there is a connection between the observance of God’s laws, specifically the offering of the sacrifices in the Temple, and the existence of the world. Second, God tells Abraham to offer a sacrifice in order to know that God will never destroy the word again, as he did in the generation of the flood and in the generation of the dispersal. This aids in connecting the idea that the existence of the world, the wellbeing of humanity, is ensured by the sacrifices which uphold God’s covenant.Abraham foresees the destruction of the Temple and already asks God what is to be done once the Temple is destroyed. God responds that studying the portions of the Torah that deal with the sacrifices is as effective as offering them as well. Both atone for Israel thereby protecting the world from God’s destruction.All of this explains that the ma’amad reads the account of the creation while the priests are offering the sacrifices because it is the sacrifices that uphold creation.
  IntroductionThe final section of this daf discusses reading the curses and blessings on fast days. The Talmudic discussion focuses on the rule in the mishnah that we do not interrupt when reading the curses. They are read continuously.
  There are two reasons given as to why one should not interrupt reading the curses. The first is that we should not reject discipline from God. One who stops in the middle of reading the curses looks as if he is rejecting his chastisement. [Thank you sir, may I have another].Resh Lakish brings up another problem. If one stops while reading the curses he will recite a blessing over a curse.
  To avoid reciting a blessing directly over a verse with a curse in it, he should begin reading before the section with the curses begins and end his reading after the curses have already been completed and another non-curse verse has been recited.
  Abaye limits the rule against interrupting the reading of the curses to those curses found in Leviticus. These were stated in the plural and Moses said them in the name of God. But the curses in Deuteronomy were in the singular and Moses says them in his own name. This seems to mitigate their violence, allowing us to interrupt their reading.Today our custom is to read both sets of curses without interruption.
  In the Babylonian cycle of reading, we read the curses in Leviticus right before Shavuot and the curses in Deuteronomy right before Rosh Hashanah. This, according to R. Shimon b. Elazar was initiated by Ezra. [I should note that this is chronologically problematic for in the land of Israel they had a three and a half year cycle of Torah reading. This meant that different readings would shift from year to year.]Abaye says that we do this as if to symbolically state that the curses should end with the new year. At first it seems as if Abaye’s statement makes sense only in connection with Rosh Hashanah. However, the Talmud notes that Shavuot is also called a “new year” for a mishnah in Rosh Hashanah says that this is the new year for the trees. Actually, it’s more of a judgment day for the trees. On Shavuot we bring the first fruits and therefore God judges the world on that day in terms of the next year’s crop of fruits.
  When Rehoboam son of Solomon became king the people asked for the burdensome taxes imposed by Solomon to be reduced. At first Rehoboam asked for advice from the elders and they advised him to listen to the people’s request. He then asked for advice from his friends, who told him to increase the taxes. He heeded their advice, causing a rebellion and the splitting of the kingdom into two. [See I Kings 12:1-17]. From here R. Shimon b. Elazar concludes that it is better to listen to the advice of the elders, even when they give advice that seems to be deconstructive—don’t collect any more taxes.This section has nothing to do with the previous one. It is here because it is taught by the same tanna, R. Shimon b. Elazar.
  IntroductionGet ready to learn the last daf of Tractate Megillah! This daf is short so you’ll have a breather before we begin Ketubot next week.
  There are two different opinions here as to how we read through the Torah. According to R. Meir there is no overlap in reading. We begin the new portion on Shabbat, and wherever that portion ends, we continue on at Shabbat Minhah, and then proceed on Monday and Thursday. Thus we never repeat the same reading. Today we follow R. Judah who says that the Shabbat Minhah begins a new cycle. That reading is repeated on Monday and Thursday. They also begin the Shabbat reading at the same place as was left off the previous Shabbat.
  
  Daf 32a
  
  Zera rules that the halakhah follows R. Judah. However, instead of saying this directly, he states the content of the halakhah lest people get the names wrong. 
  The difference between R. Meir and R. Judah is whether one keeps the Torah scroll open while reciting the blessings. R. Meir says that he does not while R. Judah says that he does.
  Meir says that one should close the Torah while reciting the blessings so that people don’t think that the blessings are written in the Torah. We should remember that it was very important for the rabbis that blessings remain “Oral Torah.” They considered it forbidden to write down any Torah except for the Bible. R. Meir did not want to even give the impression that he was reading blessings from the Torah.This is the same as Ulla’s rule with regard to the translation. The rabbis did not want to give the impression that the translation was written. Therefore, the person reading could not be the same person translating, and he could not even help the person translating.
  Judah admits that people might be confused and think that the translations are written into the Torah. But no one will think such a thing about the blessings over the Torah and therefore one need not close the scroll before reciting the blessings.
