meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Talmud/Bavli/Seder Moed/Megillah/English/Daf Shevui.txt"}
text: Megillah
  מגילה
  Daf Shevui
  
  
  Megillah
  
  
  
  Daf 1a
  
  
  
  Daf 1b
  
  
  
  Daf 2a
  
  The Megillah is read on the eleventh, the twelfth, the thirteenth, the fourteenth, and the fifteenth [of Adar], never earlier and never later. Cities which have been walled since the days of Joshua ben Nun read on the fifteenth; villages and large towns read on the fourteenth, except that villages move the reading up to the day of gathering.
  How so? If the fourteenth [of Adar] falls on Monday, the villages and large towns read on that day and the walled places on the next day. If it falls on Tuesday or on Wednesday, the villages move the reading up to the day of gathering, the large towns read on that day, and the walled places on the next day.
  If it falls on Thursday, the villages and large towns read on that day and the walled places on the next day. If it falls on Friday, the villages move the reading up to the day of gathering and the large towns and walled places read on that day.
  If it falls on Shabbat, the villages and large towns move the reading up to the day of gathering, and the walled places read on the next day. If it falls on Sunday, the villages move the reading up to the day of gathering, the large towns read on that day, and the walled cities on the day following.
  Gemara. The Megillah is read on the eleventh.  From where is this derived? “From where is this derived”?  Surely it is as we teach further on, “The Sages made a leniency on the villages, allowing them to push the reading forward to the day of the gathering, so that they could supply food and water for their brothers in the large towns?”
  This is what we mean [by our question]: Since all these dates were laid down by the Men of the Great Assembly, for if you should [deny this and say] that the Men of the Great Assembly laid down only the fourteenth and fifteenth, [is it possible that] the [later] Rabbis should have come and annulled an enactment made by the Men of the Great Assembly.  Haven’t we learned: One court cannot annul the rulings of another court unless it is superior to it in number and in wisdom’?
  Obviously, therefore, all these days must have been laid down by the Men of the Great Assembly. So where is it hinted at?
  R. Shemen b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: The verse says, “To uphold these days of Purim in their times.” They established many “times” for them.
  But this text is required for its literal meaning? If that were all, Scripture could say simply “at the [appointed] time.”
  What then is implied by “their times”? A large number of times! But [the expression ‘their’ times’] is still required to indicate that the time of one is not the same as the time of the other? If so, the verse should have just said, “their time”. Why does it say “their times”? So that you may infer from this all of them.
  But says “numerous times”?   “Their times” is similar to “their time.” Just as “their time” would indicate two [days], so “their times” indicates two [additional days].
  But why not make these the twelfth and thirteenth? For the reason given [elsewhere] by R. Shmuel b. Yitzchak,  that the thirteenth was the time of assembly for all, and no special indication is required for it in the text; so we may say here that the thirteenth day is a time of assembly and no special indication is required for it in the text.
  But why not say that the sixteenth and seventeenth are meant? It is written, “And it shall not pass” (Esther 9:27).
  R. Shmuel b. Nahmani said: The verse says, “As the days on which the Jews had rest from their enemies” (Esther 9:22). “The days” [would have been enough.] “As the days” comes to include the eleventh and the twelfth.
  But say the twelfth and thirteenth? R. Shmuel b. Yitzchak said: The thirteenth was a time of assembly for all, and does not require special indication. But say the sixteenth and the seventeenth? It is written, “And it shall not pass.”
  Why did R. Shmuel b. Nahmani not derive the rule from the phrase “in their times’? He does not accept the distinction [made above between] “time,” “their time” and “their times.”
  And why did R. Shemen b. Abba not derive the rule from the expression “as the days”? He can say to you: This is meant to make the rule apply to future generations.
  Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: This [rule stated in the Mishnah] is the ruling of R. Akiva the anonymous sage who draws the distinction between “time”, “their time” and “their times”, but according to the Sages the Megillah is to be read only on the proper day.
  They objected: “R. Judah said: When [does this rule apply]? When the years are reckon from it, only when the years are properly fixed and Israel reside on their own soil. But today, since we can calculate [the date, the Megillah] is to be read only on the proper day”.
  Now which authority is R. Judah here following? If I say, R. Akiva–even in these days this enactment is valid.
  Rather, it must be according to the Rabbis, and [even according to them] we read [on the other days] at any rate when the years are properly fixed and Israel reside on their own soil!  This is refutation of R. Yohanan.
  There are those who say: Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: This rule follows the ruling of R. Akiva the anonymous authority, but the Sages held that in these days  since people reckon from it, we read it only on the proper day.
  It has also been taught: “R. Judah said: When does this rule apply? When the years are properly fixed and Israel reside upon their own soil, but in these days, since people reckon from it, it is read only on the proper day.”
  R. Ashi noted a contradiction between two statements of R. Judah,
  
  Daf 2b
  
  and therefore attributed the statement in the baraita to R. Yose son of R. Judah. 
  [He said]: Can R. Judah really have said that in these days, since people reckon from it, it is read only on the proper day?  And this is contradicted by the following: R. Judah said,  When [do they push forward the reading]? In places where the villagers go to town on Monday and Thursday; but in places where they do not go to town on Monday and Thursday, it is read only on the proper day.
  In any case, in places where they do go to town on Monday and Thursday it is read [on the earlier dates] even in these times? He accordingly ascribed the statement in the baraita to R. Yose son of R. Judah.
  And just because he finds a contradiction between two statements of R. Judah, he ascribe the baraitha to R. Jose son of R. Judah?
  R. Ashi had heard that some transmit the statement in the name of R. Judah and some transmit it in the name of R. Yose son of R. Judah, and to avoid making R. Judah contradict himself he said that  the one who ascribed the statement to R. Judah was not [reporting] accurately, while the one who ascribed it to R. Yose son of Judah was [reporting] accurately.
  Cities which have been walled since the days of Joshua son of Nun read on the fifteenth. From where is this ruling derived? Rava said: Because Scripture says, “Therefore do the Jews of the villages that dwell in the unwalled towns, etc.” (Esther 9:19) Since the villages [are to read] on the fourteenth, the walled towns [must read] on the fifteenth.
  But why not say that the villages [should read] on the fourteenth, and those in walled towns not at all? But are they not also Israelites?  And moreover is it not written, From India into Ethiopia (Esther 1:1)?
  But why not say that the villages [should read] on the fourteenth and those in walled towns on both the fourteenth and fifteenth, as it is written, “That they should keep the fourteenth day of the month of Adar and the fifteenth day of the same yearly?” (Esther 9:21).
  the text had said, “the fourteenth day and the fifteenth” you would have been right. Now, however, that it is written “the fourteenth day and [ve’et] the fifteenth — the et comes and makes a distinction,  so that the one set is on the fourteenth and the other set on the fifteenth.
  But why not say that  the unwalled cities are on the fourteenth, and the walled cities can [celebrate] if they like on the fourteenth or if they like on the fifteenth? The verse says, “In their times” (Esther 9:31) the time of one is not the same as the time of the other.
  But why not say that they should celebrate on the thirteenth? [They must do] as Shushan.  
  We have accounted for the celebration [of Purim]; how do we know that the reading [of the Megillah must be on these days]? The verse says, “And these days should be remembered and kept” (Esther 9:28). “Remembering” is compared to “keeping.”
  Our Mishnah is not like the view of the following Tanna, as it has been taught: R. Joshua b. Korha says: Cities which have been walled since the days of Ahashverosh read on the fifteenth.”.
  What is the reason of R. Joshua b. Korha? [They must be] like Shushan: just as Shushan has been walled since the days of Ahashverosh and reads on the fifteenth, so every city that has been walled since the days of Ahashverosh reads on the fifteenth.
  What then is the reason of our Tanna? He draws an analogy between the two occurrences of the word perazi [villagers]. It is written here, “Therefore the Jews of the villages [haperazim],” and it is written in another place, “Beside the unwalled [haperazi] towns, a great many (Deuteronomy 3:5); just as there the reference is to towns which were [not] walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun, so here the reference is to towns which were [not] walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun.
  I can understand why R. Joshua b. Korha did not adopt the view of our Tanna; he does not accept the analogy of perazi and perazi.  But why does not our Tanna accept the view of R. Joshua b. Korha?
  [You ask] why does he not?  Why, because he draws the analogy of perazi with perazi, of course! What he really meant to ask was this: [On the view of our Tanna], whom did Shushan follow? It followed neither the villages nor the walled towns!
  Rava, or, some say, Kadi said:  Shushan was an exception, because a miracle was performed in it.
  We can understand according to the view of our Tanna, for that is why it is written, “city and city, town and town” (Esther 9:28) “city and city” to distinguish between those which were walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun and those which were walled in the days of Ahashverosh; “town and town” likewise to distinguish between Shushan and other towns.
  But according to R. Joshua b. Korha, it is true we can account for “city and city”, to distinguish between Shushan and other cities, but what is the purpose of “town and town”?
  R.Joshua b. Korha could answer: And can our Tanna explain the words satisfactorily? Since he draws the analogy between perazi and perazi, why do we require the words “city and city”? The truth is that the text is there for a midrash, and to teach the rule of R.Joshua b. Levi.  For R. Joshua b. Levi said: “A city and all that adjoins it and all that is taken in by the eye with it is reckoned as city.”
  Up to what distance? —  R. Jeremiah, or you may also say R. Hiyya b. Abba, said: As far as from Hamtan to Tiberias, which is a mil. Why not say [simply] a mil? It teaches us what is the measure of a mil—as far as from Hamtan to Tiberias.
  And R. Jeremiah — or you may also say R. Hiyya b. Abba —said: The [alternative forms of the] letters M’N’Z’P’K were prescribed by the Watchmen.
  Do you really think so? Is it not written,  “These are the commandments” (Leviticus 27:34) which implies that no prophet is permitted to introduce anything new afterwards? And further R.Hisda has said: The mem and the samekh in the Tablets 
  
  Daf 3a
  
  remained in place by a miracle. 
  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.
  But when all is said and done, [we have the text] “These are the commandments” which implies that no prophet was destined ever to introduce an innovation hereafter? Rather, they forgot them and then they went back and reestablished them.
  Jeremiah — or some say R. Hiyya b. Abba — also said:  The Targum of the Torah was composed by Onkelos the convert under the guidance of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua. The Targum of the Prophets was composed by Jonathan ben Uzziel under the guidance of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, and the land of Israel [thereupon] quaked over an area of four hundred parasangs by four hundred parasangs,  and a Heavenly Voice came out and exclaimed, “Who is this that has revealed My secrets to mankind?” 
  Jonathan b. Uzziel stood up and said: “It is I who have revealed Your secrets to mankind.  It is fully known to You that I have not done this for my own honor or for the honor of my father’s house, but for Your honor l have done it, that disputes may not increase in Israel.”
  He wanted to reveal [by] a targum [the inner meaning] of the Writing, but a Heavenly Voice went forth and said, Enough! What was the reason? — Because the date of the Messiah is foretold in it.
  But did Onkelos the convert compose the Targum to the Pentateuch?  Did not R. Ika said in the name of R. Hananel in the name of Rav: What is meant by the verse, “And they read in the book, in the law of God, with an interpretation and they gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading?” (Nehemiah 8:8): “And they read in the book, in the law of God”: this refer to the [Hebrew] text; “with an interpretation”: this refers to Targum; “And they gave the sense” this refers to the verse stops; “And caused them to understand the reading”: this refers to the accent marks, or, according to another version, 
  the massoretic notes? They forgot them and went back and established them.
  Why did the land not not quake because of the [translation of the] Torah, while it did quake because of that of the Prophets The meaning of the Torah is expressed clearly, but the meaning of the Prophets is in some things expressed clearly and in others enigmatically. [For instance,] it is written, “In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon” (Zechariah 12:11) and R. Joseph said:
  Were it not for the targum of this verse, we should not know what it means. [The Targum (in Aramaic) is as follows]: ‘On that day shall there be great mourning in Jerusalem like the mourning of Ahab son of Omri who was killed by Hadadrimmon son of Rimmon in Ramot Gilead and like the mourning of Josiah son of Ammon who was killed by Pharaoh the Lame in the plain of Megiddo.”
  “And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision; for the men that were with me saw not the vision; but a great quaking fell upon them, and they fled to hide themselves” (Daniel 10:7). Who were these “men”? Jeremiah — or some say, R. Hiyya b. Abba — said:  These were Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.
  They were superior to him [in one way], and he was superior to them [in another].  They were superior to him, because they were prophets and he was not a prophet. He was superior to them, because he saw [on this occasion] and they did not see.
  But if they did not see, why were they frightened? Although they themselves did not see, their star saw.
  Ravina said: We learn from this that if a man is seized with fright though he sees nothing, [the reason is that] his star sees. What is his remedy?  He should recite the Shema. If he is in a place which is foul, he should move away from it four cubits. If he cannot do this, he should say this formula: “The goat at the butcher’s is fatter than I am.”
  Now that you have said that the words “city and city, town and town” are there for a derashah, what is the purpose of the words “family and family” [in the same verse]?. Yose b. Hanina replied: This refers to the families of the priests and Levites, that they should stop their [Temple] service in order to come and hear the reading of the Megillah.
  For so said R. Judah in the name of Rav: The Priests at their [Temple] service, the Levites on their platform, the Israelites at their station — all stop their service in order to hear the reading of the Megillah.
  It has also been taught: Priests at their [Temple] service, Levites on their platform, Israelites at their station — all stop their service in order to come and hear the reading of the Megillah. From this the members of the house of Rabbi relied that they were to stop the study of Torah in order to come and hear the reading of the Megillah. They argued a fortiori from the case of the [Temple] service.  If the Temple service, which is so important, may be abandoned, how much more the study of the Torah?
  But is the [Temple] service more important than the study of the Torah? Surely it is written, “And it came to pass when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold there stood a man over against him, . . . and he fell on his face” (Joshua 5:13).
  Now how could he do such a thing, seeing that R. Joshua b. Levi has said that  it is forbidden for a person to greet another by night, for fear that he is a demon? It was different there, because he said to him, “I am captain of the host of the Lord.” 
  But perhaps he was lying? We have learned a tradition that they do not utter the name of heaven vainly.
  He said to him: This evening you neglected the regular afternoon sacrifice, and now you have neglected the study of the Torah.  Joshua replied:  For which of them did you come? He answered: I have come now. Straightway, “Joshua spent that night in the midst of the valley [ha-emek]” (Joshua 8:9), and R. Yohanan said:
  
  Daf 3b
  
  his shows that he spent the night in the depths [omkah] of the halakhah. And R. Shmuel b. Unia also said:  he study of the Torah is greater than the offering of the daily sacrifices, as it says, “I have come now.”
  There is no contradiction; in the one case [the study] of an individual is meant, in the other that of the whole people.
  But is that of an individual unimportant? Have we not learned: Women [when mourning] on a festival may make a dirge but they do not beat their chests. R. Ishmael says: If they are near the bier, they can beat their chests. On Rosh Hodesh, Hanukkah and Purim they may make a dirge and beat their chests, but on neither the one nor the other do they wail.
  And in reference to this, Rabbah b. Huna said: The festival involves no mourning restrictions in the case of a scholar, still less Hanukkah and Purim.
  You are speaking of the honor to be paid to the Torah. The honor to be paid to the learning of an individual is important, the study of an individual is less important.
  Rava said: There is no question in my mind that, as between the Temple service and the reading of the Megillah, the reading of the Megillah takes priority, for the reason given by R. Yose b. Hanina. As between the study of the Torah and the reading of the Megillah, the reading of the Megillah takes priority, since the members of the house of Rabbi based themselves [on the statement of R. Yose].
  As between the study of the Torah and attending to a met mitzvah, attending to a met mitzvah takes precedence, since it has been taught: The study of the Torah may be neglected in order to take out a dead body or to bring a bride to the canopy. As between the Temple service and attending to a met mitzvah, attending to a met mitzvah takes precedence, 
  as we learn from (the verse) “or for his sister” as it has been taught: “Or for his sister” (Numbers 6:7). What is Scripture saying? Suppose he was on his way to slaughter his pesah sacrifice or to circumcise his son, and he heard that a near relative had died, shall I assume that he should defile himself?
  You should say, he should not defile himself. Shall I assume then that, just as he does not defile himself for his sister, so he should not defile himself for a met mitzvah?   It says, “or for his sister,” it is for his sister that he may not defile himself, but he may defile himself for a met mitzvah.
  Rava asked: Is between the reading of the Megillah and [attending to] a met mitzvah, which takes precedence? Shall I say that the reading of the Megillah takes precedence in order to publicize the miracle, or does perhaps [the burying of] the met mitzvah take precedence because of the respect due to human beings? After he asked the question, he himself answered it saying, Burying] the met mitzvah takes precedence, since a Master has said: Great is the [obligation to pay due] respect to human beings, since it overrides a negative precept of the Torah.
  The text [above states]: R. Joshua b. Levi said: A city and all that is next to it and all that is visible with it is reckoned as city. It was taught: Adjoining, even if it is not visible, and visible even if it is not adjoining.
  Now we understand what is meant by visible even though not adjoining: this can occur for instance with a city situated on the top of a hill. But how can there be adjoining but not visible? Jeremiah said: If it is situated in a valley.
  Joshua b. Levi said: A city which was first settled and then walled is reckoned as a village. What is the reason? Because it is written, “And if a man sells a dwelling house of a walled city” (Leviticus 25:29), one, [that is,] which was first walled and then settled, but not first settled and then walled.
  And R. Joshua b. Levi said: A city in which there are not ten men of leisure is reckoned as a village. What does he tell us? We have already learned this: What is a large town? One in which there are ten men of leisure. If there are fewer than this, it is reckoned as a village. He had to point out that the rule applies to a city, even though [leisured] people come there from outside.
  Joshua b. Levi also said: A city which has been laid waste and afterwards settled is reckoned as a city. What is meant by “laid waste”?  If you say, that its walls have been destroyed, in which case if it became settled it is reckoned as a city but otherwise not? But has it not been taught: R. Elazar son of R. Yose says: [The text says], “which has a wall” [which implies that it is to be reckoned as a city] even though it does not have a wall now, provided it had one previously?
  Rather, What then is meant by “laid waste”? Laid waste of its ten men of leisure.
  Joshua b. Levi further said:
  
  Daf 4a
  
  Lod and Ono and Ge’ Haharashim were walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun.
  But was it Joshua who built these? Was it not Elpaal who built them, as it is written, “And the sons of Elpaal Ever and Misham and Shemed, who built Ono and Lod, with the towns there of?” (I Chronicles 8:12). But according to your reading Asa built them, as it is written, “And he built fenced cities in Judah?” (II Chronicles 14:5).
  Elazar said: These places were walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun. They were laid waste in the days of the concubine of Gibea, and Elpaal came and rebuilt them. They again fell, and Asa came and repaired them.
  There is an indication of this in a precise reading of the text, as it is written, “For he said unto Judah, Let us build these cities” (II Chronicles 14:6). From this we can infer that they had already been towns beforehand; learn from this.
  Joshua b. Levi also said: Women are obligated to read the Megillah, since they were also part of the same miracle. Joshua b. Levi further said: If Purim falls on Shabbat, they ask questions and they offer derashot on the subject of the day.
  Why specify Purim? The same rule applies to festivals also, as it has been taught:  Moses established for all of Israel that they should ask questions and offer derashot on the subject of the day — the laws of Pesah on Pesah, the laws of Shavuot on Shavuot, and the laws of Sukkot on Sukkot!
  It was necessary to state the rule [separately] in the case of Purim.  For you might suggest that we should forbid this because of the prohibition of Rabbah. We are therefore told that this is not so.
  Joshua b. Levi further said: One must read the Megillah in the evening and repeat it in the day, as it is written, “O my God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not answer, and in the night and I have no rest” (Psalms 22:3).
  They thought this means that t hey should read the Megillah at night, and teach the Mishnah [about it] in the morning. Jeremiah said to them: It has been explained to me by R. Hiyya b. Abba [that the word “repeat” here has the same meaning] as when, for instance, people say,  I will go through this section and repeat it.
  It has also been stated: R. Helbo said in the name of Ulla of Biri:  One must read the Megillah in the evening and repeat it in the day, as it says, “To the end that my glory may sing praise to you and not be silent. O Lord, my God, I will give thanks to thee forever” (Psalms 30:13).
  The villages, however, may push the reading forward to the day of gathering. Hanina said:  The sages were lenient on the villages by allowing them to push the reading forward to the day of gathering, in order that they might provide food and water to their brothers in the cities.
  
  
  Daf 4b
  
  That is to say this enactment is for the benefit of the cities; but we have not learned: “If Purim falls on Monday, the villages and large towns read on that day.” Now if it is as you say, they should push the reading forward to the [previous] Court day? This would bring it to the tenth,  and the sages did not fix the tenth [as a possible day].
  Come and hear: If it falls on Thursday, the villages and large towns read on that same day. Now if it is as you say, they should push the reading forward to the [previous] day of gathering which is the eleventh? .We do not shift it from day of gather to another.
  Come and hear [again]: R. Judah says: When [is the reading pushed forward]? In places where the villagers come into town on Mondays and Thursdays, but in places where they do not come into town on Mondays and Thursdays it is read only on the proper day. Now if you assume that the regulation is for the benefit of the cities, because they do not come into town on Mondays and Thursdays; are the cities to be deprived of the benefit?
  Do not say [in the statement of R. Hanina] “in order that they may provide food and water” rather say, “because they provide food and water to their brothers in the cities.”
  How [does this work out]? If it falls on Monday, villages and larger towns read on that same day etc. Why is it that in the first clause of the Mishnah the dates of the month are mentioned and in the second the days of the week?
  Since the dates of the month would have to go backwards, the Mishnah prefers to mention the days.
  If it falls on Friday etc. Whom does our Mishnah follow? [You may say], either Rabbi or R. Yose.
  What [source refers to] Rabbi? — As it has been taught: If it falls on Friday, villages and large towns push the reading forward to the day of gathering, and walled cities read on the day itself.  Rabbi said: I say that towns should not have to shift their date, but both one and the other read on the day itself.
  What is the reason of the first opinion? Because it is written, “Every year”: just as every year towns read before walled cities, so in this case towns should read before walled cities.
  But why not say:  “In every year” just as every year towns do not have to shift their date, so here towns should not have to shift their date? This is different because it is not possible.
  What is Rabbi’s reason? “In every year”: just as in most years the towns have not to shift their date, so here they should not have to shift their date.
  But why not reason thus: “In every year”: just as in most years towns read before walled cities, so here towns should read before walled cities? This is different because it is not possible.
  What source is R. Yose? As it has been taught: If it falls on Friday, walled cities and villages push the reading forward to the day of gathering, and large towns read on the day itself. Yose said: Walled cities do not read before towns, but both read on the day itself.
  What is the reason of the first opinion? For its written,  Because it is written, “every year”: just as every year towns read on the fourteenth and their time is not the same as the time of the walled cities, so here towns should read on the fourteenth and their time should not be the same as the time of the walled cities.
  But why not say: “Every year”: just as in most years walled cities do not read before towns, so here walled cities should not read before towns? This case is different, because it cannot be avoided.
  What is R. Yose’s reason? [It says], “every year”: just as every years walled cities do not read before towns, so too here walled cities should not read before towns.
  But why not say: “Every year”: just as every year the time of one is not the same as the time of the other, so here the time of one should not be the same as the time of the other? Here the case is different, because it cannot be avoided.
  But did Rabbi really hold that towns should not shift their time to the day of gathering? Has it not been taught: If it falls on Shabbat, villages push the reading forward to the day of gathering, and large towns read on Friday and walled cities on Sunday. Rabbi said: I say that, since the towns have to shift their time, they may as well shift it to the day of gathering?
  How now! There, the proper time is Shabbat, and since they must shift they can shift [further];  but here the proper time is Friday.
  Whose authority does R. Helbo in the name of R. Huna follow: If Purim falls on Shabbat, all shift their reading to the day of gathering? All shift their reading, do you really think? But aren’t there the walled cities which read on the Sunday? Rather [say]:  All who shift [their readings] shifted to the day of gathering. According to whom? — According to Rabbi.
  But at any rate all agree that the Megillah is not to be read on Shabbat. What is the reason?  Rabbah said: All are obligated to read the Megillah, but not all are competent to read it, and there is therefore a decree [not to read on Shabbat] lest one take the scroll in his hand and go to an expert to learn and [in doing so] carry it four cubits in a public domain.
  This is also the reason for [not blowing] the shofar on Shabbat and [for not carrying] the lulav.
  Joseph said: Because the poor are anxiously awaiting the reading of the Megillah. It has also been taught in a baraita: Although they said that villages push the reading forward to the day of gathering, contributions are collected and distributed on the same day.
  “Although they said”! On the contrary, it is because they said! Rather: Read therefore: Since they said that villages push the reading forward to the day of gathering, contributions are collected and distributed on the same day, because the poor are waiting anxiously for the reading of the Megillah, but 
  
  Daf 5a
  
  rejoicing is observed only at the proper time.
  Rav said: The Megillah, in its proper time, can be read even by an individual; Rav Asi said: But [when read] not in its proper time, it should be read only in a company of ten. Such a case actually occurred and Rav gave consideration to the opinion of R. Asi
  But did Rav actually say this? Did not R. Judah the son of R. Shmuel b. Shilat say in the name of Rav: If Purim falls on Shabbat, Friday is the proper time? Friday is the proper time! Surely Shabbat is the proper time! What Rav must have meant is this: The alternative time is like the proper time. Just as at the proper time [the Megillah may be read] by an individual, so at the alternative time [it may be read] by an individual.
  No. For the reading of the Megillah Rav requires ten. What then did he mean by saying “Friday is the proper time”? His was rejecting the opinion of Rabbi, who said that since the towns had to shift their time they should shift to the day of gathering. Therefore Rav teaches us that Friday is the proper day [to which they should shift].
  What is considered a large town?  One which has in it ten idle men. One that has fewer is considered a village.
  In respect of these they said that they should be moved up but not postponed. But with regard to the bringing the wood for the priests, the [fast of] Tisha B’Av, the hagigah, and assembling the people they postpone [until after Shabbat] and they do not move them up.
  Although they said that they should be moved up but not postponed, it is permissible to mourn, to fast, and to distribute gifts to the poor [on these earlier days]. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? In a place where people gather on Mondays and Thursdays, but in places where people do not gather on Mondays and Thursdays, the Megillah is read only on its proper day.
  Gemara. [Ten men of leisure]: A Tanna taught:  The ten men of leisure who are in the synagogue.
  With regard to these they said that they should be pushed forward but not postponed. What is the reason? Abba said in the name of Shmuel: The text says, “And it shall not pass” (Esther 9:27).
  And R. Abba said in the name of Shmuel: From where do we know that years are not to be counted by days? Because it says, “Of the months of the year” (Exodus 12:2) [which implies] that you reckon a year by months but not by days.
  The Rabbis of Caesarea said in the name of R. Abba:  How do we know that a month is not reckoned by its hours? Because it says, “Until a month of days” (Numbers 11:20): You reckon a month by days, but you do not reckon a month by hours.
  But with regard to the bringing the wood for the priests, the [fast of] Tisha B’Av, the hagigah (the festival sacrifice), and assembling the people they postpone [until after Shabbat] and they do not move them up. [The reason for the Fast of] Tisha B’av is that we do not hasten the approach of punishment. [The reason for] the festival sacrifice and the assembling of the people is that the time for their obligation has not yet arrived.
  A Tanna taught: The festival sacrifice and all the period of the festival sacrifice is postponed. We understand what is meant by the festival sacrifice, that if it falls on Shabbat we postpone it till after Shabbat. But what is meant by the “period of the festival sacrifice”?
  R. Oshaya said: This is what he meant:  The festival sacrifice [is postponed if its time] occurs on Shabbat, and the “burnt-offering of appearance” is postponed even until after the festival day which is the proper time for a festival sacrifice.
  Whom does this follow? Bet Shammai, as we have learned: Beth Shammai say: Offerings of wellbeing may be brought on the festival, but without laying on of hands; but not burnt-offerings; while Beth Hillel say: 
  Both burnt-offerings and offerings of wellbeing may be brought, and hands may be laid on.
  Rava said: The meaning is]: The festival sacrifice may be postponed for the whole period of the festival sacrifice, but not more,  as we have learned If one did not bring a festival sacrifice on the first day of the festival, he may go on to do so throughout the festival, including the last day.  If the festival passed without his having brought the festival sacrifice, he need not bring another in compensation.
  R. Ashi said: [It means that] the festival sacrifice may be postponed for the whole period of the festival sacrifice, and even on Shavuot which is only one day, it may be postponed [for seven days],  as we have learned: [Beth Hillel] agree that if Shavuot falls on Shabbat, the day for killing [the sacrifice] is after Shabbat.
  R. Elazar said in the name of R. Hanina: Rabbi planted a sapling on Purim, 
  
  Daf 5b
  
  and bathed in the [bathhouse of the] marketplace of Tzippori on the seventeenth of Tammuz and sought to abolish the fast of Tisha B’av, but his colleagues would not consent.
  Abba b. Zavda said in front of him: Rabbi, this was not the case. Rather, what happened was that Tisha B’av [on that year] fell on Shabbat, and they postponed it till after Sabbath, and he said to them, Since it has been postponed, let it be postponed altogether, but the Sages would not agree. He thereupon applied to himself the verse: Better are two than one (Ecclesiastes 4:9).
  But how could Rabbi have planted a sapling on Purim? Has not R. Joseph taught: [We read in connection with Purim] rejoicing and feasting and a good day; “Rejoicing”:  this teaches that it is forbidden on these days to mourn; “Feasting”: this teaches that it is forbidden on them to fast; “A good day”: this teaches that it is forbidden on them to work. Rather Rabbi was from a place which kept Purim on the fourteenth, and when he planted, it was on the fifteenth.
  Is this so? But Rabbi was in Tiberias, and Tiberias was walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun? Rather Rabbi was in a place which kept on the fifteenth, and when he planted it was the fourteenth.
  But was he certain that Tiberias was walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun. But didn’t Hezekiah read the Megillah in Tiberias both on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth, being uncertain whether it had been walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun or not? Hezekiah was in doubt, but Rabbi was certain.
  But was he so certain that this was permitted, seeing that it is written in Megillat Ta’anit: “The fourteenth day and the fifteenth day are the days of Purim on which there is to be no mourning” and 
  Rava said, The only purpose of mentioning these days [in Megillath Ta’anith] was to make whatever is forbidden on the one forbidden on the other also? This applies only to mourning and fasting, but for work one day and no more.
  Is that so? Did not Rav see a man planting flax on Purim, and curse him, so that the flax did not grow? There he [the man] was doing it on the day which he ought to have kept.
  Rabbah the son of Rava said. [The Jews] accepted upon themselves [in the days of Esther] to abstain from mourning and fasting, but not from work.
   Since first it is written, “Rejoicing and feasting and a good day” (Esther 8:17) but afterwards it is written, “That they should make them days of feasting and rejoicing” (Esther 9:22), whereas “a good day” is not written.
  Why then did Rav curse that man? “Things which are permitted but others make a practice of abstaining from them”: but in Rabbi’s place this was not the practice
  Or if you want I can say that they did in fact make a practice of this, and Rabbi planted a festive sapling, as we have learned If these days pass and they are still not answered, they lessen their business, building and planting, betrothing and marrying.
  And a Tanna taught about this: “Building” here means festive building; “planting” means festive planting. What is festive building? This is one who builds a wedding residence for his son [on the occasion of his marriage]. What is a festive planting? This is one who plants an abarnaki such as is used by kings.
  The text [above state]: Hezekiah read in Tiberias on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth, being doubtful whether it had been walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun or not. But could he have been in doubt about Tiberias. Is it not written, “And the fortified cities were Ziddim-zer and Hamath and Rakat and Kinnereth” (Joshua 19:5), and it has been established that Rakat is Tiberias? The reason why he was doubtful was because one side is bounded by the lake.
  If so, why was he in doubt? This is certainly not a wall, as it has been taught: “Which has a wall” (Leviticus 25:30) and not merely a fence of houses. “Round about”: this excludes Tiberias, whose sea is its wall.
  With regard to the houses of a walled town he was not in doubt; where he was in doubt was with regard to reading the Megillah. [He asked]: What constitutes the difference between villages (perazim) and walled towns which are mentioned in connection with the reading of the Megillah? Is it that the former are exposed and the latter are not exposed, [in which case] Tiberias [belongs to the former] being also exposed, or is it that the latter are protected and the former are not protected, [in which case] Tiberias [belongs to the latter], being protected? That was why he was in doubt.
  Assi read the Megillah in Huzal on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth, being in doubt whether it had been walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun or not. There are those who say R. Assi said:  Huzal of the house of Benjamin was walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun.
  R. Yohanan said: When I was a boy, I said something which I afterwards questioned the old men about,
  
  Daf 6a
  
  and it was found that I was right:  [I said:] Hamat is Tiberias. And why was it called Hamat? On account of the hot springs [hammei] of Tiberias. Rakat is Tzippori. And why was it called Rakat? Because it slopes down like the bank [rakta] of a river. Kinnereth is Ginosar. And why was it called Kinneret? Because its fruits are sweet like the music of a harp [kinnor].
  Rava said:  Is there anyone who can maintain that Rakat is not Tiberias.  But when a person dies here [in Babylonia] they mourn for him there [in Tiberias] as follows:  “Great was he in Sheshach and he has a name in Rakat”, and when the coffin is taken there they mourn for him thus: “You lovers of the remnants, dwellers in Rakat, go forth and receive the slaughtered of the depths.”
  When R. Zera died, a certain eulogizer opened his eulogy thus: “The land of Shinar conceived and bore him, the beauteous land brought up her delight. Woe to me, says Rakat, for her precious instrument is lost.”
  Rather Rava said: Hamat is the hot springs of Gerar; Rakat is Tiberias; and Kinnereth is Ginosar. Why is it called Rakat? Because even the least worthy of its inhabitants (rekanim) are full of mitzvot like a pomegranate. R. Jeremiah said: Rakat is its proper name. And why is it called Tiberias? Because it is situated in the very center (tabor) of the land of Israel. Rabbah said:  Rakat is its name. And why is it called Tiberias? Because its appearance is good (tovah).
  Zeira said: Kitron is Tzippori. And why is it called Tzippori? Because it is perched on the top of a mountain like a bird [tzippor].
  But is Kitron Tzippori? Now Kitron was in the territory of Zevulun, as it is written, “Zevulun did not inherit the inhabitants of Kitron or the inhabitants of Nahalol” (Judges 1:30). Now Zevulun complained of his portion, as it says, “Zevulun was a people which shamed his soul to death” (Judges 5:18). Why? Because “Naphtali was on the high places of the field” (ibid). 
  Zevulun complained to the Holy One, blessed be he, saying: Master of the Universe!  You gave my brothers fields and vineyards and to me you gave hills and mountains. You gave my brothers lands, and to me You gave lakes and rivers. [God] replied: They will all require you for the hilazon, as it says, “And the hidden treasures of the sand” (Deuteronomy 33:19).
  And R. Joseph taught: “Hidden”—this is the hilazon; “treasures” this is the tunny fish; “Sand” this is white glass.  Zevulun then said: Master of the Universe, who will inform me? He replied: “There they shall offer sacrifices of righteousness” (ibid). This shall be your sign: Whoever takes from you without payment will not prosper in his business.
  Now if you assume that Kitron is Tzippori, why did Zevulun complain of his portion, seeing that Tzippori is an even better place? And if you were to say that it is not “flowing with milk and honey,” Resh Lakish has said: I myself have seen the flowing of milk and honey around Tzippori, and it is sixteen miles by sixteen miles.
  And if you were to say that  [even so] his is not as good as his brothers, Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: I myself have seen the flowing of milk and honey of the whole land of Israel, and it extends [altogether] about as far as from Be Kubi to the Fort of Tulbanke, twenty-two parasangs in length and six parasangs in breadth?
  Even so, he preferred fields and vineyards.  This is also indicated by the language of the text, as it says, “Naphtali upon the high places of the field.” This is a proof.
  R. Abbahu said: “Ekron shall be rooted up” (Zephaniah 2:4); this is Caesarea the daughter of Edom, which is situated among the sands, and which was a thorn in the side of Israel in the days of the Greeks. When the House of the Hasmoneans grew powerful and conquered them, they called it “The capture of the tower of Shir.”
  R. Yose b. Hanina said: What is meant by what is written, “And I will take away his blood out of his mouth and his detestable things from between his teeth, and he also shall be a remnant for our God?” (Zechariah 9:7). “And I will take away his blood out of his mouth”: this refers to their sacrificial shrines.“ And his detestable things from between his teeth”: this refers to their oracles. “And he also shall be a remnant for our God”: these are the synagogues and houses of learning in Edom.
  “And he shall be as a chief in Judah, and Ekron as a Jebusite” (ibid): these are the theatres and circuses in Edom in which one day the chieftains of Judah shall publicly teach the Torah.
  R. Yitzchak said: “Ekron shall be rooted out”: this is Caesarea, the daughter of Edom, which was a metropolis of kings. There are those who say that this means that kings were brought up there. And there are those that say that kings were appointed from there.
  Caesarea and Jerusalem [are rivals]. If one says to you that  both are destroyed, do not believe him; if he says that both are flourishing, do not believe him; if he says that Caesarea is waste and Jerusalem is flourishing, or that Jerusalem is waste and Caesarea is flourishing, you may believe him, as it says, “I shall be filled, she is laid waste” (Ezekiel 26:2); if this one is filled, that one is laid waste, and if that one is filled, this one is laid waste.
  R. Nahman b. Yitzchak derived the same lesson from here: “And the one nation shall be stronger than the other nation” (Genesis 25:23).
  R. Yitzchak also said: What is the meaning of what is written, “Let favor be shown to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness” (Isaiah 26:10)? Isaac said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the Universe, let mercy be shown to Esau. He replied: He is wicked. He said to Him: “He has not learned righteousness.” He replied: “In the land of uprightness will he deal wrongfully” (Isaiah 26:10). He said: If so, “Let him not behold the majesty of the Lord” (Isaiah 26:10).
  R. Yitzchak also said: What is meant by the verse, “Grant not, O Lord, the desires of the wicked man, do not further his plot, lest they exalt themselves, selah (Psalms 140:9)? Jacob said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the Universe, grant not to Esau the wicked the desire of his heart, do not further his plot: 
  
  Daf 6b
  
  this refers to Germania of Edom, for should they but go forth they would destroy the whole world.
  R. Hama b. Hanina said: There are three hundred crowned heads in Germania of Edom and three hundred and sixty-five chieftains in Rome,  and every day one goes out to meet the other and one of them is killed, and they have all the trouble of appointing a king again.
  R. Yitzchak also said: If one says to you, I have toiled and not found, do not believe him. If he says, I have not toiled but still have found, do not believe him. If he says, I have toiled and found, believe him.
  This is true in respect of words of Torah, but in respect of business, all depends on the assistance of heaven. And even for words of Torah this is true only of penetrating to the meaning, but for remembering what one has learnt, all depends on the assistance of heaven.
  R. Yitzchak also said: If you see a wicked man being favored by fortune, do not contend with him, as it says, “Do not contend with evildoers” (Psalms 37:1). Moreover, he will prosper, as it says, “His ways prosper at all times” (Psalms 10:5). Moreover, but he may even be declared right, as it says, “Your judgements are far above out of his sight.” Moreover, he may even triumph over his enemies, as it says, “As for all his adversaries, he hisses at them.”
  Is this so? But did not R. Yohanan say in the name of R. Shimon b. Yohai: It is permitted to contend with the wicked in this world, as it says, “They that forsake the law praise the wicked, but such as keep the law contend with them” (Proverbs 28:4).  Also it has been taught: R. Dostai b. Maton says: It is permitted to contend with the wicked in this world. And if one should whisper to you saying, “Do not contend with evildoers, neither be envious against those that do acts of unrighteousness,” one whose conscience smites him is saying this. 
  Rather, the meaning is, “Do not contend with the evildoer” to be like evildoers, “Neither be envious of those that do acts of unrighteousness”  and so it says also, “Let your heart not be envious of sinners” (Proverbs 23:17)?
  There is no contradiction; the one [piece of advice] refers to one’s own affairs the other to religious matters.
  Or if you like I may say that both refer to one’s own affairs, and still there is no contradiction: the one is addressed to one who is wholly righteous, and the other to one who is not wholly righteous,  as R. Huna said: What is the meaning of the verse, “Why do you look upon those who deal treacherously, and are silent when the wicked swallows up the man that is more righteous than he?” (Habbakuk 1:13). He can swallow up one that is more righteous than himself, he cannot swallow up one that is completely righteous.
  Or if you like I can say that  when fortune is smiling on him, the case is different.
  Ulla said: Greek Italy is the great city of Rome  which covers an area of three hundred parasangs by three hundred. It has three hundred and sixty five markets corresponding to the number of days of the solar year. The smallest of them is that of the poultry sellers, which is sixteen mil by sixteen. The king dines every day in one of them. 
  Everyone who resides in the city, even if he was not born there, receives a regular portion of food from the king’s household, and so does everyone who was born there, even if he does not reside there. There are three thousand baths in it, and five hundred windows let smoke out of the walls. One side of it is bounded by the sea, one side by hills and mountains, one side by a barrier of iron, and one side by pebbly ground and swamp.
  If they read the Megillah during the first Adar and the year was intercalated (a month was added), it is read again in the second Adar. There is no difference between the first Adar and the second Adar except the reading of the Megillah and the giving of gifts to the poor.
  GEMARA. This [last statement] implies that with regard to the special portions they are the same.
  Whom does the Mishnah follow? Neither the First Tanna nor R. Eliezer son of R. Yose nor R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, as it has been taught:  If they read the Megillah in the first Adar and the year was then intercalated they read in the second Adar, since all the mitzvot which are to be performed in the second Adar are performed in the first, except the reading of the Megillah.
  R. Eliezer son of R. Yose says that it is not to be read [again] in the second Adar, because all mitzvot that are to be performed in the second Adar may be performed in the first.
  R. Shimon b. Gamaliel says in the name of R. Yose that it is to be read again in the second, because all mitzvot which are to be performed in the second Adar may not be performed in the first. They all however agree in regard to mourning and fasting, that they are forbidden on [the fourteenth and fifteenth of] both.
  Does not R. Shimon b. Gamaliel here say the same thing as the First Tanna? R. Papa said:  They differ on the question of the special portions: the First Tanna holds that  these should ab initio be read in the second [Adar], but if they have been read in the first, it is sufficient, except for the reading of the Megillah, which even though it has been read in the first [Adar], must be read again in the second. R. Eliezer son of R. Yose
  on the other hand held that even the Megillah may be read ab initio in the first [Adar]; And R. Shimon b. Gamaliel held that even the special portions, if they have been read in the first [Adar], must be read again in the second.
  Which authority then [does our Mishnah follow]? If [you say] the First Tanna, there is the difficulty of gifts. If [you say] R. Eliezer son of R. Yose, there is the difficulty of the reading of the Megillah also. If [you say] R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, there is the difficulty of the series of special portions.
  In fact it is the First Tanna: He mentioned the reading of the Megillah, but the same is true for the gifts of the poor, since one depends on the other.
  Or if you want, I can say that in fact it is R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, and there is an omission in our Mishnah and this is what it means: There is no difference between the fourteenth of the first Adar and the fourteenth of the second Adar except for reading the Megillah and gifts to the poor.  From which we infer that in regard to mourning and fasting they are the same,  but it doesn’t mention the special portions.
  R. Hiyya b. Abin said in the name of R. Yohanan: The halakhah follows R. Simon b. Gamaliel, who said it in the name of R. Yose.
  R. Yohanan said: Both of them [R. Shimon and R. Eliezer son of R. Yose] based their opinions on the same text,  In every year.” R. Eliezer son of Yose reasoned: “In every year”; just as in most years Adar is next to Shevat, so too here Adar is next to Shevat. R. Shimon b. Gamaliel reasoned:
  “In every year”; just as in most years Adar is next to Nisan, so to here Adar is next to Nisan.
  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 said: The reason of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel is from what is written: “To confirm this letter of Purim, the second” (Esther 9:29).
  And it was necessary to write
  