  Zera rules that the halakhah is that one need not close the Torah before reciting the blessings, in accordance with R. Judah. He does not state that the halakhah follows R. Judah lest people confuse who said what in the baraita.
  This statement is here because it’s stated by the same amora from above. As far as its content, Rashi says that he doesn’t really know what it means, but that others say it refers to boards used to hold Torah scrolls that are not rolled up as those are that he uses. Rambam says that these are boards on which teachers write verses for kids to read. The Ra’avad says that they are planks on which the translator and the person reading the haftorah stands. This would make them similar to the platforms on which people stand when reading the Torah.These items do not have the sanctity of the Torah. They may be thrown away when they are used up. But they do have the sanctity accorded to other elements of the synagogue. One may not sell them unless it is to buy an item of higher holiness.
  IntroductionToday’s section contains a series of rules about the Sefer Torah transmitted by R. Sheftiah in the name of R. Yohanan.
  When closing up the Sefer Torah he should do so close to the seam which will enable him to close it as tight as possible.
  Rashi explains this as follows. When an individual is rolling a Sefer Torah and it is in his lap, and he wants to roll it up he should roll it towards him because if he rolls it away from him it might fall on the ground. And when he wants to close it he should hold the inner part of the scroll and close it tight to the outer side, this way his arms don’t cover the writing and we want people to be able to see the writing.This interpretation is based on Tractate Soferim, a medieval composition of rules related to Torah reading.
  The reward of all of them, do you really think? Rather say he receives a reward equal to that of all of them.This last section says that the one who rolls the Sefer Torah (gelilah) receives the greatest reward. While today we think of this as a minor honor, in the time of the Talmud it was the greatest. Perhaps because it was last.
  IntroductionThis section contains another statement by the same amoraim from yesterday’s section.
  This applies only if one hears the voice of a man in town and of a woman in the field, and only if it says, yes, yes, or no, no.One who is trying to make a decision and hears a voice saying “Yes, yes” or “No, no” may heed that voice. This is not considered sorcery.However, it must be an unusual voice, such as a man in the town (evidently men were usually in the fields) or a woman in the field. This way he can tell that he didn’t just happen to hear someone say something.
  IntroductionMore rules by R. Sheftiah in the name of R. Yohanan.
  According to R. Yohanan all Torah learning, whether it is reading Torah or reciting mishnah (oral Torah) must be done with song. With the Torah this is probably the notes that accompany the words. But this is also true when it comes to the Mishnah. It too should be sung. This probably is a much easier way to memorize texts, which was the main aspect of Torah education during this period.
  Abaye brings up a point I can sympathize with—a person should not have this harsh verse applied to him just because he cannot sing! Rather, the verse is applied to two Torah scholars who cannot respect each other’s halakhot. When halakhot given by God cause us to disrespect each other, that is when they can be called “statutes that were not good.”
  Holding a Sefer Torah without its covering is improper. R. Yohanan seems to say that he who does so is actually buried naked as a punishment for this serious sin. But in the end Abaye interprets this in a more metaphorical, limited way.
  This statement is somewhat unclear and it is understood in different ways. One interpretation is that it is better that the covering of the scroll should be rolled up round the scroll than that the scroll of the Torah (itself) should be rolled up. This seems to be for the protection of the scroll.
  IntroductionToday we complete Tractate Megillah!
  This is the baraita that supports the idea of reading Torah connected to the festival.
  Not only do we read Torah portions connected to the festival, we also ask halakhic questions and give halakhic derashot (sermons or expositions) connected to the holiday. We could summarize both of these baraitot by saying that part of observing the holiday is studying Torah about the holiday. Sukkot is not just about sitting in the Sukkah, it is about studying the laws of sitting in the Sukkah. The same is true for every holiday.
  Congratulations! You finished Tractate Megillah. This was an amazing accomplishment, especially if you stuck with it for all 31 daf (remember, we started on page 2). We’ve now finished two whole tractates.The last words of Megillah were a fitting conclusion to the tractate and to Seder Moed in general. Observance of Judaism is not just about fulfilling the mitzvoth written. It is about studying the observance of these mitzvoth. Studying Torah is a mitzvah in its own right. It is not just studying in order to do. It is studying for its own sake. And this is what you have been doing by studying Daf Shevui. You have been participating in this remarkable project, enriching your lives through one of the central ways that Jews have been living their lives for over two thousand years—by studying the laws of the rabbis. Kol Hakavod.Learning a whole masekhet of Talmud justifies a siyyum—a celebratory mitzvah meal. Below is the Hebrew text recited at this occasion. You can recite the first part of this without a minyan, but the Kaddish which appears at the end requires a minyan. So bring it to your synagogue or whatever group you may study with and celebrate.