  Daf 7a
  
  “the second” and also to write “in every year.” For if I had to base the rule on “every year,” I would have said the difficulty from above: therefore it is written  “second.” And if I had been told only “second,” I might say that the Megillah is properly to be read both in the first and in the second.  Therefore it says, in every year.
  And what does R. Eliezer son of R. Yose do with this “second”? He requires it for the statement of R. Shmuel b. Judah. For R. Shmuel b. Judah said: At first they [Mordecai and Esther] decreed the observance of Purim only in Shushan, but afterwards throughout the world.
  Shmuel b. Judah said: Esther sent to the sages saying:  Establish me for future generations. They replied:  You will incite the jealousy of the nations against us. She sent back reply: I am already recorded in the chronicles of the kings of Medea and Persia.
  Rav and R. Hanina and R. Yohanan and R. Haviva teach [the above statement in this form]: in the whole of the Order Mo’ed, wherever this set of Rabbis is mentioned, R. Yohanan is replaced by R. Jonathan):  Esther sent to the sages saying, “Write an account of me for the ages. They sent back: “Have I not written for you three times” (Proverbs 22:20) — three times and not four?
  [And they refused] until they found a verse written in the Torah, “Write this a memorial in a book” (Exodus 17:14) [which they expounded as follows]: “Write this,” what is written here and in Deuteronomy; “For a memorial,” what is written in the Prophets; “In a book,” what is written in the Megillah.
  This is like the following tannaim. “Write this” what is written here. For a memorial” what is written in Deuteronomy. “In a book,” what is written in the Prophet, the words of R. Joshua. R. Elazar HaModai says:  “Write this,” what is written here and in Deuteronomy; for a memorial,” what is written in the Prophets; “In a book,” what is written in the Megillah.
  Judah said in the name of Shmuel; [The scroll] of Esther does not defile the hands.
  Is that to say that Shmuel was holds that Esther was not said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? But did not Shmuel say that  Esther was said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? It was composed to be recited [by heart], but not to be written.
  They objected: R. Meir says that Kohelet does not defile the hands, and that about the Song of Songs there is a dispute. R. Yose says that the Song of Songs defiles the hands, and about Koheleth there is a difference of opinion. R. Shimon says that Koheleth is one of those matters in regard to which Beth Shammai were lenient and Beth Hillel stringent, but Ruth and the Song of Songs and Esther [certainly] make the hands unclean. Shmuel concurred with R. Joshua.
  It has been taught: R. Shimon b. Menasia said: Koheleth does not defile the hands because it is Solomon’s wisdom. They said to him: Was this then all that he composed? Is it not stated elsewhere, “And he spoke three thousand proverbs,” (I Kings 5:12) and it further says, “Add not unto his words? (Proverbs 30:6).
  Why this further quotation? In case you might object that he composed very much, and what it pleased him to write he wrote and what it did not please him he did not write. Therefore it says, Add not to his words.
  It has been taught: R. Elazar said:  Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “And Haman said in his heart” (Esther 6:6). R. Akiva says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “And Esther obtained favor in the eyes of all that looked upon her” (2:15).
  R. Meir says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “And the thing became known to Mordecai” (2:22). Yose b. Durmaskit said: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “But on the spoil they laid not their hands” (9:10).
  Shmuel said: Had I been there, I would have given a proof superior to all, as it says, “They confirmed and they accepted” (9:26), they confirmed above what they accepted upon themselves below.
  Rava said:  They can all be refuted except that of Shmuel, which cannot be refuted. Against the proof of R. Elazar it may be objected that it is reasonable [to suppose that Haman would think so] because there was no one who was so high in the esteem of the king as he was, and that when he spoke at length [to Ahashverosh], he was only speaking concerning himself.
  Against the proof of R. Akiva it may be objected that [verse should be interpreted like] R. Elazar, who said that these words show that to every man she appeared to belong to his own nation.
  Against the proof of R. Meir it may be objected that perhaps that [verse should be interpreted like] R. Hiyya b. Abba who said  that Bigtan and Teresh were two men from Tarsis.
  Against the proof of R. Jose b. Durmaskith it may be objected that perhaps they sent messengers. Against the proof of Shmuel there is no refutation. Ravina said: This is what people say, Better is one grain of sharp pepper than a basket full of pumpkins.
  R. Joseph said: It can be proved from here: “And these days of Purim shall not fail from among the Jews” (Esther 9:28). R. Nahman b. Isaac said:From here: “Nor the memorial of them cease from their descendants” (Esther 9:28).
  And gifts to the poor. R. Joseph taught: “And sending portions one to another” (Esther 9:22) that means two portions for one man.  “And gifts to the poor” that means two gifts to two men.
  Judah Nesiah sent to R. Oshaia the leg of a third-born calf and a barrel of wine.
  
  Daf 7b
  
  He sent him back word saying, You have fulfilled with us, O our master, the mitzvah of sending portions one to another (and gifts to the poor). 
  Rabbah sent to Mari b. Mar by Abaye a sack full of dates and a cupful of roasted ears of grain. Abaye to him: Mari will now say, “If a countryman becomes a king, he does not take his basket off his neck.”
  He sent back to him a sack full of ginger and a cup full of long-stalked pepper. Abaye said:  Now the Master [Rabbah] will say,  I sent him sweet and he sends me bitter.
  Abaye said: When I went out of the Master’s [Rabbah’s] house, I was already full, but when I reached the other place they set before me sixty dishes of sixty different preparations, and I had sixty pieces from them.  The last preparation was called pot-roast, and [I liked it so much that] I wanted to lick the dish after it.
  Abaye said: This is what people say, The poor man is hungry and does not know it. Or the other saying, There is always room for sweet things.
  Abaye b. Abin and R. Hananiah b. Abin used to exchange their meals with one another.
  Rava said:  One is obligated to become inebriated [with wine] on Purim until he cannot tell the difference between cursed be Haman and blessed be Mordecai.
  Rabbah and R. Zera joined together in a Purim feast. They became inebriated, and Rabbah arose and cut R. Zera’s throat. The next day he prayed on his behalf and revived him. Next year he said: Will the master come and we will have the Purim feast together. He replied: A miracle does not take place on every occasion.
  Rava said: If one eats his Purim feast on the night [of the fourteenth], he does not fulfill his obligation. What is the reason? It is written, “Days of feasting and gladness” (Esther 9:22). R. Ashi was sitting before R. Kahana. It grew late, and still the Rabbis did not arrive.  He said to him:  Why have the Rabbis not yet come? Perhaps they are busy with the Purim feast. He said to him:  Could they not have had it last night? He replied Is the master not familiar with the statement,  “If one eats his Purim feast on the night [of the fourteenth], he does not fulfill his obligation”? He said to him;  Did Rava really say so?  (He replied Yes). He then repeated it after him forty times, until he had safely stored it in his mind.
  Mishnah. There is no difference between festivals and Shabbat except in the matter of [preparing] food.
  Gemara . [We can deduce] that in the matter of preliminaries for preparing food they are the same. 
  The Mishnah does not follow R. Judah, as it has been taught: There is no difference between festivals and Shabbat except in the matter of [preparing] food. R. Judah permits [on the festivals] even the preliminaries for preparing food.
  What is the reason of the First Tanna?  Scripture says: [But that which every man must eat], that only [shall be prepared for you]” (Exodus 12:16): that and not its preliminaries. R. Judah? “For you” (Exodus 12:16): for you and all your requirements.
  But for the other one does not it say “for you”? [He could reply], “for you” and not for non-Jews; “for you” and not for dogs.
  But for the other one, does it not say, “that only”? [He could reply]: It is written, “that only” and it is written, “for you”; we apply the one to preliminaries which can done on the day before the festival, and the other to preliminaries which cannot be done on the day before the festival.
  Mishnah. There is no difference between Shabbat and Yom Kippur except that the deliberate violation of the one is punished by a human court and the deliberate violation of the other by karet.
  Gemara. [We can deduce] from this that in respect of compensation they are the same.
  Whose view does the Mishnah follow? That of R. Nehunia b. HaKaneh, as it has been taught: R. Nehunia b. HaKaneh used to make Yom Kippur the same as Shabbat in respect of compensation: just as [one who deliberately breaks] Shabbat forfeits his life but is exempt from compensation, so too [one who deliberately breaks] Yom Kippur forfeits his life but is exempt from compensation.
  We have learned elsewhere: If any who has incurred the penalty of karet is flogged — they are exempt from karet, as it says, “Lest your brother should be dishonored in your eyes” (Deuteronomy 25:3) once he has been flogged, he is like thy brother, the words of R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel. R. Yohanan said: R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel’s colleagues disagreed with him on this point.
  Rava said: They said in the school of Rav: We have [also] learned [this]: There is no difference between Yom Kippur and Shabbat except that he who breaks the one deliberately is punished by a human court, while he who breaks the other deliberately is punished with karet. Now if [R. Hananiah’s opinion] is correct, then both are punished by the human court?
  R. Nahman replied. Whose view is this? That of R. Yitzchak, who said that lashes are never inflicted on those who are obligated for karet, as it has been taught:  R. Yitzchak says: Those who are obligated for karet are included in the general statement.Why then is karet specially mentioned in the case of [one who has relations with] his sister? To show that she is punished with karet and not with lashes.
   R. Ashi said You may even say that it is the view of the Rabbis: in the case of the one [the breaker of Sabbath], the essential [punishment for] an intentional transgression is inflicted by the human court, but in the case of the other, the essential punishment for his intentional transgression is karet.
  
  Daf 8a
  
  Mishnah: There is no difference between one who is prohibited by vow from benefiting from his fellow and one who is prohibited by vow from [benefiting from] his food, except for setting foot [on his property] and vessels which are not used for [preparing] food. 
  GEMARA. We can deduce from this that in the matter of utensils which are used for preparing food they are on the same footing.
  Setting foot. But people are not particular about this? Rava said:  Whose view is this? R. Elazar’s, who said that  [even] a thing which is usually excused is forbidden to one who vows to have no benefit.
  Mishnah: There is no difference between vowed offerings and freewill-offerings except that he is responsible for vowed offering but not responsible for freewill-offerings.
  GEMARA. It is to be inferred from this that in respect of ‘not delaying’ they are the same.
  It was taught there: What constitutes a vow? When one says: “It is incumbent upon me to bring an olah.” And what constitutes a freewill-offering? When one says: “Behold, this shall be an olah.” What is the [practical] difference between vows (neder) and freewill offerings (nedavah)? In the case of vows, if they die or are stolen, one is responsible for their replacement; In the case of vows, if they die or are stolen, one is responsible for their replacement; But in the case of freewill offerings, if they die or are stolen, one is not responsible for their replacement. Whence is this rule derived? —
  As our Rabbis have taught:  “And it shall be accepted for him to make atonement upon him” (Leviticus 1:4). R. Shimon says: That which is “upon him” he is obligated to replace but that which is not “upon him” he is not obligated to replace.
  How is that implied [from the verse]? R. Yitzchak bar Avdimi replied:  Since he has said “[I take] it upon myself,” it is as if he had taken it upon his shoulder.
  There is no difference between a zav who sees [genital discharge] twice and one who sees three, except the sacrifice.
  GEMARA. Behold we can deduce that in the matter of [defiling] a bed or a seat and counting seven days they are on the same footing.
  From where is this rule derived?  As our Rabbis have taught: R. Simai says: The text counted two [issues] and designated the man as unclean, and then three and designated him as unclean.  How so?  Two for uncleanness, a third for a sacrifice.
  But say that two means he is unclean but he does not bring a sacrifice, while three means he brings a sacrifice but he is not unclean? Say: before he has three issues he must have already had two.
  Say then that two observations obligate him for a sacrifice but not uncleanness, whereas three means he is uncleanness also? Do not even think this, since it has been taught: “And the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord from his issue” (Leviticus 15:15); [From his issue] implies that zavim bring a sacrifice and some zavim do not bring a sacrifice. How so? If he has three issues, he brings a sacrifice, if only two, he does not bring.
  Or shall we say that if he has two he brings the sacrifice, but if three he does not? —  You can say that before  he has three he must have had two.
  And both the midrash of R. Simai and the midrash on “from his issue” are necessary [to prove this point]. For if I had only R. Simai, I might have raised the above objection, and therefore it teaches us “from his issue.” And if I had only “from his issue,” I would not have known how many issues [obligate for a sacrifice]; therefore I have R. Simai.
  Now that you have said that the words “from his issue” are to be used for a derashah, “And when he that had an issue is cleansed from his issue” (Leviticus 15:13) what do you derive from it?
  That is required for the following, as it has been taught: “And when he that had an issue is cleansed”: when the issue ceases. “From his issue”: from his issue [only], and not from both his issue and his leprosy. “From his issue, then he shall count”: this teaches us that a zav who has had two observations must count seven days [without issue].
  But cannot this be deduced logically [as follows]? If he defiles bed and seat, should he not [all the more] be required to count seven days?
  
  Daf 8b
  
  This argument can be confuted by the case of the woman who is keeping day for day who defiles bed and seat but does not count seven days. And thus do not be surprised that this one also, although he defiles bed and seat, might not be obligated to count seven days.
  Therefore it says, “from his issue, and he shall count, ” which implies that after part of his issue he shall count; this teaches with regard to one with an issue who has had [only] two observations that he is required to count seven days.
  R. Papa said to Abaye: Why do we use this “from his issue” to include a zav who has had two observations, and the other “from his issue” to exclude a zav who has had two observations?
  He replied: If you would think that that text is for the purpose of excluding, then the text could simply omit the word. And should you say, we could then derive the rule [that he is to count seven days] by a logical deduction, such a deduction could be confuted by the case of the woman who counts day for day.
  And should you say that this word is required to show that the text refers to one who is cleansed of his issue [only] and not [of his issue and] his leprosy. If so let the verse say, “And when he that has an issue is cleansed” and no more. Why do I have “from his issue”? This teaches that one with an issue who has two observations is required to count seven days.
  There is no difference between a metzora who is under observation and one declared to be a definite metzora except the disheveling of hair and tearing the clothes.
  There is no difference between a metzora who has been declared clean after being under observation and one who has been declared clean after having been a definite metzorah except shaving and [sacrificing] the birds.
  GEMARA. Behold in the matter of being sent outside [the camp] and uncleanness they are the same.
  From where is this derived? — As R. Shmuel b. Yitzchak taught in front of R. Huna: “Then the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is a scab; and he shall wash his clothes and be clean” (Leviticus 13:6); he is clean at the outset from having been liable to rend garments and loosen the hair.
  Rava said to him. If that is so, then in regard to a zav of whom it is written, “And he shall wash his garments and be clean”, how is it possible to say that he shall have been clean from the outset?
  Rather, it means that he is clean now so far as not to defile earthenware vessels by moving them; and even if he observes [an issue] again, he does not defile them retrospectively.
  So too here, [the meaning is that] the metzora is clean now to the extent of not defiling retrospectively by his entrance.
  Rather Rava said: From here: “And the metzora in whom the plague is” (Leviticus 13:45) [that means] one whose scale disease is due to the state of his body, excluding this one whose scale disease is due to days.
  Abaye said to him: If that is so, then when it says, “All the days during which the plague is in him he shall be unclean” (Leviticus 13:46), are we to say that one whose scale disease is due to his state of body is required to be sent out of the camp, but one whose scale disease is not due to his state of body is not to be sent out of the camp?
  And should you reply that that is so, [how can this be] seeing that it states, There is no difference between a metzora who is under observation and one declared to be a definite metzora except the disheveling of hair and tearing the clothes., from which it may be inferred that in the matter of being sent out [of the camp] and defiling by entrance they are on the same footing?
  He said to him “the days” “All the days” this includes a metzora under observation within the rule of sending out [of the camp].
  If that is the case, what is the reason that he is not required to shave and offer birds, as it states: There is no difference between a metzora who has been declared clean after being under observation and one who has been declared clean after having been a definite metzora except shaving and [sacrificing] the birds.
  Abaye replied: The verse says: “And the priest shall go forth out of the camp, and behold the plague of scale disease is healed in the metzora” (Leviticus 14:3); one whose scale disease is dependent upon healing, and excludes one whose scale disease is not dependent on healing but on days [of isolation].
  There is no difference between scrolls [of the Tanakh] and tefillin and mezuzahs except that scrolls may be written in any language whereas tefillin and mezuzahs may be written only in Assyrian.
  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says  that scrolls [of the Tanakh] were permitted [by the sages] to be written only in Greek.
  GEMARA. [From this we infer] that for requiring [the sheets] to be stitched with sinews and for defiling the hands they are the same.
  Scrolls may be written in any language. They contradicted this with the following: Hebrew text written in Aramaic or an Aramaic text written in Hebrew, or [either] in Hebraic script, does not defile the hands; until it is written in Assyrian script upon a scroll and in ink.
  Rava replied: There is no contradiction;
  
  Daf 9a
  
  the one statement [that of the Mishnah] speaks of [books written in] our script, the other of [books written in] their script.
  Abaye said to him: How have you explained the other statement? As referring to their script. [If so], why should it say, “A Hebrew text written in Aramaic or an Aramaic text written in Hebrew”? The same would apply even to a Hebrew text which is written in Hebrew or an Aramaic text which is written in Aramaic, for it also teaches “until it is written in Assyrian on a scroll in ink”!
  Rather, there is no contradiction: the one statement [in the Mishnah] represents the view of the rabbis, the other that of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel.
  But if it is the view of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, what about Greek? Rather there is no contradiction;  the one statement [in the Mishnah] refers to scrolls, the other to tefillin and mezuzahs.
  What is the reason [why] tefillin and mezuzahs [must be written in Hebrew]? — Because in reference to them it is written, “And they shall be”, (Deuteronomy 6:6) which implies, they shall be as they originally were. What cases are there of Aramaic which can be written in Hebrew? I grant you we find in the Torah “yegar sahaduta” (Genesis 31:47);  but here [in the case of tefillin, and mezuzot] what Aramaic is there?
  Rather there is no contradiction; the one statement [in the baraita] refers to the Megillah, the other to the other books [of the Scripture]. What is the reason in the case of the Megillah? — Because it is written in regard to it, “According to their writing and according to their language” (Esther 1:20). What case of Aramaic being written in Hebrew is possible here?
  R.Papa said: “And the king’s pitgam shall be published” (Esther 1:2); R. Nahman b. Isaac said: “And all the wives shall give yekar to their husbands” (Esther 1:2).
  R. Ashi said: That statement [in the baraita] was made in reference to other books [of the Scripture], And it follows the view of R. Judah, as it has been taught: Tefillin and mezuzahs are to be written only in Assyrian, but our Rabbis allowed them to be written in Greek also.
  But is it not written, and they shall be? Say, Scrolls of the Scripture may be written in any language, and our Rabbis permitted them to be written in Greek. They permitted! This would imply that the First Tanna forbade it!
  What I must say therefore is, Our Rabbis permitted them to be written only in Greek. And it teaches, R. Judah said: Even when our teachers permitted Greek, they permitted it only for a scroll of the Torah. This was on account of the case of King King Ptolemy,
  as it has been taught: It happened that King Ptolemy brought together seventy-two elders and placed them in seventy-two [separate] rooms, without telling them why he had brought them together, and he went in to each one of them and said to him, Translate for me the Torah of Moses your master. God then gave each one of them wisdom and they all conceived the same idea.
  And they wrote for him, (Genesis 1:1); "God created in the beginning".  (Genesis 1:26); "I shall make man in image and likeness".
  (Genesis 2:2) "And he finished on the sixth day, and rested on the seventh day". (Genesis 5:2); "Male and female he created him", [but they did not write "created them"].
  (Genesis 11:7); "Come let me descend and confound their tongues". (Genesis 18:12); "And Sarah laughed among her relatives".
  (Genesis 49:6); "For in their anger they slew an ox and in their wrath they dug up a stall". (Exodus 4:20); "And Moses took his wife and his children, and made them ride on a carrier of men".
  (Exodus 12:40); "And the dwelling of the children of Israel which they stayed in Egypt and in other lands was four hundred years," (Exodus 24:5); "And he sent the elect of the children of Israel". (Exodus 24:11); "And against the elect of the children of Israel he did not send forth his hand". 
  
  Daf 9b
  
  (Numbers 16:15); "I have taken not one valuable of theirs"; (Deuteronomy 4:19); "Which the Lord your God distributed to give light to all the peoples".
  (Deuteronomy 17:3) "And he went and served other gods which I commanded should not be served." 
  They also wrote for him (Leviticus 11:6); “the beast with small legs” and they did not write “the hare” because the name of Ptolemy’s wife was hare, lest he should say, “The Jews are playing with me at me and put the name of my wife in the Torah.”
  Shimon b. Gamaliel says that books [of the scripture] also are permitted to be written only in Greek. Abbahu said in the name of R. Yohanan: The halakhah follows R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. R. Yohanan further said:  What is the reason of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel? Scripture says, “God will enlarge Yapheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem” (Genesis 9:26); [this means] that the words of Yapheth shall be in the tents of Shem.
  But why not say [the words of] Gomer and Magog? R. Hiyya b. Abba replied: he reason is because it is written, “Let God enlarge [yaft] Yapheth”: let the beauty of Yapheth be in the tents of Shem.
  There is no difference between a priest anointed with the oil of anointment and one who [only] wears the additional garments except for the bull which is offered for the [unwitting transgression of] any of the commandments.
  There is no difference between a serving [high] priest and one whose time has passed except the bull of Yom HaKippurim and the tenth of the ephah.
  GEMARA. [Between the priest anointed etc.]. Behold in matter of the bull of Yom HaKippurim and the tenth of the ephah they are on the same footing.
  The mishnah does not accord with R. Meir; for with regard to the view of R. Meir, it has been taught: ‘One who wears the additional garments [without having been anointed] brings the bull which is offered [by the High Priest] for the [unwitting breaking of] any of the mitzvoth, the words of R. Meir. The Sages, however, say that he does not offer it.
  What is the reason of R. Meir? As it has been taught; “[If the] anointed [priest shall sin]” (Leviticus 4:3): I only know of the one anointed with the oil of anointment. From where do I know that this applies also to one who [merely] wears the additional garments? Because it says, the “anointed.”
  How have you explained [the Mishnah]? As not agreeing with R. Meir. What about the end of the mishnah: There is no difference between a serving [high] priest and one whose time has passed except the bull of Yom HaKippurim and the tenth of the ephah. But we can infer that in all other matters they are the same; and so we come to the view of R. Meir, as it has been taught, If something happened to disqualify him and they appointed another priest to take his place, when the first returns to his service the second is still liable to all the obligations of the high priesthood, the words of R. Meir. R. Yose said: The first returns to his service whereas the second is not qualified to act as a high priest or as an ordinary priest. 
  R. Yose further said: It happened with R. Jose b. Ulam from Tziporri that a disqualification occurred to the high priest and they appointed him in his place, and the case eventually came before the Sages and they said: The first returns to his service. The second is not qualified to act either as a high priest or as an ordinary priest:
  as a high priest, so as not to create enmity, as an ordinary priest, because raise to a higher grade of holiness but we never put down to a lower. Are we then to say that the first clause [of the Mishnah] follows the Sages and the second R. Meir?
  Hisda said: Yes; the first clause follows the Sages and the second R. Meir. R. Joseph said: I  t is the opinion of Rabbi, who combined the views of differing tannaim.
  There is no difference between a great altar and a small altar except for the pesah offering. This is the general principle: any animal which can be brought as a vow-offering or a freewill offering may be brought on a [small] altar, any animal which is not the object of a vow or a freewill-offering may not be brought on a [small] altar.
  GEMARA. The pesah sacrifice and nothing else? Rather we should say, things like the pesah.
  Whose view is this? — R. Shimon’s, as it has been taught: R. Shimon says: Even the congregation did not offer [on the large altar] anything except the pesah and obligatory sacrifices for which there is a fixed time; but obligatory sacrifices for which there is no fixed time were not offered either on the one or the other.
  There is no difference between Shiloh and Jerusalem except that in Shiloh sacrifices of lesser sanctity and second tithe could be eaten anywhere within sight [of the town], whereas in Jerusalem [they had to be eaten] within the walls.
  In both places the most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains. After the sanctification of Shiloh
  
  Daf 10a
  
  there is permission [for altars], but after the sanctification of Jerusalem there is no such permission.
  GEMARA. R. Yitzchak said: I have heard that sacrifices may be offered in the Temple of Onias at the present day. He was of opinion that the Temple of Onias is not an idolatrous shrine, and that  the first holiness [of Jerusalem] sanctified it or its time but not for all time, 
  for as it is written, “For you have not yet come to the rest and to the inheritance” (Deuteronomy 12:9). “Rest” here means Shiloh and “inheritance” means Jerusalem. The verse compares “inheritance” to “rest” [to show that]  just as after the [destruction of the] “rest” it was again permitted, so after the [destruction of the] “inheritance” it is again permitted.
  They said to him:  Did you really say this?  He replied,  No. Rava said: By God! He did say it and I learned it from him.
  Why then did he retract? On account of the difficulty raised by R. Mari.  For R. Mari raised the following difficulty: After the sanctification of Shiloh there is permission [for altars], but after the sanctification of Jerusalem there is no such permission. We have also taught: After they [the Israelites] came to Jerusalem, the altars were forbidden, and they were never permitted again, and it was the “inheritance.”
  There is a difference of Tannaim on this point, as we have learnt. R. Eliezer said:  I have heard that when they were building the hekhal [in the second Temple] they made curtains for the hekhal and for the courtyard, the difference being that in the hekhal they built [the walls] outside [the curtains] and in the courtyard they built [the walls] within [the curtains].
  And R. Joshua said: I have heard that sacrifices may be brought even though there is no Temple; that the most holy foods may be eaten, even though there are no curtains; and that foods of lesser sanctity and second tithe may be eaten even though there is no wall, because the first holiness was conferred on Jerusalem both for the time being and for all time. We infer from this that R. Eliezer holds that it was not [at first] sanctified for all time.
  Ravina said to R. Ashi: How so? Perhaps all agree that the first holiness sanctified it for its time and for all time, and one Master reported what he had heard and the other what he had heard. And if you ask, In that case, why were curtains needed according to R. Eliezer, we can answer that they were merely for privacy.
  Rather it follows the following Tannaim: R. Ishmael son of R. Yose said: Why did the Sages list these? Because when the exiles returned they found these cities [still walled] and sanctified them; the others were annulled when the land’s [sanctity] was annulled. Thus he holds that the first holiness sanctified it for its time but not for the future.
  And they raised a contradiction with the following: R. Ishmael son of R. Yose said: Were these all? Has it not already been said, “Sixty cities, all the region of Argob”, And it is written, “All these were fortified cities with high walls” (Deuteronomy 3:4-5)? Why then did the Sages list these?  Because when the exiles returned, they found these [still walled] and sanctified them. 
  They sanctified them!
  
  Daf 10b
  
  Now did we not say that they did not need to be sanctified?! Rather:  they found these and listed them.
  And not only these alone, but with regard to any in which you find a tradition from your ancestors that it was walled from the days of Joshua son of Nun, all these mitzvot are to be observed, because the first holiness was conferred for the time being and for all future time. There is thus a contradiction between the two statements of R. Ishmael!
  Two Tannaim report R. Ishmael son of R. Jose differently. Or if you like, I can say that  the latter is from R. Elazar b. Yose, as it has been taught: R. Eleazar b. Yose says: “That has [no] wall” (Leviticus 25:30) even though it does not have one now, but it had in previous times.
  And it came to pass in the days of Ahashverosh. R. Levi, or some say R. Yonatan said:  The following remark is a tradition handed down to us from the Men of the Great Assembly:  Wherever it says vayehi [and it was, and it came to pass], it indicates [the approach of] trouble.
  Vayehi in the days of Ahashverosh (Esther 1:1) — there was Haman. Vayehi in the days when the judges judged (Ruth 1:1) — there was a famine. Vayehi when man began to multiply (Genesis 6:1) — then God Saw that the wickedness of man was great. 
  Vayehi, as they journeyed east (Genesis 11:20) — then they said, come let us build a city. Vayehi in the days of Amrafel (Genesis 14:1) — then they made war. Vayehi when Joshua was in Jericho (Joshua 5:13)   — then his [the angel’s] sword was drawn in his hand. And the Lord was [vayehi] with Joshua (Joshua 6:27)   — then the children of Israel trespassed. Vayehi a certain man of Ramataim-Zophim (I Samuel 1:1)   — then, for he loved Hannah but the Lord had shut up her womb.
  Vayehi when Shmuel was old (I Samuel 8:1)   — then, his sons walked not in his ways. And David had [vayehi] great success in all his ways (I Samuel 18:14) — then, And Saul had enmity with David. Vayehi when the king dwelt in his house (II Samuel 7:1)   — then, Nevertheless you shall not build the house.
  But is it not written, Vayehi on the eighth day (Leviticus 9:1), and it has been taught: On that day there was joy before the Holy One, blessed be He, as on the day when heaven and earth were created. For it is written, And it came to pass [vayehi] on the eighth day, and it is written there, And there was [vayehi] one day?
  Nadav and Avihu died on that day.
  But is it not written, “Vayehi in the four hundred and eightieth year” (I Kings 6:1), “Vayehi when Jacob saw Rachel” (Genesis 29:1), and it is also written, “Vayehi was evening and there was morning one day” (Genesis 1:5),   and there is the second day and the third, and there are many other cases?
  R. Ashi replied: In all cases, vayehi sometimes has this signification and sometimes not, but “vayehi in the days of” always indicates trouble.
  Five times we find the expression: “Vayehi in the days" “Vayehi in the days of Ahashverosh” (Esther 1:1), “Vayehi in the days when the Judges judged” (Ruth 1:1), “Vayehi in the days of Amrafel” (Genesis 14:1), “Vayehi in the days of Ahaz” (Isaiah 7:1) “And it came to pass in the days of Yehoiakim” (Jeremiah 1:3).
  R. Levi further said: The following is a tradition that we have from our ancestors, that Amoz and Amaziah were brothers. What does this come to teach us? 
  That which was said by R. Shmuel b. Nahmani in the name of R. Yonathan:  Every bride who is modest in the house of her father-in-law is rewarded by having kings and prophets among her descendants. How do we know this?  From Tamar, as it is written, “And Judah saw her and thought her to be a harlot; for she had covered her face” (Genesis 38:15). . Just because she covered her face did he think her to be a harlot?
  Rather, what it means is that because she had covered her face in the house of her father-in-law and he did not know her, she was rewarded by having among her descendants kings and prophets; kings from David, and prophets — as R. Levi said It is a tradition handed down to us from our ancestors that Amoz and Amaziah were brothers’, as it is written, The vision of Isaiah son of Amoz.
  R. Levi further said: The following is a tradition from our ancestors:  the ark took up no room.
  It was also taught: The ark that Moses made had round it an [empty] space of ten cubits on every side. And it is written, “And in front of the Sanctuary was twenty cubits in length [and twenty cubits in breadth],” (I Kings 6:20) and it is also written, “And the wing of the one cherub was ten cubits and the wing of the other cherub was ten cubits” (based on I Kings 6:24-25). Where then was the ark itself? Rather derive from this that it stood [without occupying any room].
  R. Jonathan opened his discourse on this section from here, “And I will rise against them, says the Lord, and cut off from Babylon name and remnant, and offshoot and offspring, says the Lord” (Isaiah 54:22), “Name” means script; “remnant” is language; “offshoot” is kingdom, and “offspring” is Vashti.
  Samuel b. Nahmani opened his discourse on this section from here: “Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle” (Isaiah 55:13):  
  “Instead of the thorn”: instead of the wicked Haman who put himself up as an object of worship, as it is written, “And upon all thorns and upon all brambles” (Isaiah 7:19) “shall come up the cypress”: this is Mordecai who was called the chief of all spices, as it is said, “And you shall take for yourself the chief spices, flowing myrrh (mor)” (Exodus 30:23), which we translate [in Aramaic], 
  "mare deki.”
  “Instead of the brier”: instead of the wicked Vashti, the daughter of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar who burned the ceiling of the house of the Lord; as it is written, “Its top was gold” (Song of Songs 3:10), “the myrtle shall come up”: this is the virtuous Esther who is called Hadassah, as it is said, “And he brought up Hadassah” (Esther 2:7).
  “And it shall be to the Lord for a name”: this is the reading of the Megillah; “and for an everlasting sign which shall not be cut off” (Isaiah 54:13: these are the days of Purim.
  R. Joshua b. Levi opened his discourse on this section from here: “And it shall come to pass that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, so the Lord will rejoice over you to cause you to perish” (Deuteronomy 28:63). 
  Now does the Holy One, blessed be He, rejoice in the downfall of the wicked?  Is it not written, “As they went out before the army, and say, Give thanks unto the Lord, for his mercy endures forever” (II Chronicles 20:21), and R. Yohanan said, Why are the words “for he is good” omitted from this thanksgiving? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, does not rejoice in the downfall of the wicked?
  And R. Yohanan further said, What is the meaning of the verse, “And one came not near the other all the night? (Exodus 14:20) The ministering angels wanted to chant their hymns, but the Holy One, blessed be He, said,  The work of my hands is being drowned in the sea, and you chant hymns?
  R. Elazar replied: He himself does not rejoice, but he makes others rejoice. This is indicated also by the text, which writes yasis and not yasus; learn from this.
  Abba b. Kahana opened his discourse on this section from here: “For to the man that is good in his sight he gives wisdom, and knowledge and joy” (Ecclesiastes 2:26). This is the righteous Mordecai. “But to the sinner He gives the task, to gather and to heap up”; this is Haman. “That he may leave it to him, that is good in the sight of God”; this refers to Mordecai and Esther, as it is written,  “And Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman” (Esther 8:20).
  Rabbah b. Ofran opened his discourse on this section from here: “And I will set my throne in Elam, and will destroy from them king and princes” (Jeremiah 49:38). “King” this is Vashti, and “princes” this is Haman and his ten sons.
  Dimi b. Isaac opened his discourse on this section from here:
  
  Daf 11a
  
  “For we are servants; yet God has not forsaken us in our bondage, but has extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia” (Ezra 9:9). When was this? In the time of Haman.
  Hanina b. Papa began his discourse on this section with the following text: “You have caused men to ride over our heads, we went through fire and through water” (Psalms 66:12).  Through fire in the days of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, and through water in the days of Pharaoh. “But you did bring us out into abundance,” in the days of Haman.
  Yohanan began his discourse on this section with the following text: “He has remembered his mercy and his faithfulness to the house of Israel, all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our Lord” (Psalms 98:3). When did all the ends of the earth see the salvation of our Lord? In the days of Mordecai and Esther.
  Resh Lakish began his discourse on this section with the following text: “As a roaring lion and a ravenous bear, so is a wicked ruler over a poor people” (Proverbs 4:7).  “A roaring lion”: this is the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, of whom it is written, “A lion is gone up from his thicket” (Jeremiah 4:7). “A ravenous bear”: this is Ahashverosh, of whom it is written, “And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear,” (Daniel 7:5), and R. Joseph taught: These are the Persians, who eat and drink like bears, and are coated with flesh like bears, and are hairy like bears, and have no rest like bears. “
  A wicked ruler”: this is Haman. “Over a poor people”: this is Israel, who are poor in [the observance of] mitzvot.
  Elazar began his discourse on this with the following text: “By laziness he that lays beams (mekoreh) becomes poor [yimak], and through idleness of the hands the house leaks” (Ecclesiastes 10:18). Through Israel’s laziness in not occupying themselves with Torah, the enemy of the Holy One, blessed be He, became poor. The meaning of “makh” is poor, as it says, “And if he is too makh for your evaluation” (Leviticus 27:8), and mekoreh means only the Holy One, blessed be He, as it says, “Who lays the beams [ha-mekareh] of Your upper chambers in the waters” (Psalms 104:3).
  Nahman b. Isaac began his discourse on this section with the following text: “A Song of Ascents: If it had not been for the Lord who was for us let Israel now say, If it had not been the Lord who was for us when a man rose up against us” (Psalms 124:1-2)   — “a man” and not a king.
  Rava began his discourse on this section from here:  “When the righteous are increased the people rejoice, but when the wicked rules the people sigh” (Proverbs 29:2). “When the righteous are increased the people rejoice” — this is Mordecai and Esther, as it is written, “And the city of Shushan shouted and was glad” (Esther 8:15). “But when the wicked rules the people sigh” — this is Haman, as it is written, “But the city of Shushan was perplexed” (Esther 3:15).
  Matanah made his introduction from this verse: “For what great nation is there that has God so near to them” (Deuteronomy 4:7). R. Ashi made it from here:  “Or has God attempted to [take one nation from the midst of another nation] (Deuteronomy 4:34).
  “And it came to pass [vayehi] in the days of Ahashverosh: Rav said, [The word vayehi means] There was “voi” [trouble].  This is what is written, “And there you shall sell yourselves to your enemies for slaves and for bondwomen, and no man shall buy you” (Deuteronomy 28:68).
  Shmuel said from here: “I did not reject them, neither did I abhor them to destroy them utterly” (Leviticus 26:44).   “I did not reject them” in the days of the Greeks; “neither did I abhor them” — in the days of Nebuchadnezzar; “to destroy them utterly” — in the days of Haman; “and to break my covenant with them” — in the days of the Persians; “for I am the Lord their God” — in the days of Gog and Magog.
  In a baraita it was taught: “I have not rejected them” — in the days of the Chaldeans, when I raised up for them Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah; “Neither did I abhor them” — in the days of the Greeks, when I raised up for them Shimon the Righteous and the Hasmonean and his sons, and Mattathias the High Priest; “To destroy them utterly” — in the days of Haman, when I raised up for them Mordecai and Esther; “To break my covenant with them” — in the days of the Persians, when I raised up for them the members of the house of Rabbi and the Sages of the various generations. “For I am the Lord their God” — in the time to come, when no nation or people will be able to rule over them.
  R. Levi said from this verse: “But if you will not drive out the inhabitants of the land before you” (Numbers 33:55).
  R. Hiyya said from this verse: “And it shall come to pass that as I thought to do to them, so will I do to you” (Numbers 33:56).
  Ahashverosh: Rav said The brother of the head and the counterpart of the head — “The brother of the head”: the brother of Nebuchadnezzar the wicked who was called head, as it is written, “You are the head of gold” (Daniel 2:38). “The counterpart of the head”: the one slew, the other sought to slay; the one laid waste, the other sought to lay waste, as it is written, “And in the reign of Ahashverosh, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem” (Ezra 4:6).
  Shmuel said:  The face of Israel was blackened (hushcharu) in his days like the sides of a pot. R. Yohanan said: Everyone who thought of him said “alas for my head (ah lerosho).” R. Hanina said: That all became poor (rash) in his days, as it says, “And the king Ahashverosh laid a tribute” (Esther 10:1).
  “That (hu) is the Ahashverosh. — [this means that] he persisted in his wickedness from beginning to end. [Similarly] “This is [hu] Esau”: he persisted in his wickedness from beginning to end. [Similarly] “This is [hu] Dathan and Aviram”:   they persisted in their wickedness from beginning to end. [Similarly], “This is [hu] king Ahaz”: he persisted in his wickedness from beginning to end.
  [Similarly], “Avram, the same [hu] is Abraham”: he persisted in his righteousness from the beginning to the end. [Similarly], “These are [hu] Aaron and Moses”:   he persisted in his righteousness from the beginning to the end. [Similarly], “And David, he was [hu] the smallest”: he persisted in his humility from the beginning to the end; just as in his youth he humbled himself before anyone who was his superior in Torah, so in his kingship he humbled himself before anyone who was his superior in wisdom.
  “Who reigned”: Rav said: this indicates that he made himself king. There are those who interpret this to his credit, and those to his discredit. Those who interpret it to his credit hold that there was no other man equally fitted for the throne. Those who interpret it to his discredit hold that he was not fit for the throne, but that he was very wealthy, and that he gave and thereby became king.
  “From Hodu to Cush”: Rav and Shmuel: One said that Hodu is at one end of the world and Cush at the other, and the other said that Hodu and Cush are right next to each other, and that just as he ruled over Hodu and Cush, so he ruled from one end of the world to the other.
  Similarly you say, “For he had dominion over all the region on this side of the River, from Tiphsah until Gaza” (I Kings 5:4). Rav and Shmuel: One said that Tiphsah is at one end of the world and Gaza at the other, and the other said that Tiphsah and Gaza are near one another [and that what is meant is that] just as he [Solomon] ruled over Tiphsah and over Gaza, so he ruled over the whole world.
  “Seven and twenty and a hundred provinces”. R. Hisda said: At first he ruled over seven, then over twenty [more], and finally over a hundred [more]. But if so, [what did you do with the verse], “And the years of the life of Amram were seven and thirty and a hundred years?” (Exodus 6:20). How do you expound this? It is different here, because the whole text is superfluous, since it is written, “From Hodu to Cush,” what would I then do with, “seven and twenty and a hundred provinces”? You must conclude that it is for a special lesson.
  Our Rabbis taught: There were three who ruled over the whole globe:  Ahab, Ahashverosh and Nebuchadnezzar. Ahab, as it is written, “As the Lord your God lives, there is no nation or kingdom which my Lord has not sent to seek you” (I Kings 18:10) etc. Now if he was not king over them, how could he make them take an oath?
  Nebuchadnezzar, as it is written: “And it shall come to pass that the nation and the kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and will not put their neck under the yoke of the King of Babylon” (Jeremiah 27:8). Ahashverosh, as we have pointed out above.
  
  Daf 11b
  
  (Mnemonic: Sh”S”D”K”) But are there no more?  Is there not Solomon? He did not retain his kingdom [till his death]. 
  This goes well for the one who holds that he was first a king and then an ordinary person. But for the one who holds that he was first a king, then a subject, and then a king again, what can we say? Solomon was in a different category, because he ruled over those in the upper world and those in the lower world, as it says, “And Solomon sat upon the throne of the Lord” (I Chronicles 29:23).
  But was there not Sanheriv, as it is written, “Who are they among all the gods of these countries that have delivered their country out of my hand” (Isaiah 36:20). There was Jerusalem which he did not subdue.
  But was there not Darius, as it is written, “Then king Darius wrote unto all the peoples, nations and languages that dwell in all the earth, Peace be multiplied unto you” (Daniel 6:26). There were the seven over which he did not rule, as it is written, “It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty satraps” (Daniel 6:2).
  But there was Cyrus, of whom it is written, “Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdom of the earth has the Lord given me” (Ezra 1:2)? — He was only boasting about himself.
  In those days, when the king sat [on his throne] (Esther 1:2). But it says just afterwards, “In the third year of his reign? Rav said: What is meant by “when he sat”? After he began to feel secure. He reasoned thus: Belshazar calculated and made a mistake; I have calculated and made no mistake.
  What is the meaning of this? — It is written, “After seventy years have been filled for Babylon I will remember you” (Jeremiah 29:10),  and it is written, “That He would accomplish for the desolations of Jerusalem seventy years” (Daniel 9:2). He reckoned forty-five years of Nebuchadnezzar and twenty-three of Avil-Merodach and two of his own, making seventy in all. He then brought out the vessels of the Temple and used them.
  And how do we know that Nebuchadnezzar reigned forty-five years? As a Master has said:  They went into exile in the seventh year and they went into exile in the eighth year; they went into exile in the eighteenth year and they went into exile in the nineteenth year:
  [That is to say], in the seventh year after the subjection of Jehoiakim they underwent the exile of Jechoniah, this being the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar. In the eighteenth year from the subjection of Jehoiakim they underwent the exile of Zedekiah, this being the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, as a Master has said, In the first year [of his reign] he [Nebuchadnezzar] overthrew Nineveh; in the second year he conquered Jehoiakim. And it is written, “And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month in the seven and twentieth day of the month, that Avil-Merodach King of Babylon, in the year of his reign, lifted up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah and brought him forth out of prison” (Jeremiah 52:31). Eight and thirty-seven make forty-five of Nebuchadnezzar.
  The twenty-three of Avil-Merodach we know from tradition. And two of his own [rule] make seventy.  He [Belshazar] said to himself,  Now they will surely not be redeemed. So he brought out the vessels of the Temple and used them.
  Hence it was that Daniel said to him “But you have lifted yourself up against the Lord of heaven, and they have brought the vessels of his house before you” (Daniel 5:23). It is further written, “In that night Belshazar the Chaldean king was slain” (Daniel 5:30), and it is written, “And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about thirty two years old” (Daniel 6:1).
  He [Ahashverosh] said: He calculated and made a mistake, I will calculate and make no mistake.  Is it written, “seventy years for the kingdom of Babylon?” It is written, “Seventy years for Babylon.” What is meant by Babylon? The exile of Babylon. How many years [is this reckoning] less [than the other]? Eight. So in place of them he inserted  one of Belshazzar, five of Darius and Cyrus, and two of his own, which made seventy. When he saw that seventy had been completed and they were not redeemed,   he brought out the vessels of the Temple and used them. Then the Satan came and danced among them and slew Vashti.
  But he reckoned correctly? He also made a mistake, since he ought to have reckoned from the destruction of Jerusalem.
  Granted all this, how many years are short? Eleven. How long did he reign? Fourteen. Consequently in the fourteenth year of his reign he ought to have rebuilt the Temple. Why then is it written, “Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem” (Ezra 4:24)? Rava said: The years were not full ones.
  
  Daf 12a
  
  It has also been taught in a baraita: There was yet another year left to Babylon, and Darius arose and completed it.
  Rava said: Daniel also made a mistake in this calculation, as it is written, "In the first year of his reign, I Daniel meditated in the books [etc.]" (Daniel 9:2). From his use of the words "I meditated," we can infer that he [at first] made a mistake. 
  In any case there is a contradiction between the texts. It is written [in one],  "When there are accomplished for Babylon", (Jeremiah 29:10) and it is written [in the other], "For the desolation of Jerusalem?" (Daniel 9:2).
  Rava answered [The first verse] was for charging [pekidah] only,  and this was fulfilled, as it is written, "Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, "All the kingdoms of the earth has the Lord, the God of the heavens, given to me, and he has charged [pakad] me to build him a house in Jerusalem" (Ezra 1:2).
  R. Nahman son of R. Hisda gave the following exposition.  What is the meaning of the verse, "Thus says the Lord to his anointed to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held" (Isaiah 45:1). Now was Cyrus the Messiah? Rather what it means is this: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the Messiah:  I have a complaint on your behalf against Cyrus. I said, He shall build my house and gather my exiles, and he said, "Whosoever there is among you of all his people, let him go up" (Ezra 1:3).
  “The army of Persia and Media, the governors” (Esther 1:3). But elsewhere it is written, [The chronicles] of the kings of Media and Persia” (Esther 10:2). Rava said: They [the Medes and Persians] made a stipulation with one another, saying, if we supply the kings, you will supply the Governors, and if you supply the kings we will supply the Governors.
  When he showed the riches of his glorious kingdom (Esther 1:4): R. Yose b. Hanina said: This shows that he arrayed himself in priestly robes. It is written here, “And the riches of his glorious [tif’eret] kingdom,” and it is written elsewhere [in connection with the priestly garments], “For splendor and for glory, [tif’eret]” (Exodus 28:2).
  “And when these days were fulfilled” (Esther 1:5). Rav and Shmuel, One said  he was a clever king, and the other said that he was a foolish king. The one who said he was a clever king said that he did well in entertaining his distant subjects first, because he could win over the inhabitants of his own city any time he wished. The one who held that he was foolish says that he ought to have entertained the inhabitants of his city first, so that if the others rebelled against him, these would have supported him.
  His disciples asked R. Shimon b. Yohai, Why did the enemies of Israel in that generation deserve extermination? He said to them:  You answer. They said: Because they enjoyed the feast of that wicked one. [He said to them]: If so, those in Shushan should have been killed, not those throughout the rest of the world? They then said: You answer. He said to them: It was because they bowed down to an image.
  They said to him, Did God then show them favoritism? He replied: They only pretended to worship,   and He also only pretended to exterminate them; and so it is written, “For he afflicted not from his heart” (Lamentations 3:33).
  “In the court of the garden of the king’s palace” (Esther 1:5). Rav and Shmuel— One said that those who were fit for the court were [entertained] in the court, and those who were fit for the garden in the garden, and those who were fit for the palace in the palace. The other said He first put them in the court, and it did not hold them — Then he took them into the garden and it did not hold them; and finally he had to take them into the palace, and it fit them. In a baraitha it was taught: He took them into the court and opened two doors for them, one into the garden and one into the palace.
  White [hur], fine cotton [karpas] and blue. What is hur? Rav said: Fine lace-work (harei harei). Shmuel said: He spread for them carpets of white silk. Karpas: R. Yose b. Haninah said: [this means] cushions of velvet (karim shel pasim).
  “On silver rods and pillars of marble; the couches were of gold and silver.” It has been taught: R. Judah said: For those who were worthy of silver, silver, and for those who were worthy of gold, gold. R. Nehemiah said to him: If that were so, he would have caused jealousy at the banquet! No; the couches themselves were of silver and their feet of gold
  Green [bahat] and white marble.  R. Assi said: [This means] stones that cause their owners hard labor; And so it says, “As the stones of a crown, which take many trials to dig up from the land” (Zechariah 9:6).
  And shell [dar] and onyx marble [sohareth]. Rav said: This means rows [dari] upon rows. Shmuel says:  There is a precious stone in the seaports called darah. He put it in the midst of the guests, and it lit up the place as at midday [Sahara] In the school of R. Ishmael it was taught: It means that he gave a remission of taxes [deror] to all merchants [sehorah].
  And they gave them drink in vessels of gold, the vessels being diverse [shonim] one from another. Rava said: A heavenly voice went forth and said to them,  Your predecessors met their end (kalu) on account of vessels (kelim), and yet you use them again [shonim]? And royal wine in abundance:  Rav said: This teaches that each one was given to drink wine older then himself.
  And the drinking was according to law. What is meant by ‘according to law’? R. Hanan said in the name of R. Meir: According to the law of the Torah. Just as according to the law of the Torah the [quantity of] food exceeds the drink, so in the feast of that wicked one there was more food than drink.
  None did compel. R. Elazar said:  This teaches that each one was given to drink from the wine of his own country. That they should do according to every man’s [ish, ish] pleasure. Rava said: This means that they should do according to the will of Mordecai and Haman. Mordecai [is called ish] as it is written, “A Jewish man;” and Haman, [as it is written], “A man (ish), an adversary and an enemy.”
  Also Vashti the queen made a feast for the women in the royal house. It should have said, “the women’s house”? Rava said: Both of them [Ahashverosh and Vashti] intended to transgress. This is what people say,  He with large pumpkins and his wife
  
  Daf 12b
  
  with small pumpkins.
  On the seventh day, where the king’s heart was merry with wine. Was then his heart not merry with wine until then? —  Rava said: The seventh day was Shabbat, when Israel eats and drinks. They begin with words of Torah and with words of thanksgiving [to God]. But the nations of the world when they eat and drink only begin with words of frivolity.
  And so at the feast of that wicked one. These said, The Median women are the most beautiful, and others said, The Persian women are the most beautiful.  Ahashverosh said to them, The vessel that I use is neither Median nor Persian, but Chaldean. Would you like to see her?  They said,  Yes, but she must be naked.
  For man receives measure for measure [rewards and punishments]. This teaches that the wicked Vashti used to take the daughters of Israel and strip them naked and make them work on Shabbat. So it is written, “After these things when the wrath of the king Ahashverosh abated, he remembered Vashti and what she had done and what was decided against her.” As she had done so it was decreed against her.
  “And the queen Vashti refused” (Esther 1:12). She was immodest, as the Master said above, that  both of them had licentious intention. Why then would she not come? —  R. Yose b. Hanina said: This teaches that leprosy broke out on her.  In a Baraitha it was taught that Gabriel came and fixed a tail on her.
  “And the king was very angry”: Why was he so angry? Rava said: She sent back to him: Son of my father’s stable master,  my father drank wine in the presence of a thousand, and did not get drunk, and that man has become senseless with his wine. Straightway, his wrath burned within him.
  And the king said to the wise men. Who are the wise men? The rabbis. “Who knew the times”: that is, who knew how to intercalate years and fix new moons. He said to them: Try her for me. They said [to themselves]: What shall we do? If we tell him o put her to death, tomorrow he will become sober again and he will require her from us. Shall we tell him to let her go? She disrespected royalty. So they said to him: From the day when the Temple was destroyed and we were exiled from our land, counsel has been taken from us and we do not know how to judge capital cases. Go to Ammon and Moab who have remained in their places like wine that has settled on its lees. They spoke to him thus 
  with good reason,  since it is written, “Moab has been at ease from his youth, and he has settled on his lees, and has not been emptied from vessel to vessel, neither has he gone into captivity. Therefore his taste remains in him, and his scent is not changed” (Jeremiah 48:11). Straightway [he did so, as we read], and the next unto him was Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish [etc.].
  R. Levi said: This whole verse speaks of the sacrifices
  Carshena: the ministering angels said to the Holy One, blessed be He:  Master of the Universe, did they ever offer before you lambs of the first year [karim bene shanah] as Israel offered before You? Shethar: did they ever offer before You two pigeons [shte torim]? Admatha: did they ever build before You an altar of earth [adamah]? Tarshish: did they ever minister before You in the priestly garments, of which it is written [that they contained] a beryl [tarshish], an onyx and a jasper? Meres: did they ever stir [mersu] the blood [of the sacrifice] before You? Marsena: did they ever stir [mersu] the grain-offerings before You? Memukhan: did they ever prepare [hekhinu] a table before Thee?
  And Memukhan said. A Tanna taught:  Memukhan is the same as Haman,  And why was he called Memucan? Because he was destined [mukhan] for punishment. Kahana said: From here we see that an ordinary man always pushes himself in front.
  That every man should reign in his house. Rava said:  Had it not been for these first letters, there would have been left no shred or remnant of the [enemies of] Israel.
  People said: What does he mean by sending us word that every man should reign in his own house?  Of course he should! Even a weaver in his own house must be commander!
  “And let the king appoint officers”. Rav said: What is it that is written, “A clever (arom) man deals with forethought, but a fool exposes his folly” (Proverbs 13:16)? “A clever (arom) man deals with forethought’: this refers to David, of whom, it is written, “And his servants said to him, “Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin”: Every one who had a daughter brought her to him.
  “But a fool exposes his folly’: this refers to Ahashverosh, of whom it is written, and “Let the king appoint officers: whoever had a daughter hid her.
  “There was a certain Jew in the fortress Shushan. a Benjamite.” What does this say?  If it is to give the pedigree of Mordecai, it should trace it right back to Benjamin! Why then were only these specified?
  A Tanna taught:  All of them were based on his name. “The son of Yair” means, the son who enlightened [he’ir] the eyes of Israel by his prayer. “The son of Shimei”, the son to whose prayer God hearkened [shama]. “The son of Kish” that he knocked [hikkish] at the gates of mercy and they were opened to him.
  He is called “Judean [Yehudi]” which implies that he came from [the tribe of] Judah, and he is called “a Benjamite”, which implies that he came from Benjamin. Nahman said: He was crowned with good names.
  Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: His father was from Benjamin and his mother from Judah. The Rabbis, however, said: The tribes competed with one another [for him]. The tribe of Judah said:  I am responsible for the birth of Mordecai, because David did not kill Shimei the son of Gera. And the tribe of Benjamin said:  He is actually descended from me.
  Rava said: The community of Israel explained [the two designations] in the opposite sense:  “See what a Judean did to me and how a Benjamite repaid me!” What a Judean did to me,
  
  Daf 13a
  
  that David did not kill Shimei from whom was descended Mordecai who provoked Haman. “And how a Benjamite repaid me”, that Saul did not slay Agag from whom was descended Haman who oppressed Israel.
  Yohanan said: He did indeed come from Benjamin. Why then was he called “a Jew”? Because he denied idolatry. For anyone who denies idolatry is called ‘a Jew’, as it is written, “There are certain Jews etc.” (Daniel 3:13).
  R. Shimon b. Pazzi when he would begin an exposition of the Book of Chronicles would say the following: “All Your words are one”, and we know how to find their inner meaning. [It is written], “And his wife the Jewess bore Yered the father of Gedor, and Hever the father of Socho, and Yekutiel the father of Zanoah, and these are the sons of Bitya the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took” (I Chronicles 4:18).
  Why was she [the daughter of Pharaoh] called a Jewess? Because she repudiated idolatry, as it is written, “And the daughter of Pharaoh went down to bathe in the river,” (Exodus 2:5) and R. Yohanan, [commenting on this,] said that she went down to cleanse herself from the idols of her father’s house.
  “Bore”: But she only brought him [Moses] up? This tells us that if anyone brings up an orphan boy or girl in his house, the verse treats him as if he had bore him.
  “Yered”: this is Moses. Why was he called Jered? Because manna came down [yarad] for Israel in his days. “Gedor”: [he was so called] because he fenced in [gadar] the breaches of Israel. “Heber”, because he joined [hiber] Israel to their Father in heaven. “Socho”, because he was like a sheltering booth [sukkah] for Israel. “Yekutiel”, because Israel trusted in God [kiwu le’el] in his days. “Zanoah”, because he made Israel abandon [hizniah] their inquities.
  “Father of”, “father of”, “father of”: he was a father in Torah, a father in wisdom, a father in prophecy.
  “These are the sons of Bitya…whom Mered took”. Was Mered his name? Was not Caleb his name? — The Holy One, blessed be He, said:  Let Caleb who rebelled [marad] against the plan of the spies come and take the daughter of Pharaoh who rebelled against the idols of her father's house. 
  “Who had been carried away from Jerusalem” (Esther 2:6). Rava said:  That he went into exile of his own accord.
  “And he brought up Hadassah” (Esther 2:6). She is called Hadassah but she is called Esther. It has been taught: R. Meir says: Esther was her proper name. Why then was she called Hadassah? After the righteous who are called myrtles (hadasim), for so it says, “And he stood among the myrtle trees” (Zechariah 1:8).
  R. Judah says: Hadassah was her name — Why then was she called Esther? Because she concealed [masteret] the facts about herself, as it says, “Esther did not make known her people or her kindred” (Esther 2:20).
  R. Nehemiah says:  Hadassah was her name. Why then was she called Esther? All peoples called her so after Istahar. Ben Azzai said: Esther was neither too tall nor too short, but of medium size, like a myrtle. Joshua b. Korha said: Esther was green, and there was an aura of kindness (hesed) about her.
  “For she had neither father nor mother…And when her father and mother died” (Esther 2:7).   Why did it need to say this again? Aha said: When her mother became pregnant with her, her father died; when she was born, her mother died.
  “And when her father and mother died, Mordecai took her for his own daughter” (Esther 2:7). A Tanna taught in the name of R. Meir: Do not read “for a daughter [le-bat],” but “for a house (i.e. wife) [le-bayit].” Similarly it says: “But the poor man had nothing save one little ewe lamb, which he had brought up and reared; and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it ate of his own bread, and drank from his cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter” (II Samuel 12:3). Because it lay in his bosom, was it like a daughter to him? Rather what it means is like a wife; so here, it means a wife.
  “And the seven maidens who were meet to be given to her” (Esther 2:9): Rava said: [They were seven so that] she could count the days of the week by them. “And he treated her better than her maidens” (Esther 2:9). Rav said: [This means that] he gave her Jewish food to eat. 
  Shmuel however said,  it means that he gave her pieces of pork.
  And R. Yohanan said that he gave her legumes, and so it says, “So the steward took away their food and gave them legumes” (Daniel 1:16).
  “Six months with the oil of myrrh” (Esther 2:12). What is the oil of myrrh? R. Hiyya b. Abba said: Stakat. R. Huna said: Oil from olives not a third grown. It has been taught: R. Judah says: Anpikon is oil of olives not a third grown. Why is it used for smearing? Because it removes hair and makes the skin soft.
  “In the evening she went and in the morning she returned” (Esther 2:14). R. Yohanan From the disgrace of that wicked man we can learn something to his credit, that he did not have sexual relations by day.
  “And Esther found favor” (Esther 2: 15). R. Elazar: said This teaches that to everyone she looked like a member of his own people. “So Esther was taken to king Ahashverosh into his royal house in the tenth month, which is the month Tevet” (Esther 2: 16). The month when a body benefits from being close to another body.
  “And the king loved Esther above all the women, and she obtained grace and favor in his sight above all the virgins” (Esther 2: 17). Rav said: If he wanted to find in her the taste of a virgin he found it; if the taste of a non-virgin, he found it.
  “Then the king made a great feast” (Esther 2: 18). He made a feast for her, and she did not tell him [who she was]. He remitted taxes, and she did not tell him. He sent gifts, and she [still] did not tell him.
  “And when the virgins were gathered together the second time, etc” (Esther 2: 19). He went and took counsel from Mordecai who said, The way to cause a woman to be jealous is to show her other women” and even so she did not tell as it says, “And Esther did not reveal her birthplace.”
  R. Elazar said:  What is the meaning of the verse,
  
  Daf 13b
  
  “He does not withdraw his eyes from the righteous” (Job 36:7)? In reward for the modesty displayed by Rachel, she merited having Saul descend from her; and in reward for the modesty displayed by Saul, he merited having Esther descend from him.
  What was the modesty displayed by Rachel? — As it is written: “And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father’s brother” (Genesis 29:12). Now was he her father’s brother? Was he not the son of her father’s sister?
  Rather he said to her, Will you marry me?  She replied, Yes, but my father is a trickster, and you cannot outwit him. He replied: I am his brother in trickery. She said to him: Is it permitted to the righteous to engage in trickery? He replied: Yes; “With the pure, act in purity and with the perverse, act wily” (II Samuel 22:27).
  He said to her: What is his trickery? She replied: I have a sister older than me, and he will not let me marry before her.  So he gave her certain tokens.
  When night came, she said to herself,  Now my sister will be put to shame.  So she handed over the tokens to her. So it is written, “And it came to pass in the morning that, behold, it was Leah.” Up to now she was not Leah? Rather, what it means is that on account of the tokens which Rachel gave to Leah he did not know until then. Therefore she was rewarded by having Saul among her descendants.
  What modesty did Saul display? — As it is written, “But concerning the matter of the kingdom of which Shmuel spoke he told him not” (I Samuel 10:16).He merited that Esther should descend from him. R. Elazar further said: When the Holy One, blessed be He, assigns greatness to a man, he assigns it to his sons and his sons’ sons for all generations, as it says, “[With kings on the throne;] He sets them forever and they are exalted” (Job 36:7). If, however, he becomes arrogant, God humiliates him, as it says, “And if they be bound in fetters etc” (Job 36:8).
  "For Esther did the commandment of Mordecai" (Esther 2:20). R. Jeremiah said: [This means] that she used to show her menstrual blood to the Sages. "As when she was brought up with him" (Esther 2:20). Rabbah b. Lema said in the name of Rav: [This means] that she used to rise from the lap of Ahashverosh and bathe and sit in the lap of Mordecai.
  "In those days, while Mordecai sat in the king's gate, Bigtan and Teresh were enraged" (Esther 2:21).  R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan:  The Holy One, blessed be He, [once] caused a master to be angry with his servants in order to fulfil the desire of a righteous man, namely Joseph, as it says, "And there was with us there a young man, a Hebrew, etc." (Genesis 41:12);
  And servants with their master in order to perform a miracle for a righteous man, namely, Mordecai, as it is written, "And the matter was known to Mordecai etc" (Esther 2:22).
  R. Yohanan said: Bigtan and Teresh were two Tarseans and conversed in the Tarsean language.  They said: From the day this woman came we have been able to get no sleep. Come, let us put poison in the dish so that he will die. They did not know that Mordecai was one of those who had seats in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, and that he understood seventy languages.
  One said to the other: But are not my post and your post different? He replied: I will keep guard at my post and you at yours. So it is written, "And in inquisition was made and it was found" (Esther 2:23) that is to say, they were not [both] found at their posts. 
  "After these things" (Esther 3:1). After what?  Rava said: After God had created a healing for the blow.
  For Resh Lakish has said:  The Holy One, blessed be He, does not strike Israel unless He has created for them a healing beforehand, as it says. "When I have healed Israel, then is the iniquity of Ephraim uncovered" (Hosea 7:1). Not so, however, with the other nations: He smites them first, and then creates for them a healing, as it says: "The Lord will smite Egypt, smiting and healing" (Isaiah 19:22). 
  “But it seemed contemptible in his eyes to lay hands on Mordecai alone” (Esther 3:6). At first he [wanted to lay hands] “on Mordecai alone,” then at “the people of Mordecai” — and who are these? The Rabbis; and finally at “all the Jews.”
  “They cast a pur, that is the lot”.  A Tanna taught:  When the lot fell on the month of Adar, he rejoiced greatly saying:  The lot has fallen for me on the month in which Moses died.  He did not know, however, that Moses died on the seventh of Adar and was born on the seventh of Adar.
  “There is one people” (Esther 3:8): Rava said: No one was ever as skillful at evil language as Haman. He said to Ahashverosh: Come, let us destroy them. He replied: I am afraid of their God, lest He do to me as He did to my predecessors. He replied: They are “negligent” (yashu) of the precepts.
  He said: There are Rabbis among them. He replied: They are “one people”.
  Should you say that I will make a void in your kingdom, they are “scattered abroad among the peoples”. Should you say: There is some profit in them, I reply, “they are dispersed” [nifredu], like an isolated bough [peridah] that does not bear fruit. Should you say that they occupy one province, I reply, “they are in all the provinces of your kingdom”.
  “Their laws are diverse from those of every other people”: they do not eat of our food, nor do they marry our women nor give us theirs in marriage. “Neither keep they the king’s laws”, since they evade taxes the whole year by saying today is Shabbat, today is Pesah. “Therefore it does not profit the king to suffer them”, because they eat and drink and despise the throne. For if a fly falls into the cup of one of them, he throws it out and drinks the wine, but if my lord the king were to touch his cup, he would dash it on the ground and not drink from it.
  “If it please the king, let it be written that they be destroyed, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver”: Resh Lakish said: It was well known to Him at whose word the world came into being that Haman would one day pay shekels for the destruction of Israel. Therefore He anticipated his shekels with those of Israel.
  And so we have learned: “On the first of Adar they make a proclamation regarding the shekalim and the mixed seeds.”
  “And the king said to Haman, The silver is given to you and the people also, to do with them as it seems good in your eyes.” R. Abba said:
  
  Daf 14a
  
  To what can we compare Ahashverosh and Haman?  To two men one of whom had a mound in the middle of his field and the other a ditch in the middle of his field. The owner of the ditch said, I wish I could buy that mound,  and the owner of the mound said, I wish l could buy that ditch.
  One day they met, and the owner of the ditch said,  Sell me your mound, whereupon the other replied, Take it for nothing, and I shall be only too glad.
  “And the king removed his ring” (Esther 3:10): R. Abba b. Kahana said: This removal of the ring was greater than forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses who prophesied to Israel; for all these were not able to turn Israel to do good, and the removal of the ring did turn them to do good.
  Our Rabbis taught: “Forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses prophesied to Israel, and they neither took away from nor added anything to what is written in the Torah save only the reading of the Megillah.”
  How did they derive it [from the Torah]? R. Hiyya b. Abin said in the name of R. Joshua b. Korha: If for being delivered from slavery to freedom we chant a hymn of praise, should we not do so all the more for being delivered from death to life?
  If that is the reason we should say Hallel also? — [We do not do so] because Hallel is not said for a miracle which occurred outside of the land of Israel. How then can we say Hallel for the Exodus from Egypt which was a miracle which occurred outside the land of Israel?
  As it has been taught: “Until they entered the land of Israel, all lands were counted as proper for saying Hallel [for miracles done in them] — After they had entered the land, other countries were not counted as proper for saying [for miracles done in them].
  R. Nahman said: The reading of the Megillah is equivalent to Hallel. 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.
  Whether for Rava or for R. Nahman, there is a difficulty in what has been taught [above], that “after they had entered the land, other countries were not counted as proper for saying the Hallel [for miracles done in them]!” When the people went into exile, the other countries became proper as at first.
  Were there no more prophets?  But is it not written, “And there was a man from Ramataim-Tzophim”, (I Samuel 1:1) [which we interpret], one of two hundred prophets [zophim] who prophesied to Israel?
  There were actually very many, as it has been taught, Many prophets arose for Israel, double the number of [the Israelites] who came out of Egypt only the prophecy which contained a lesson for future generations was written down, and that which did not contain such a lesson was not written.
  R. Shmuel b. Nahmani said: This [Ramataim-Tzophim] means, a man who came from two heights (ramot) which faced (tzophot) one another. R. Hanin said: It means: a man who came from ancestors of the most exalted position (rumo).   And who were they? The sons of Korah, as it says, And the sons of Korah did not die. A Tanna taught in the name of our Teacher: A special place was assigned to them in Gehinnom and they stood on it.
  “Seven prophetesses”. Who were these? — Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Hulda and Esther. Sarah”, as it is written, “The father of Milkah and the father of Yiscah” (Genesis 11:29) and R. Isaac said [on this].  Yiscah is Sarah; and why was she called Yiscah? Because she saw visions [sakhtah] by means of the holy spirit, as it is said, “In all that Sarah says to you, listen to her voice” (Genesis 21:12). Another explanation is: because all gazed [sakhin] at her beauty.
  “Miriam”, as it is written, “And Miriam the prophetess the sister of Aaron” (Exodus 15:20). Was she only the sister of Aaron and not the sister of Moses?  R. Nahman said in the name of Rav:  For she prophesied when she was the sister of Aaron [only] and said, My mother is destined to bear a son who will save Israel. When he was born the whole house was filled with light, and her father arose and kissed her on the head, saying, My daughter, your prophecy has been fulfilled.
  But when they threw him into the river her father arose and tapped her on the head, saying, Daughter, where is your prophecy? That is why it is written, “And his sister stood afar off to know”;   to know, [that is,] what would be with the latter part of her prophecy.
  “Devorah,” as it is written, “Now Devorah a prophetess, a woman of flames” (Judges 4:4).  What is meant by a woman of flames? Because she used to make wicks for the Temple.
  “And she sat under a palm tree” (v. 5). Why under a palm tree? — R. Shimon b. Avishalom said: [To avoid] seclusion. Another explanation is: Just as a palm tree has only one heart, so Israel in that generation had only one heart devoted to their Father in heaven.
  “Hannah”, as it is written, “And Hannah prayed and said, My heart exults in the Lord, my horn is exalted in the Lord” (I Samuel 2:1): “My horn is exalted”, and not, “my cruse is exalted.” David and Solomon, who were anointed from a horn, their kingship would be prolonged, but Saul and Yehu, who were anointed with a cruse, their kingship would not be prolonged.
  “There is none holy as the Lord, for there is none beside you” (I Samuel 2:2).   R. Judah b. Menashya said: Read not biltekha, (beside You), rather lebalotekha [“to survive longer than you”]. For the nature of the Holy One, blessed be He, is not like that of flesh and blood. It is the nature of flesh and blood to be survived by its works, but God survives His works.
  “Neither is there any rock [tzur] like our God.” There is no artist [tzayyar] like our God. A person draws a figure on a wall, but is unable to endow it with breath and spirit, inward parts and intestines. But the Holy One, blessed be He, fashions a form within a form and endows it with breath and spirit, inward parts and intestines.
  “Abigail”, as it is written, “And it was so, as she rode on her donkey and came down by the hidden side of the mountain” (II Samuel 25:20). “By the hidden side [seter] of the mountain”? It should say “from the mountain”!
  Rabbah b. Shmuel said: It means that she came with reference to blood that came from the hidden parts [setarim]. She brought some blood and showed it to him.  He said to her: Is blood to be shown at night? She replied: Are capital cases tried at night? He said to her:
  
  Daf 14b
  
  He [Naval] is a rebel against the king and no trial is necessary for him.  She replied; Saul is still alive, and your fame has not yet spread abroad in the world. Then he said to her: “Blessed be your discretion and blessed be you, that you have kept me this day from shedding bloods” (I Samuel 25:33).
  Damim [bloods]—this means two bloods! Rather it teaches that she bared her thigh and he went three parasangs by the light of it. He said: Listen (lie) with me.  She replied, “Let not this be a stumbling-block to you” (I Samuel 25:33 31). The word “this” implies that something else would be, and what was that? The incident of Bathsheba; and so it was eventually.
  “And the soul of your lord shall be bound up in the bundle of life” (I Samuel 25:33 29). When she left him she said to him. “And when the Lord shall have done well by my lord . . . then remember your handmaid” (25:33 31).  R. Nahman said:
  This is like what people say:  While a woman talks she spins. Some say: The goose stoops as it goes along, but its eyes peer afar.
  Hulda, as it is written, “So Hilkiah the priest and Ahikam and Achbor…and Shafan and Asayah went to Hulda the prophetess” (II Kings 22:14).    But if Jeremiah was there, how could she prophesy? It was said in the school of Rav in the name of Rav:  Hulda was a near relative of Jeremiah, and he did not object to her doing so.
  But how could Josiah himself pass over Jeremiah and send to her? The members of the school of R. Shila said: Because women are more merciful.
  R. Yohanan said Jeremiah was not there, as he had gone to bring back the ten tribes. From where do we know that they returned? Because it is written, “For the seller shall not return to that which is sold” (Ezekiel 7:13). Now is it possible that after the Jubilee had already ceased the prophet should prophesy that it will cease?  The fact is that it teaches that Jeremiah brought them back. Josiah the son of Amon ruled over them, 
  as it says, “Then he said, What is the marker I see there? And the men of the city told him, It is the grave of the man of God who came from Judah, and proclaimed these things that you done against the altar in Beth-el” (II Kings 23:17). Now what connection is there between Josiah and the altar in Bethel? It teaches that Josiah reigned over them. R. Nahman said: We learn it from here: “Also, O Judah, there is a harvest appointed for you, when I would restore the captivity of my people” (Hosea 6:11).
  “Esther,” as it is written, “Now it came to pass on the third day that Esther clothed herself in royalty” (Esther 5:1). Surely it should say, “royal clothing”? What it shows is that she clothed herself in the Holy Spirit. It is written here, “And she clothed”, and it is written in another place, “Then the spirit clothed Amasai..” (I Chronicles 12:18).
  R. Nahman said:
  
  Daf 15a
  
  We can understand that [some of] those [eight] mentioned above are expressly described [as prophets], but how do we know that their fathers [were prophets]? 
  From what Ulla said;  for Ulla said: Wherever a man’s name is given along with that of his father as the author of a prophecy we know that he was a prophet son of a prophet.  Where his own name is given but not that of his father, we know that he was a prophet but not the son of a prophet. Where his name and the name of his town are specified, we know that he came from that town. Where his name is given but not that of his town, we know that he was from Jerusalem.
  In a baraita it was stated If nothing is known about the character of a man or of his ancestors, and the Scripture mentions any one of them in connection with a praiseworthy action, as for instance, “The word of the Lord which came to Zephaniah son of Cushi son of Gedaliah” (Zephaniah 1:1) we may know that he was a righteous man son of a righteous man; and wherever the Scripture mentions any one of them in connection with a reprehensible action, as for instance, “And it came to pass in the seventh month that Ishmael the son [of Netanel] son of Elishama came” (Jeremiah 41:1) we may know that he was a wicked man son of a wicked man.
  Nahman said: Malachi is the same as Mordecai. Why was he called Malachi? Because he was next to the king. They objected: ‘Baruch the son of Neriah and Serayah the son of Mahseyah and Daniel and Mordecai, Bilshan, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi all prophesied in the second year of Darius! This is a refutation.
  It has been taught: R. Joshua b. Korha said: Malachi is Ezra, and the Sages say that  Malachi was his proper name. R. Nahman said:Nahman said: It is reasonable to accept the view that Malachi was the same as Ezra. For it is written in the prophecy of Malachi, “Judah has dealt treacherously and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem, for Judah has profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loves and has married the daughter of a strange God” (Malachi 2:11).
  And who was it that put away the strange women? Ezra, as it is written, “And Shechaniah the son of Yehiel, one of the sons of Elam answered and said unto Ezra: We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women” (Ezra 10:2).
  The Rabbis taught: There have been four beautiful women in the world — Sarah, Rahab, Abigail and Esther. According to the one who says that Esther was green,   Vashti should be inserted in place of Esther.
  Our Rabbis taught: Rahab inspired lust by her name; Yael by her voice; Abigail by her memory; Michal daughter of Saul by her appearance. R. Isaac said: Whoever says, “Rahab, Rahab” will at once have a seminal emission. R. Nahman said to him: I say Rahab, Rahab, and nothing happens to me! He replied:  I was speaking of one who knows her and was intimate with her.
  “Now when Mordecai knew all that was done” [etc.] (Esther 4:1). What did he cry out? Rav said: He said: Haman has raised himself above Ahashverosh. Shmuel said:  The upper king has prevailed over the lower king.
  And the queen was exceedingly afraid [vatithalhal]. What is the meaning of vatithalhal? Rav said: It means that she became a niddah (menstruant). R. Jeremiah said: that she needed to relieve herself.
  “And Esther called Hatach”. Rav said: Hatach is the same as Daniel. Why was he called Hatach? Because he was cut [hatkhuhu] from his elevated position. Shmuel said: Because all affairs of state were decided [nehtakim] by his voice.
  “To know what this was and why this was.” R. Isaac said: She sent to him saying:  Perhaps Israel has transgressed the five books of the Torah, in which is written, “On this side and on this they were written” (Exodus 32:15).
  “And they told Mordecai Esther’s words.” But he did not go to him on this occasion. This shows us that a recalcitrant answer need not be taken back [by the messenger].
  “Go, gather together all the Jews . . . which is not according to the custom” (Esther 4:16). R. Abba said: It was not according to the custom. For every other day she was forced [to be with Ahashverosh], but now it was willingly. “And if I perish, I perish.” As I am lost to my father’s house so I shall be lost to you.
  And Mordecai passed [vaya’avor]” (Esther 4:17). Rav said: This indicates that he made (shehe’evir) the first day of Passover a fast day. Shmuel said: It indicates that he crossed a stream [on that day].
  “Now it came to pass on the third day that Esther put on royalty” (Esther 5:1). Surely it should say, “royal clothing”? R. Elazar said in the name of R. Hanina:  This tells us that the holy spirit clothed her. It is written here, “and she put on,” and it is written elsewhere, “And a spirit clothed Amasai” (I Chronicles 12:19).
  R Elazar b. Hanina also said: Let not the blessing of an ordinary man be held lightly in your eyes, for two men great in their generation were blessed by ordinary men and their blessings were fulfilled.  They were, David and Daniel. David was blessed by Aravnah, as it is written, “And Aravnah said to the king, The Lord your God will accept you” (II Samuel 24:23). Daniel was blessed by Darius, as it is written “Your God whom you serve continually, He will deliver you” (Daniel 6:17).
  R Elazar further said in the name of R. Hanina: Let not the curse of an ordinary man be held lightly in your eyes, because Avimelech cursed Sarah, saying, “Behold he is for you a covering of the eyes” (Genesis 20:16) and this was fulfilled in her seed, [as it says], “And it came to pass that when Isaac was old his eyes were dim” (Genesis 27:1).
  R Elazar further said in the name of R. Hanina: Come and observe that the way of the Holy One, blessed be He, is not like the way of flesh and blood — The way of flesh and blood is that a man places a pot on the fire and then pours water into it, but God first puts in the water and then sets the pot, to fulfil what is written, “At the sound of his giving a multitude of waters in the heavens” (Jeremiah 10:13).
  R. Elazar further said in the name of R. Hanina: Whoever reports a saying in the name of the one who said it originally brings deliverance to the world, as it says, “And Esther told the king in the name of Mordecai” (Esther 2:22).
  R Elazar further said in the name of R. Hanina: When a righteous man dies, he dies only for his own generation. It is with him as with a man who loses a pearl. Wherever it is, it remains a pearl, and is lost only to its owner.
  “Yet all this is worth nothing to me” (Esther 5:13). R. Elazar said in the name of R. Hanina: Just because he saw Mordecai sitting in the king’s gate, was this any reason why he should say, ‘Yet all this is worth nothing to me?” As R. Hisda said, for R. Hisda said: The one came [to the court] as with his wealth and the other
  
  Daf 15b
  
  with poverty R. Papa said: They also called him: The slave that was sold for loaves of bread.
  “Yet all this is worth nothing to me”. This teaches us that all the treasures of that wicked one were engraved on his heart, and when he saw Mordecai sitting in the king’s gate he said,  Yet all this is worth nothing to me.
  R. Elazar further said in the name of R. Hanina: God will in the time to come be a crown on the head of every righteous man, as it is said, “In that day the Lord of Hosts will be for a crown of glory and for a diadem of beauty” (Isaiah 28:5) What is meant by a “crown of glory (tzvi)” and a “diadem [zefirat] of beauty”? For them that do his will [tzivyono] and who await [mezapin] his glory. Shall He be so to all? Scripture says, “To the residue of [lish’ar] his people,” that is, to whoever makes of himself a mere residue [shirayim].
  “And for a spirit of judgement” this indicates one who judges his inclination. “To him that sits in judgement” this indicates one who gives a true verdict on true evidence. “And for strength” this indicates one who subdues his evil passions. “That turn back the battle”:this indicates those who give and take in the war of the Torah. At the gate”: these are the disciples of the sages who come early and leave late in synagogues and houses of study.
  The Attribute of Justice said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the Universe: Why this difference between these and the others? (He replied; Master of the Universe: Israel toils in Torah, the nations of the world do not toil in Torah.)
  He replied to Him,  He replied to Him, “But they also reel through wine, and stagger through strong drink,” they totter in judgement [paku peliliyah]; and “paku” refers only to Gehinnom, as it says, “That this shall be no stumbling-block [pukah] for you” (I Samuel 25:31); and “peliliyah” contains a reference to the judges, as it says, “And he shall pay as the judges determine [bi-felilim]” (Exodus 21:22).
  “And she stood in the inner court of the king’s house” (Esther 5:1): R. Levi said: When she reached the chamber of the idols, the Divine Presence left her.  he said, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me” (Psalms 22:2)? Maybe you punish the inadvertent sin like the intentional one, or one done under compulsion like one done willingly?
  Or is it because I called him “dog” as it says. “Deliver my soul from the sword, mine only one from the power of the dog?” (Psalms 22:21). She straight way retracted and called him lion, as it says, “Save me from the lion’s mouth” (Psalms 22:22).
  “And it was that when the king saw Esther the queen” (Esther 5:2): R. Yohanan said: Three ministering angels were appointed to help her at that moment; one to make her head erect, a second to endow her with charm and a third to stretch the sceptre.
  How much [was it stretched]? —  R. Jeremiah said: It was two cubits long and he made it twelve cubits —  Some say, sixteen,  and some again twenty-four. In a Baraitha it was stated,  sixty. so too you find with the arm of the daughter of Pharaoh, and so you find with the teeth of the wicked, as it is written, You have broken [shibarta] the teeth of the wicked” (Psalms 3:8) and Resh Lakish said:  Do not read shibarta but shirbavta. Rabbah b. Ofran said in the name of R. Elazar who heard it from his teacher, who heard it from his teacher, [that the sceptre was stretched] two hundred [cubits].
  “And the king said to Queen Esther What is your requests? Even to the half of the kingdom, it shall be given you.” (Esther 5:6)  “Half the kingdom” but not the whole kingdom. And not a thing which would divide the kingdom.What could that be? The building of the Temple.
  “Let the king and Haman come to a banquet” (Esther 5:4).  Our Rabbis taught: What did Esther see that she invited Haman? R. Elazar said: She set a trap for him, as it says. “Let their table before them become a snare” (Psalms 69:23). R. Joshua said:
  She learned to do so from her father’s house, as it says. “If your enemy be hungry give him bread to eat” (Proverbs 25:21-22). R. Meir said: so that he should not form a conspiracy and rebel. R. Judah said:
  So that they should not discover that she was a Jew. R. Nehemiah said: So that Israel should not say, We have a sister in the palace, and so should neglect [to pray for] mercy. R. Yose said: So that he should always be at hand for her. R. Shimon b. Menassiah said: [She said], Perhaps God will notice and perform a miracle for us
  R. Joshua b. Korha said: [She said], I will encourage him so that he may be killed, both he and I. Rabban Gamaliel said:  [She said; Ashvesosh] is a flip flopping king. R. Gamaliel said: We still require the Modai, as it has been taught: R. Eliezer of Modiin says, She made the king jealous of him and she made the princes jealous of him..
  Rabbah said: [She said], “Pride goes before the fall” (Proverbs 16:18). Abaye and Rava both of whom said: [She said], “With their poison I will prepare their feast” (Jeremiah 51:39). Rabbah b. Abbuha found Elijah and said to him:  Which of these reasons prompted Esther to act as she did?  He replied:  [All] the reasons given by all the Tannaim and all the Amoraim.
  “And Haman recounted to them the glory of his riches and the multitude of his children” (Esther 5:11). How many were “the multitude of his children”? Rav said: Ten died, ten were hanged, and ten went begging. The Rabbis said:
  Those who went begging were seventy, as it says, “They that were full [seve’im] have hired themselves out for bread” (I Samuel 2:5).   Read not seve’im, but shiv’im [seventy].
  Rami b. Abba said: In all they were two hundred and eight, as it says, “And the multitude [verov] of his sons.” But verov in gematria is two hundred and fourteen? R. Nahman b. Isaac said: The word is written defectively.
  “On that night the sleep of the king was disturbed” (Esther 6:1). R. Tanhum said: The sleep of the King of the Universe was disturbed. The Rabbis say:  Those above were disturbed and those below were disturbed. Rava said: It means literally “the sleep of king Ahashverosh”.
  A thought occurred to him: What is the meaning of Esther inviting Haman? Perhaps they are conspiring against me to kill me? He thought again: If that is so, is there no man who is my friend and who would tell me?  Then he thought again: Perhaps there is some man who has done me a good turn and I have not rewarded him; and therefore men refrain from informing me. Straight away, he commanded to bring the book of records of the chronicles.
  “And they were read.” This teaches that they were read of themselves. And it was found [being] written. It should say, a writing [ketav] was found? This shows that
  
  Daf 16a
  
  Shimshai kept on erasing and Gabriel kept on writing. Assi said:  R. Shila, a man of K’far Temarta said:  If a writing on earth which is for the benefit of Israel cannot be erased, how much less a writing in heaven!
  “There was nothing done for him” (Esther 6:3). Rava said: [They answered him thus] not because they loved Mordecai but because they hated Haman.
  “He had prepared for him” (Esther 6:4): A Tanna stated: [This means], he had prepared for himself.
  “And do even so to Mordecai” (Esther 6:10). Haman said to him: Who is Mordecai? He said to him: “The Jew.” He said: There are many Mordecais among the Jews. He replied: “The one who sits in the king’s gate.”
  Haman said to him: For him [the tribute] of one village or one river is sufficient! Ahashverosh said: Give him that too; “Let nothing fail of all that you have spoken.”
  “Then Haman took the clothes and the horse.” He went and found [Mordecai] with the Rabbis sitting before him while he showed them the rules of the “handful.” When Mordecai saw him approaching and leading the horse, he became frightened and said to the Rabbis: This villain is coming to kill me. Get out of his way so that you should not be burned by his ember. Mordecai thereupon drew his robe around him and stood up to pray. Haman came in and sat down before them and waited until Mordecai had finished his prayer. 
  He said to him: What have you been discussing? He replied: When the Temple stood, if a man brought a meal-offering he used to offer a handful of fine flour and make atonement with it.  Haman said to them: Your handful of fine flour has come and displaced my ten thousand talents of silver. Mordecai said to him: Wicked one, if a slave acquires property, whose is the slave and whose is the property?
  Haman then said to him: Arise and put on these clothes and ride on this horse, for so the king desires you to do. He replied:  I cannot do so until I have gone into the bath and trimmed my hair, for it would not be good manners to use the king’s clothing in this state. 
  Now Esther had sent and closed all the baths and all the barbers’ shops.  So Haman himself took him into the bath and washed him, and then went and brought scissors from his house and trimmed his hair.  While he was doing so, he sighed and groaned. Mordecai said to him: Why do you sigh? He replied: The man who was esteemed by the king above all his nobles is now made a bath attendant and a barber.   Mordecai said to him: Wicked one, and were you not once a barber in Kefar Karzum?  For so a Tanna stated: Haman was a barber in Kefar Karzum twenty-two years.
  After he had trimmed his hair he put the garments on him, and said to him, Mount and ride. He replied: I am not able, as I am weak from the days of fasting.  So Haman stooped down and he mounted [on his back]. When he was up he kicked him. He said to him: Is it not written in your books, “Rejoice not when your enemy fails” (Proverbs 24:17)? He replied: That refers to an Israelite, but in regard to you it is written, “And you shall step on their high places” (Deuteronomy 33:29).
  And proclaimed before him, “Thus shall be done to the man whom the king desires to honor.” (Esther 6:11) As he was leading him through the street where Haman lived, his daughter who was standing on the roof saw him. She thought that  the man on the horse was her father and the man walking before him was Mordecai. So she took a chamber pot and emptied it on the head of her father. He looked up at her and when she saw that it was her father, she threw herself from the roof to the ground and killed herself. 
  Hence it is written . . . ” And Mordecai returned to the king’s gate”. (Esther 6:12) R. Sheshet said: This indicates that he returned to his sackcloth and fasting. “But Haman hastened to his house, mourning and his head covered”; mourning for his daughter, and with his head covered on account of what had happened to him.
   “And Haman told Zeresh his wife and all his friends” etc (Esther 6:13). They are first called “his friends” and then they are called “his wise men.” R. Yohanan said: Whoever says a wise thing even among the nations of the world   is called “wise.”
  “If Mordecai be of the seed of the Judah.” They said to him: If he comes from the other tribes, you could prevail over him, but if he is from the tribe of Judah or of Benjamin, Ephraim or Manasseh, you will not prevail over him.  “Judah” as it is written, “Your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies” (Genesis 49:8). The others, because it is written of them, “Before Ephraim and Benjamin and Manasseh stir up your might” (Psalms 80:3).
  “But falling you shall fall.” (Esther 6:14). Judah b. Ila’i expounded Why are two fallings mentioned here? Haman’s friends said to him: This people is compared to the dust and it is compared to the stars. When they go down, they go down to the dust, and when they rise they rise to the stars.
  “The king’s eunuchs came and hastened [va-yavhilu] to bring Haman” (Esther 6:14): The use of this word [va-yavhilu]   tells us that they brought him all in confusion [behalah].
  For we have been sold, I and my people etc . . . For the adversary is not worth the damage to the king” (Esther 7:4).  She said to him: This adversary cares not for the damage of the king.  He was angry with Vashti and killed her, and he is angry with me and wants to kill me.
  “Then King Ahashverosh said, and he said to Esther the queen.”  Why “said” and again “said”?  R. Abbahu said: He first spoke to her through an intermediary. When she told him that she came from the house of Saul, he immediately,”said to Esther the queen.”
  “And Esther said, An adversary and an enemy, this wicked Haman.” R. Eleazar said: This informs us that she was pointing to Ahashverosh and an angel came and pushed her hand so as to point to Haman.
  “And the king rose in his anger…and the king returned from the palace garden.” (Esther 7:7) His returning is compared to his arising. Just as the arising was in anger, so too the returning was in anger. For he went and found ministering angels in the form of men who were uprooting trees from the garden. He said to them:  What are you doing? What are you doing? Haman has ordered us.
  He came into the house, and there “Haman was falling upon the couch.” “Falling”? It should say, “had fallen”? R. Elazar said: This teaches us that an angel came and made him fall on it. Ahashverosh then said: Trouble inside, trouble outside! “And the king said, Will he also try to overcome the queen with me in the house?” (Esther 7:8)
  “Then said Harbonah,” (Esther 7:9) etc. R. Elazar said: Even Harbonah was a wicked man and was part of that plot. When he saw that his plan was not succeeding, he at once abandoned, and so it is written, “And he cast on him and did not pity, from his hand he surely flees” (Job 27:22).
  “Then the king’s wrath was assuaged.” (Esther 7:10) Why are there two assuagings? One of the King of the Universe, and the other of Ahashverosh. Others say, one on account of Esther and the other on account of Vashti.
  “To all of them he gave to each man a change of clothing but to Benjamin he gave five changes of clothing” (Genesis 45:22). Is it possible that that righteous man
  
  Daf 16b
  
  should  fall into the very mistake from which he himself had suffered? For Rava b. Mehasia said in the name of R. Hami b. Guria, who said it in the name of Rav: Through two sela’s weight of fine silk which Jacob gave to Joseph more than what he gave to his brothers, the matter was set rolling and our ancestors eventually went down to Egypt! Benjamin b. Japhet said: He gave him a hint that a descendant would issue from him who would go out before a king in five royal garments, as it says, “And Mordecai went out from the presence of the king in royal apparel of blue” (Esther 8:15).
  “And he fell upon his brother Benjamin’s necks” (Genesis 45:14). How many necks did Benjamin have? R. Elazar said: He wept for the two Temples which were destined to be in the territory of Benjamin and to be destroyed. “And Benjamin wept upon his neck”: he wept for the tabernacle of Shiloh which was destined to be in the territory of Joseph and to be destroyed.
  “And behold your eyes see and the eyes of my brother Benjamin.” (Genesis 45:12) R. Elazar said: He said to them: Just as I bear no malice against my brother Benjamin who had no part in my selling, so I have no malice against you. “That it is my mouth that speaks to you.” As my mouth is, so is my heart.
  “And to his father he sent in like manner ten donkeys laden with the good things of Egypt” (Genesis 45:23).  What are “the good things of Egypt”? R. Benjamin b. Japhet said in the name of R. Elazar: He sent him [old] wine which old men find very comforting.
  “And his brothers also went and fell down before him” (Genesis 50:3). R. Benjamin b. Japhet said in the name of R. Elazar: This is what people say: A fox in its hour — bow down to it.
  [You compare Joseph to] a fox! How was he inferior to his brothers? Rather if this was said [by R. Eleazar] it was applied as follows:  “And Israel bowed down upon the bed’s head” (Genesis 47:31). R. Benjamin b. Japhet said in the name of R. Eleazar:  A fox in its hour — bow down to it.
  “And he comforted them and spoke kindly to them” (Genesis 50:21): R. Benjamin b. Japhet said in the name of R. Elazar: This teaches that he spoke to them words which would be acceptable to them, [saying], If ten lights were not able to put out one, how can one light put out ten?
  “The Jews had light and gladness and joy and honor” (Esther 8:16). Rav Judah said: “Light” means the Torah, and so it says, “For the commandment is a lamp and the Torah is a light” (Proverbs 6:23). “Gladness” means a festival day; and so it says, “And you shall be glad on your festival” (Deuteronomy 16:14). “Joy” means circumcision; and so it says, “I rejoice at Your word” (Psalms 119:162).
  “Honor” means tefillin, and so it says, “And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord is called upon you, and they shall be afraid of you” (Deuteronomy 28:10);  and it has been taught: R. Elazar the Great says that this refers to the tefillin of the head.
  “And Parshandata . . . the ten sons of Haman” (Esther 9:7-10).  R. Adda from Yaffo said: The ten sons of Haman and the word “ten” [which follows] should be said in one breath.  What is the reason? Because they all died in one breath. R. Yohanan said: The vav of Vaizata must be lengthened like a boat-pole of the river Librut. What is the reason? Because they were all strung on one pole.
  R. Shila,  a man of Kefar Temarta expounded: All the songs [in Scripture] are written in the form of a half brick over a whole brick, and then a whole brick over a half brick, with the exception of this one and the list of the kings of Canaan which are written in the form of a half brick over a half brick and a whole brick over a whole brick.
  What is the reason? So that they should never rise again from their downfall.
  “And the king said to the queen: In Shushan the castle the Jews have slain . . .” (Esther 9:12). R. Abbahu This teaches us that an angel came and slapped him on his mouth.
  “But when she came before the king, he said along with the letter” (Esther 9:25). “He said”? It should read, “she said”? R. Yohanan said: She said: Let there be said by word of mouth what is written in the letter.
  “Words of peace and truth”: R. Tanhum said: [or, according to some, R. Assi]: This shows that the Megillah must be written on ruled lines, like the true essence of the Torah.
  “And the ordinance of Esther upheld” (Esther 9:32): Only the ordinance of Esther and not the words of the fasts? R. Yohanan said: The words of the fasts and the ordinance of Esther upheld these matters of Purim.”
  For Mordecai the Jew was second to king Ahashverosh, and great among the Jews and accepted by most of his brother” (Esther 10:3) Most of his brothers but not of all his brothers; this informs us that some members of the Sanhedrin separated from him.
  R. Joseph said: The study of the Torah is superior to the saving of life. For at first Mordecai was counted next after four,  but afterwards next after five. At first it is written, “Who came with Zerubabel: Yeshua, Nehemiah, Serahyah, Re’elayah, Mordecai, Bilshan” (Ezra 2:2) and subsequently it is written, Who came with Zerubabel, Yeshua, Nehemiah, Azariah, Raamiah, Nahamani, Mordecai, Bilshan” (Nehemiah 7:3).
  Rabbah said in the name of R. Isaac b. Shmuel b. Marta: The study of the Torah is greater than honoring one's father and mother. For, all the time that  for as long as Baruch b. Neriah was alive Ezra would not leave him to go up to the land of Israel
  Rabbah said in the name of R. Isaac b. Shmuel b. Marta: The study of the Torah is greater than honoring one's father and mother. For, for the fourteen years that Jacob spent in the Study House of Ever, he was not punished.  Since a Master said:
  
  
  Daf 17a
  
  Why were the years of Ishmael counted?  So as to reckon by them the years of Jacob, as it is written, "And these are the years of the life of Ishmael, a hundred and thirty and seven years" (Genesis 25:17).  How much older was Ishmael than Isaac? Fourteen years, as it is written, "And Avram was eighty and six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram" (16:16), and it is also written, "And Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him" (21:5).  And it is written, "And Isaac was sixty years old when she bore them" How old then was Ishmael when Jacob was born? Seventy-four. How many years were left of his life? Sixty-three; 
  and it has been taught: Jacob our father at the time when he was blessed by his father was sixty-three years old. It was just at that time that Ishmael died, as it is written, "Now Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob so Esau went to Ishmael and took Mahlat the daughter of Ishmael, Abraham's son, the sister of Nevayot" (28:6, 9). Now once it has been said, "Ishmael's daughter" do I not know that she was the sister of Nevayot?  This tells us then that Ishmael betrothed her and then died, and Nevayot her brother gave her in marriage.
  Sixty-three, and fourteen more till Joseph was born make seventy-seven, and it is written, “And Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh” (Genesis 41:46). This makes a hundred and seven. Add seven years of plenty and two of famine, and we have a hundred and sixteen, and it is written, “And Pharaoh said to Jacob, How many are the days of the years of your life?
  And Jacob said to Pharaoh, The days of the years of my wanderings are a hundred and thirty years” (47:8-9). But [we have just seen that] they were only a hundred and sixteen?
  Rather, he spent fourteen years in the house of Ever, as it has been taught in a baraita: Jacob was fourteen years hidden in the House of Ever. Ever died, two years after Jacob our father had gone to Aram Naharaim. He then went forth from where he was and came to Aram Naharaim. When he stood by the well he was seventy-seven years old.
  And how do we know that he was not punished [for these fourteen years]? As it has been taught in a baraita: We find that Joseph was away from his father twenty-two years just as Jacob our father was away from his father. But Jacob’s absence was thirty-six years? It must be then that the fourteen years which he was in the House of Ever are not counted.
  But in the end, the time he spent in the house of Lavan was only twenty years? Because he spent two years on the way, as it has been taught: He left Aram Naharaim and came to Sukkot and spent there eighteen months, as it says, “And Jacob journeyed to Sukkot, and built him a house, and made booths for his cattle” (Genesis 33:17).  And in Bethel he spent six months and brought there sacrifices.
  May we return to you Chapter “The Megillah is Read”
  If one reads the Megillah out of order, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he reads it by heart, if he reads it in a translation [targum], or in any other language, he has not fulfilled his obligation. But they may read it to those who do not understand Hebrew in a language other than Hebrew. One who doesn't understand Hebrew who heard it in Assyrian [Hebrew], has fulfilled his obligation.
  If one reads it with breaks, or naps [in between readings], he has fulfilled his obligation. If he was copying it, explaining it or correcting [a scroll of Esther], if he directed his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation.
  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.
  GEMARA. From where is the rule [not to read backward] derived? Rava said:  As the text says, “According to their writing and according to their appointed time” (Esther 9:27): just as the appointed time cannot be backward, so too the writing must not be backward. But does the text speak here of reading?
  It speaks of keeping, as it is written, “That they would keep these two days (Esther 9:28) Rather from here, as it is written: “And these days should be remembered and kept” (Esther 9:28). “Remembering” is compared to “keeping”: just as keeping cannot be in the wrong order, so remembering also.
  A Tanna stated: The same rule applies to Hallel, to the recitation of the Shema, and to the Amidah prayer.
  From where do we derive the rule as regards Hallel? Rabbah said: Because it is written, “From the rising of the sun until the going down” (Psalms 113:3). R. Joseph said:  “This is the day which the Lord has made” (Psalms 118:24). R. Avia said:
  “Let the name of the Lord be blessed” (Psalms 113:2). R. Nahman b. Isaac — or you may also say, R. Aha b Jacob — said, It is from here:  “From this time forth and forever” (Psalms 113:2).
  “The recitation of the Shema”, as it has been taught: The Shema must be recited as it is written, the words of Rabbi. The Sages say: It may be recited in any language. What is Rabbi’s reason? Scripture says
  
  Daf 17b
  
   “[And these words] shall be” (Deuteronomy 6:6) which implies, they shall be kept as they are. And what is the reason of the Sages?  —Because Scripture says, “Hear” (Deuteronomy 6:4) which implies, in any language which you understand.
  But Rabbi also—is it not written, “hear”? —  He requires that word to teach: Let your ear hear what comes out of your mouth. The Sages hold like the one who says: One who recites the Shema without making it heard by his ears, he has performed his obligation.
  But the Sages too, is it not written, “And they shall be”? —  They require this to teach that it should not be recited backwards. From where does Rabbi derive the rule that it should not be recited backwards? From “words” “the words.” The Sages do not accept a distinction between “words” and “the words.”
  May we say that Rabbi holds that the whole Torah can be recited in any language? For should you assume that it must be recited] only in the holy tongue, why would I need the words “and they shall be”?
  These were necessary. For it might have occurred to you to understand “hear” as did the Sages. Therefore God wrote “and they shall be.”
  May we then say that the Sages held that the whole of the Torah could be recited only in the holy tongue, for should you assume that it could be recited in any language, why would it write “Hear”?
  This word is necessary. For it might occur to you to understand “and they shall be” in the same sense as Rabbi. Therefore God wrote, “hear.”
  The Amidah prayer: From where do we know this? — As it has been taught: Shimon Hapakuli organized eighteen blessings in the presence of Rabban Gamaliel in a fixed order in Yavneh. R. Yohanan said (others report, it was stated in a baraita): A hundred and twenty elders, among whom were many prophets, drew up eighteen blessings in a fixed order.
  Our Rabbis taught: How do we know that the blessing of the Patriarchs should be said? Because it says, “Ascribe unto the Lord the sons of might” (Psalms 29:1). And from where do we know that we say the blessing of mighty deeds? Because it says, “Ascribe unto the Lord glory and strength” (Psalms 29:1). And from where do we know that we say sanctifications? Because it says, “Ascribe unto the Lord the glory due His name, worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness.” (Psalms 29:2)
  What reason did they have for saying “understanding” after holiness? Because it says, “They shall sanctify the Holy One of Jacob and shall stand in awe of the God of Israel” (Isaiah 29:23), and next to this, “They also that err in spirit shall come to understanding” (Isaiah 29:24). What reason did they have for saying “repentance” after “understanding”? Because it is written, “Understanding with their heart, they will repent and be healed” (Isaiah 6:10).
  If that is the reason, healing should be mentioned next to repentance? Do not think such a thing, since it is written, “And let him return to the Lord and He will have compassion upon him, and to our God, for He will abundantly forgive” (Isaiah 55:7).
  But what did you see to rely on this verse? Rely rather on the other! There is written another verse, “Who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases, who redeems your life from the pit”(Psalms 103:3-4). This implies that redemption and healing come after forgiveness. But it is written, “And he will repent and be healed”?  That refers not to the healing of sickness but to the healing [power] of forgiveness.
  What reason did they have for saying redemption in the seventh blessing? Rava said: Because they [Israel] are destined to be redeemed in the seventh year [of the coming of the Messiah], therefore the mention of redemption was placed in the seventh blessing. But a Master has said, In the sixth year will be thunder, in the seventh wars, at the end of the seventh the son of David will come? War is also the beginning of redemption.
  What was their reason for saying healing in the eighth blessing? R. Aha said: Because circumcision which requires healing is given for the eighth day, therefore it was placed in the eighth blessing.
  What was their reason for saying the blessing of the years ninth? R. Alexandri said: This was directed against those who raise the market price, as it is written, “Break the arm of the wicked” (Psalms 10:15); and when David said this, he said it in the ninth Psalm.
  What was their reason for saying the gathering of the exiles after the blessing of the years? Because it is written, “But you, O mountains of Israel, you shall shoot forth your branches and yield your fruit to your people Israel, for they are at hand to come” (Ezekiel 36:8). And when the exiles are gather,  judgment will be visited on the wicked, as it says, “And I will turn my hand upon you and purge away your dross as with lye” (Isaiah 1:25) and it is written further, “And I will restore your judges as at the first” (Isiah 1:26).
  And when judgment is visited on the wicked, apostates will cease, and presumptuous sinners are included with them, as it is written, “But the destruction of the transgressors and of the sinners shall be together, and they that forsake the Lord shall be consumed” (Isaiah 1:28).
  And when the transgressors have disappeared, the horn of the righteous will be exalted, as it is written, “All the horns of the wicked also will I cut off, but the horns of the righteous shall be exalted” (Psalms 95:11).  And “righteous converts” are included with the righteous, as it says, “Before the hoary head rise up, and honor the face of the elder”, and the text goes on, “And if a stranger sojourns with you” (Leviticus 19:32).
  And where is the horn of the righteous exalted? In Jerusalem, as it says, “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, may they prosper that love you” (Psalms 122:6).
  And when Jerusalem is built, David will come, as it says,
  
  Daf 18a
  
  “Afterwards the children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God, and David their king” (Hosea 3:5). And when David comes, prayer will come, as it says, “Even then will I bring them to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer” (Isaiah 56:7).
  And when prayer has come, the Temple service will come, as it says, “Their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be acceptable upon my altar” (Isaiah 56:7). And when the Temple service comes, thanksgiving will come, as it says, “Whoever offers the sacrifice of thanksgiving honors me” (Psalms 50:23).
  What was their reason for saying the priestly blessing after thanksgiving? Because it is written, “And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them and he came down from offering the sin-offering and the burnt-offering and the peace-offerings” (Leviticus 9:22).
  But say that he did this before worship? Do not think such a thing. For it is written, “And he came down from offering the sin-offering.”  Is it written ‘to offer’? It is written, “from offering.”
  Why not then say it [the blessing of the priests] after the [blessing of] the Temple service? Do not think such a thing, since it is written, “Whoever offers the sacrifice of thanksgiving” (Psalms 50:23).
  What did you see to rely on this verse? Why not rely on the other? It is reasonable that worship and thanksgiving are one.
  What was their reason for saying “give peace” after the priestly blessing? — Because it is written, “So they [the priests] shall put my name on the children of Israel, and [then] I shall bless them” (Numbers 6:27) and the blessing of the Holy One, blessed be He, is peace, as it says, “The Lord shall bless His people with peace” (Psalms 29:11).
  Since hundred and twenty elders, among whom were many prophets, established the prayers in the proper order, what did Shimon the Pakulite arrange? They forgot them, and he went back and arranged them.
  Beyond this it is forbidden to declare the praise of the Holy One, blessed be He. For R. Elazar said:  What is it that is written, “Who can express the mighty acts of the Lord, or make all his praise heard” (Psalms 106:2)? For whom is it fitting to express the mighty acts of the Lord? For one who can make all his praise heard.
  Rabbah b. Bar Hannah said in the name of R. Yohanan: One who tells of the praises of the Holy One, blessed be He, in excess is uprooted from the world, as it says, “Will it be told Him if I speak? If a man says it, he will be swallowed” (Job 37:20).
  R. Judah a man of Kefar Gibboraya, and some say, of Kefar Gibbor Hayil, expounded: What is it that is written, “For You silence is praise” (Psalms 65:2)? The cure for everything is silence. When R. Dimi came, he said: In the West they say: “A word is worth a sela, silence two selas.”
  If he read it by heart, he has not fulfilled his obligation. From where do we know this? Rava said: The word “zekhirah” in one passage is derived from “zekhirah” in another. It is written here, “And these days shall be nizkarim [remembered]” (Esther 9:28) and it is written elsewhere, “Write this lezikaron [for a memorial] in the book” (Exodus 17:14). Just as there it was to be in a book, so here it must be in a book.
  But how do we know that this zekhirah refers to reading [out loud]?  Perhaps it means reading with the eyes? Do not think such a thing, since it has been taught: “Remember” [zakhor] (Deuteronomy 25:17). Do not think such a thing, since it has been taught: “Remember” [zakhor] (Deuteronomy 25:17). This might be only with the mind? When it says, “Do not forget,” forgetting in one’s heart is already stated. How then can I fulfill “remember”? With one’s mouth.
  If he read it in translation, he has not fulfilled his obligation. How so? If you say that it was written in Hebrew and he read it in a translation? This is the same as reading by heart! It was only necessary for the case where it was written in a translation and he reads it in a translation.
  But they may read it to those who do not speak Hebrew in a language other than Hebrew. But you have just said: If he read it in any other language, he has not fulfilled his obligation? Rav and Shmuel both said: In the Greek vernacular.
  How so? If you say that it is written in Hebrew and he reads it in Greek? This is the same as saying by heart? R. Aha said in the name of R. Elazar: When it was written in the Greek vernacular.
  R. Aha also said in the name of R. Elazar: How do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, called Jacob El [God]? As it says, “And the God of Israel called him [Jacob] El” (Genesis 33:20). For should you think that [what the text means is that] Jacob called the altar El, then it should be written, “And Jacob called it.” Rather [it is written] “And He called to Jacob, El.” And who called him so? The God of Israel.
  They objected [against Rav and Shmuel]: “If one reads it in Coptic, in Hebrew, in Elamean, in Median, in Greek, he has not fulfilled his obligation”!
  This means only as in following: “If one reads it in Coptic to the Copts, in Hebrew to the Hebrews, in Elamean to the Elameans, in Greek to the Greeks, he has fulfilled his obligation.”
  If that is the case, why do Rav and Shmuel explain the Mishnah to refer to the Greek vernacular?  Let them make it refer to any vernacular? — Rather the Mishnah agrees with the baraita,  and the statement of Rav and Shmuel was meant to be a general one: Rav and Shmuel both say that  the Greek vernacular is good for all peoples.
  But it is stated, “In Greek for the Greeks” — for the Greeks he may, but for others he may not? They [Rav and Shmuel] said like Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel, as we have learned:  Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel says: When they allowed scrolls to be written in other languages, they only allowed Greek.”
  Let them then say, The halakhah follows Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel? — Had they said, The halakhah follows Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel, I would have said that this is the case with other books of the Scriptures but not with the Megillah, in which it is written, “According to their writing.” Therefore it teaches us [that this is not so].
  If one who does not understand Hebrew heard it read in Hebrew, he has fulfilled his obligation. But he does not know what they are saying? — He is like women and amei haaretz.
  Ravina raised a difficulty: And do we know the meaning of ha-ahashteranim bene ha-ramakhim (Esther 8:10)? Rather we perform the mitzvah of reading the Megillah and proclaiming the miracle. So too they perform the mitzvah of reading the Megillah and proclaiming the miracle.
  If one reads it with interruptions [serugin], he has fulfilled his obligation. The Rabbis did not know the meaning of serugin. They heard the maidservant of Rabbi’s household, saying to the rabbis on seeing them enter at intervals, “How long are you going to come in serugin serugin?
  The Rabbis did not know the meaning of haluglugot. One day they heard the maidservant of the household of Rabbi, on seeing a man peeling purslane, say to him, How long will you be peeling your haluglugot?
  The Rabbis did not know the meaning of “Salseleah and she will exalt you” (Proverbs 4:8).  One day they heard the maidservant of the house of Rabbi say to a man who was curling his hair, she said to him: How long will you be mesalsel with your hair?
  The Rabbis did not know the meaning of, “Cast upon the Lord your yehav” (Psalms 55:23)  Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: One day I was travelling with a certain Arab and was carrying a load, and he said to me, “Lift up your yehav and put it on [one of] the camels.”
  The Rabbis did not know the meaning of “And ta’atihah bemetateh of destruction” (Isaiah 14:23). They heard the maidservant of Rabbi’s household say to her friend, ” “Take the broom ta’atitah and sweep (ta’ate) the house.
  Our Rabbis taught:  If one reads it with breaks,
  
  Daf 18b
  
  if with omissions, he has not fulfilled it.  R. Muna said in the name of R. Judah: Even with breaks, if he stops long enough to finish the whole of it, he must go back to the beginning. R. Joseph said: The halakhah is according to R. Muna in the name of R. Judah.
  Abaye asked R. Joseph:  [When it says] “long enough to finish the whole of it” does it mean from where he is to the end, or from the beginning to the end? He answered:  It means from the beginning to the end, for otherwise there would be no fixed standard.
  Abba said in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba who said it in the name of Rav: The halakhah accords with R. Muna. And Shmuel said: The halakhah does not accord with R. Muna.  This is the version taught in Sura. In Pumbedita the following version was taught:  R. Kahana said in the name of Rav: The halakhah accords with R. Muna, but Shmuel said that the halakhah does not accord with R. Muna. R. Bibi reverses the statement, [making] Rav say that the halakhah does not accord with R. Muna and Shmuel say that it does accord with R. Muna.
  R. Joseph said: Accept the version of R. Bibi, since it is Shmuel who rules according to the view of a minority opinion, as we have learned: ‘If a woman was waiting for the yavam [to make his decision], and a [younger] brother of his betrothed her sister, in the name of R. Judah b. Batera they said: They say to him, Wait till your elder brother acts [one way or the other];
  and Shmuel said, The halakhah accords with R. Judah b. Batera.
  Our Rabbis taught: If the scribe had omitted letters or verses and the reader read them like the translator when he is translating, he has fulfilled his obligation.
  They objected: If letters in it [the scroll] are partially rubbed out or torn, if they are still legible, it may be used, but otherwise it may not be used. There is no difficulty: one statement refers to all of it, the other to part of it.
  Our Rabbis taught: If the reader omitted one verse, he must not say, I will finish reading it [the Megillah] and I will then read that verse, but he must read [again] from that verse. If he enters the synagogue and finds that the congregation has read half, he must not say, I will read half with the congregation and then I will read the other half, but he must read it from the beginning to the end.
  If he napped he has still fulfilled his obligation What is considered napping? R. Ashi said: Sleeping, but not really sleeping. Awake, but not really awake. If they call him, he would answer. But he would not know how to offer a reasonable response, but when they remind him, he remembers.
  If one was writing it, expounding it, or correcting it,  if he directed his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation.  How so? If he was arranging each verse and then writing it, what does it matter if he had intention? He is reciting it by heart! Rather he writes each verse and then recites it.
  But does he thereby fulfill his obligation? Has not R. Helbo said in the name of R. Hama b. Guria who said it in the name of Rav, The halakhah is according to the one who says that all of it [must be recited], and even according to the one who says that it is sufficient [to recite] from "A Jew was" (Esther 2:5), it is necessary that the whole should be [already] written?
  Rather a Megillah lies before him and he reads from it, verse by verse, and then writes. Shall we then say that this supports Rabbah b. Bar Hanah, for Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: It is forbidden to write one letter [of the Megillah], not from another written copy? Perhaps [the Mishnah speaks of a case] where he just happened [to have a copy before him].
  The text [above states]: Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan, It is forbidden to write one letter except from a copy. They objected: R. Shimon b. Elazar It happened that R. Meir went to intercalate the year in Assia, and there was no Megillah there and he wrote one out by heart.
  R. Abbahu said: R. Meir is different, because to him could be applied the verse, "Let your eyes look in front, and gaze straight before you" (Proverbs 4:25). Rami b. Hama asked R. Jeremiah from Difti: What is the meaning of "Let your eyes [af'apekha] look in front, and gaze straight before you"? He replied: This refers to the words of the Torah, of which it is written, "Will your eyes fly over it [ta'if] and it is gone?" (Proverbs 23:5). And even so, they were produced correctly by R. Meir.
  R. Hisda found R. Hananel writing scrolls without a written copy. He said to him: The whole Torah could be written by you by heart, but the Sages have ruled: It is forbidden to write one letter except from a copy. Since he said: The whole Torah could be written by you by heart, we may conclude that he could produce them correctly. But we see that R. Meir actually did write? In case of emergency it is different.
  Abaye allowed the members of the household of Bar Habu to write tefillin and mezuzot without a copy. Whose authority did he follow? The following Tanna, as it has been taught: R. Jeremiah says in the name of our Teacher: Tefillin and mezuzot may be written out without a copy, and do not require to be written upon ruled lines.
  The law, however, is that tefillin do not require lines, but mezuzot do require lines, and both may be written without a copy. What is the reason? — They are frequently recited. 
  If it was written with sam etc... Sam: this is arsenic. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said - Sekarta [red chalk or vermillion] is its name. Kumus: Kuma (gum).
  
  Daf 19a
  
  Kankantum: sandler’s blacking. Diftera: this is a skin which has been salted and put in flour but not treated with gall nuts. Neyar: Mahaka (paper).
  [It is not valid] unless it is written in Hebrew. As it is written, “According to their writing and according to their appointed time” (Esther 9:27).
  On parchment and in ink. From where do we know this? The word “writing” in one place is derived from “writing” used in another place. It is written here, “And Esther the queen wrote,” (Esther 9:29) and it is written in another place, “Then Baruch said to them: He read all these words to me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in the book” (Jeremiah 36:18).
  MISHANH: A resident of a town who has gone to a walled city or a resident of a walled city who has gone to a town, if he is to return to his own place he reads according to the rule of his own place, and if not reads with them.
  From where does a man read the Megillah and thereby fulfil his obligation? Rabbi Meir says: all of it. Rabbi Judah says: from “There was a Jew” (Esther 2:5). Rabbi Yose says: from “After these things” (3:1).
  GEMARA. Rava said: They taught this only if he intends to return on the night of the fourteenth; but if he does not mean to return on the night of the fourteenth, he reads with the rest. Rava said: From where do I derive this ruling? As it is written, “Therefore do the Jews of the villages who dwell in the unwalled towns” (Esther 9:19). Since it is written, “the Jews of the villages” why did it need to write, “who dwell in the unwalled towns”?  This teaches us that one who is a villager for one day is called a villager.
  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.
  Rava also said: A villager who has gone to a town reads with the rest in any case.  What is the reason? He should read at the same time as the townspeople — and it is the Rabbis who made a concession to the villagers so that they might supply food and drink to their brothers in the large cities. Now this applies only so long as they are in their own place, but when they are in the town, they must read like the townspeople.
  Abaye raised an objection: If a resident of a walled city went to a town, in any case he reads according to the custom of his own place. “A resident of a walled city” would you really think? His rule depends on whether he means to return. Rather, this is “a villager.”
  [Rava could respond]: But have you emended the [baraita] in any case. Read, [then] “reads with the rest.”
  From where does he read the Megillah etc. It has been taught: R. Shimon b. Yohai says: From “On that night” (Esther 6:1).
  R. Yohanan said: All these rabbis derived their rule from the same verse: “Then Esther the queen and Mordecai the Jew wrote all the acts of power” (9:29).  He who says the whole Megillah, this refers to the power of Ahashverosh;
  he who says from “There was a Jew,” he power of Mordecai; he who says from “After these things” the power of Haman; and he who says, from “On that night” the power of the miracle.
  R. Huna said: They derived it from here: “Of what they saw in that matter and of what came upon them” (9:26).
  He who says that the whole of it must be read [interprets thus]: What did Ahashverosh see to make him use the vessels of the Temple? “In that matter”, in that he reckoned seventy years and they had not yet been redeemed; “And what came upon them?” That he killed Vashti.
  He who says that it should be read from “There was a Jew” [interprets thus]: What had Mordecai seen that he provoked Haman? “In that matter”, that he made himself an object of idolatry. “And what came upon them”? That a miracle occurred.
  He who says that it is to be read from “After these things,” [interprets thus]: What did Haman see to make him provoke all the Jews? “In that matter”, that Mordecai did not bow down or prostrate himself; “And what came upon him”? They hung him and his sons on the tree.
  He who says that it is to be read from “On that night” interprets thus: What did Ahashverosh see to make him order them to bring the Chronicles? “In that matter” that Esther invited Haman with him. “And what came upon them”? A miracle occurred.
  R. Helbo said in the name of R. Hama b. Guria, who said it in the name of Rav: The halakhah follows the one who says that the whole of it must be read; and even according to the one who says that it need be read only from “There was a Jew” it must all be written.
  Hama b. Guria said in the name of Rav: The Megillah is called “book” and it is also called “letter.” It is called “book” to show that if it is stitched with threads of flax, it is invalid; and it is called “letter” to show that if it is stitched with three threads of sinew, it is valid. R. Nahman said: This is only on condition that they are evenly spaced.
  R. Judah said in the name of Shmuel: If one reads from a Megillah written among the rest of the Writings, he has not fulfilled his obligation. Rava said: This is the case only if it is not a little shorter or longer than the rest, but if it is a little shorter or longer than the rest, there is no problem with it.
  Levi b. Samuel was reading before R. Judah in a Megillah
  
  Daf 19b
  
  which was written among the Writings. He said to him:  Behold they have said: ‘If one reads from a Megillah written among the Writings, he has not fulfilled his obligation.
  R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: One who reads the Megillah written among the rest of the Writings, he has not fulfilled his obligation; and he at once protested against this remark: [This was stated in reference to reading]: In a congregation.
  R. Hiyya b. Abba also said in the name of R. Yohanan: That a space should be left unstitched [in the Sefer Torah] is a halakhah from Moshe on Sinai  and he at once protested the remark by saying: They only said this so that it should not be torn.
  R. Hiyya b. Abba also said in the name of R. Yohanan: Had there remained in the cave in which Moses and Elijah stood a hole the size of the eye of a fine needle, they would not have been able to endure the light, as it says, “For man shall not see me and live” (Exodus 33:20).
  R. Hiyya b. Abba also said in the name of R. Yohanan: What is the meaning of what is written, And on them was written according to all the words which the Lord spoke with you in the Mount” (Deuteronomy 9:10)? It teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed Moses the minute details of the Torah, and the minute details of the Scribes, and the innovations which would be introduced by the Scribes; and what are these? The reading of the Megillah.
  All are valid to read the Megillah except a deaf person, an imbecile and a minor. Rabbi Judah validates a minor.
  GEMARA. Who is the Tanna that holds that [even if] the deaf person has read, it does not count? R. Matanah said: R. It is R. Yose, as we have learned: One who read the Shema but doesn’t make it heard to his ears, he has fulfilled his obligation. R. Yose says that he has not fulfilled his obligation.
  But how do we know that [our Mishnah] follows R. Yose and even if the deaf person has read, it does not count? Perhaps it follows R. Judah, and [what it means is that] the deaf person should not read, but if he has read, his reading is accepted?
  Do not think such a thing: For a deaf person is mentioned in the same category as an imbecile and a minor; just as the reading of an imbecile and a minor is not accepted ex post facto, so the reading of a deaf man is not accepted ex post facto.
  But perhaps there is one rule for the one and another rule for the other? Since it teaches in the final clause that R. Judah validates a minor, we may conclude that the first clause does not state the opinion of R. Judah.
  (But perhaps the whole of the Mishnah states the opinions of R. Judah? —  Is it possible that he should disqualify in the first and permit in the second?)
  But perhaps the whole [of the Mishnah] is R. Judah, and he teaches of two kinds of minors, and the Mishnah is lacking and it should teach this: All are qualified to read the Megillah, except a deaf man, an imbecile and a minor. What is this speaking of? Of a minor who is not old enough to be educated in the mitzvot. But a minor who is old enough to be educated in the mitzvot may read even ab initio, since R. Judah declares a minor qualified!
  How then have you explained [the first clause of the Mishnah]? Like R. Judah and ex post facto. 
  Then that which was taught by R. Judah the son of R. Shimon b. Pazzi: One who can speak but not hear may set aside terumah ab initio. Whose view is this? If you say, R. Judah, he holds that this is only ex post facto, but not ab initio. If you say R. Yose, he invalidates the action even ex post facto.
  What then will you say? That it follows R. Judah, and that he allows it even ab initio? What about this which has been taught: One should not bless birkat hamazon in his heart, but if he does do so, he has fulfilled his obligation. Whose opinion is this? It is neither that of R. Judah nor that of R. Yose. For if it were R. Judah, it would allow this even ab initio, and if R. Yose, it would disallow it even ex post facto.
  
  Daf 20a
  
  In fact it follows R. Judah, and he holds that the deaf person can read even ab initio, and there is no difficulty: in the first quotation he is giving his own opinion, in the second that of his teacher,
  as it has been taught: R. Judah says in the name of R. Elazar b. Azariah: One who recites the Shema should make it heard to his ears, as it says, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is One”—Make heard to your ear what your mouth says.  R. Meir says: “Which I command you this day upon your heart” according to the words follow the intention of the heart.
  Now that you have come to this, you may even say that R. Judah was of the same opinion as his teacher, and the statement made by R. Judah the son of R. Shimon b. Pazzi follows R. Meir.
  R. Judah declares a minor qualified. It has been taught: R. Judah said: When I was a young boy, I read it [the Megillah] in front of R. Tarfon and the elders in Lod. They said to him: Proof cannot be brought from the testimony of a minor.
  It has been taught: Rabbi said: When I was a young boy, I read it before R. Judah. They said to him: Proof cannot be brought from the very one who allows it.
  Why did they not say to him: Proof cannot be brought from the testimony of a minor? They gave one answer and then another. First, they said, you were a boy and moreover, even had you been an adult, proof cannot be brought from the very one who allows it.
  Mishnah: They do not read the Megillah, nor circumcise, nor go to the mikveh, nor sprinkling [purificatory waters], and similarly a woman keeping day for day should not take a ritual bath until the sun has risen. But if any of these things is done after dawn, it is valid.
  Gemara. From where do we know this? Because the verse says, “And these days should be remembered and kept” (Esther 9:28) by day, but not by night. Shall we say that this is a refutation of R. Joshua b. Levi; for R. Joshua b. Levi said: One must read the Megillah by night and a second time by day? When the mishnah taught it, it referred to the day.
  Neither should one circumcise. As it is written, “And on the eighth day he shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:3).
  Neither should one immerse [in a mikveh] nor sprinkle. As it is written, “And the clean person shall sprinkle on the unclean . . . And on the seventh day” (Numbers 19:19) and immersing is compared to sprinkling.
  And similarly a woman keeping day for day should not immerse until the sun has risen. This is obvious! Why should a woman keeping day for day be different from all others who are obligated to immerse?
  It is necessary, lest you think that she should be the same as the first observation of one who had a genital discharge, and the first observation of one who had a genital discharge has been compared to one who had a seminal issue, as it is written, “This is the law of him that has had a genital discharge (zav) and of him from whom the flow of seed has gone out.” (Leviticus 15:32) Just as one with a seminal issue immerses during the day, so too this one immerses on the same day. 
  This woman, however, cannot immerse on that day, because it is written, “All the days of her discharge she shall be as in the days of her menstrual impurity”; (Leviticus 15:26) so [you might say], by night at least she might keep watch for a short time and then immerse; therefore we are told that [she must not do this], because she requires to count [day for day];
  
  Daf 20b
  
  and counting must be by day.
  If any of these things is done after dawn has appeared, it is valid. From where is this rule derived? Rava said: For the verse says, “And God called the light day” something which gradually becomes light he called day.
  But according to this, [when it says] “And the darkness he called night” [are we to explain] that which gradually becomes dark he called night? .Do we not hold that until the stars come out it is not night?
  Rather R. Zera said: We derive it from here: “And so we worked on; and half of them held the spears from the rising of the morning till the stars appeared” and it says,  “That in the night they may be a guard for us, and that we may work in the day” (Nehemiah 4:15-16).
  What is the point of the second quotation? — You might say that from the time of the first rising of the dawn it is not yet day, though from the time the sun begins to set it is already night and they rose early and stopped work late.Therefore come and hear: ” That in the night they may be a guard for us, and that we may work in the day.”
  The whole day is a valid time for     reading the Megillah; reciting Hallel; for the blowing of the shofar; for taking up the lulav; for the Musaf prayer; for Musaf sacrifices; for confession over the oxen;
  for the confession over the tithe; for the confession of sins on Yom HaKippurim; for laying on of hands; 
  for slaughtering [the sacrifices]; for waving [them]; for bringing near [the vessel with the minhah-offering to the altar]; for taking a handful; for placing it on the fire; for pinching off [the head of a bird-offering]; for receiving the blood [in a vessel]; for sprinkling [the blood on the altar]; for making the sotah drink [the bitter waters];
  for breaking the neck of the heifer; and for purifying the metzora.
  The whole night is valid for reaping the Omer and for burning fat and limbs [on the altar]. This is the general principle: any matter whose commandment is during the day, is valid all day and any matter whose commandment is at night is valid all night.
  Gemara. From where do we know this? Because the verse says, “And these days shall be mentioned and kept” (Esther 9:28). For reading the Hallel: As it is written, “From the rising of the sun to its going down” (Psalms 113:3). R. Joseph says: Because it is written, “This is the day which the Lord has made” (Psalms 118:24). For the taking of the lulav: As it is written, “And you shall take for yourself on the first day” (Leviticus 23:40).
  For the blowing of the shofar, as it is written, “It is a day of blasting for you” (Numbers 29:1). For the additional sacrifices, as it is written, “Each on its own day” (Leviticus 23:37). And for the musaf prayer: Because the rabbis made them like the additional sacrifices.
  And for the confession made over the oxen. For the “atonement” mentioned here is derived from the “atonement” mentioned in the context of Yom Kippur, as it has been taught in reference to Yom Kippur: “And he shall make atonement for himself and for his house” (Leviticus 16:6) the text speaks of atonement made by words. And atonement is by day, as it is written, “For on this day shall atonement be made for you” (Leviticus 16:30).
  And for the confession made over the tithe: As it is written, “And you shall say before the Lord your God, I have removed the sacred things from my house” (Deuteronomy 26:13), and in an adjacent context it says, “This day the Lord your God commands you” (26:16).
  And for waving: as it is written, “And on the day when you wave the sheaf” (Leviticus 23:12).
  And for bringing near, for it is compared to waving, as it is written, “And the priest shall take the minhah offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the meal-offering . . . And bring it near [to the altar]” (Numbers 5:25). And for pinching and for taking a handful and for burning and for sprinkling, as it is written, “On the day that He commanded the children of Israel [to present their offerings]” (Leviticus 7:35).
  And for making the sotah drink: This is derived from the word “Torah” “Torah”. It is written here, “And the priest shall do to her all this Torah” (Numbers 5:30), and it is written elsewhere, “According to the Torah which they teach you and according to the judgement” (Deuteronomy 17:11):
  
  Daf 21a
  
  just as judgement is by day, so here it must be by day.
  And for breaking the neck of the heifer. In the school of R. Yannai they said: [The word] “atonement” is applied to it as to holy things. And for the purification of the metzora: as it is written, “This shall be the law of the metzora on the day of his cleansing” (Leviticus 14:2).
  The whole night is a proper time for harvesting the omer. As a master has said that harvesting and counting are at night and bringing is during the day. And for burning fat and limbs: As it is written, “All the night till the morning” (Deuteronomy 6:20).
  This is the general principle: Any matter whose commandment is during the day, is valid all day. Any matter whose commandment is during the day, is valid all day. To include the arrangement of the cup and the removal of the cups, and like R. Yose, 
  as it has been taught: R. Yose says: If he removed the old [showbread] in the morning and set the new one in the evening, there is no harm.
  How then do I fulfil verse, “Before me continually” (Exodus 25:3)? [This is to show that] the table of the Lord should not be without bread.
  And any matter whose commandment is at night is valid all night. What does this come to include?
  It includes eating the pesah sacrifice, and it disagrees with R. Elazar b. Azariah, as it has been taught: “And they shall eat the meat on that night” (Exodus 12:8): R. Elazar b. Azariah said: It says here, “On that night”, and it says elsewhere, “And I shall pass through the land of Egypt on that night” (Exodus 12:12): just as there up to midnight [is meant], so too here up to midnight [is meant].
  May we return to you “One who reads out of order.”
  He who reads the Megillah may either stand or sit. Whether one read it or two read it [together] they [those listening] have fulfilled their obligation. In places where it is the custom to say a blessing, they say the blessing, and where it is not the custom they do not say the blessing.
  On Mondays and Thursdays and on Shabbat at minhah, three read from the torah, they do not add [to this number] nor decrease [from it], nor do they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets. The one who begins the Torah reading and the one who concludes the Torah reading blesses before it and after it.
  On Rosh Hodesh and on the intermediate days of festivals four read. They do not add [to this number] nor decrease [from it], nor do they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets. They do not add [to this number] nor decrease [from it], nor do they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets.
  This is the general rule: on any day which has a musaf and is not a festival four read. On a festival five. On Yom Hakippurim six. On Shabbat seven; they may not decrease [from this number] but they may add [to it], and they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets. The one who begins the Torah reading and the one who concludes the Torah reading blesses before it and after it.
  GEMARA: A Tanna stated: This is not the case with [the public reading of] the Torah. From where does this rule come? R. Abbahu said: As the verse says, "But as for you, stand here with me"  (Deuteronomy 5:28).  R. Abbahu also said: Were it not written in the Scripture, it would be impossible for us to say it: as it were, the Holy One, blessed be He, also was standing.
  R. Abbahu further said: How do we know that a rabbi should not sit on a couch and teach his students while they sit on the ground? Because it says, "But as for you, stand here with me." (Deuteronomy 5:27) 
  Our Rabbis taught: From the days of Moses until Rabban Gamaliel, they would learn Torah only while standing. When Rabban Gamaliel died, sickness descended on the world, and they learned Torah while sitting;  and that is what we have learned that "When Rabban Gamaliel died, the honor of Torah was nullified."
  One verse says, "And I sat [va'eshev] on the mountain" (Deuteronomy 9:9), and another verse says, "And I stood on the mountain"(Deuteronomy 10:10):  Rav says: He [Moses] stood when he learned and sat while he repeated [what he had learned]. R. Hanina said: He was neither sitting nor standing, but stooping. R. Yohanan said: Sitting here means only "staying", as it says, "And you stayed [teshvu] in Kadesh many days" (Deuteronomy 1:46). Rava said: The easy things [he learned] standing and the hard ones sitting
  Whether one reads it or two read it, they have fulfilled their obligation.
  
  Daf 21b
  
  A Tanna stated: This is not the case with [the public reading of] the Torah. Our Rabbis taught: As regards the Torah, one reads and one translates, as long as one does not read and two translate [together]. As regards the Prophets, one reads and two may translate, as long as two do not read and two translate. As regards Hallel and the Megillah, even ten may read [and ten may translate]. What is the reason? Since the people like it, they pay attention and hear. As regards Hallel and the Megillah, even ten may read [and ten may translate]. 
  What is the reason? Since the people like it, they pay attention and hear
  Where it is the custom to say a blessing, he should say it. Abaye said: They taught this only about the blessing after the reading, but before the reading it is a mitzvah to say a blessing, since Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: All of the mitzvoth—one says a blessing on them as one passes [over] them to perform them.
  How do we know that this “passing” means “before”? R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Scripture says, “Then Ahimaaz ran by way of the plain and overran [wa-ya’avor] the Cushite” (II Samuel 18:23). Abaye said: We prove it from here:  “And he himself passed over before them” (Genesis 33:3). Or, if you want, I can say: “And their king passed on before them and the Lord at the head of them” (Micah 2:13).
  What blessing is said before the reading of the Megillah? Shesheth from Katrazya happened [once to read] in the presence of R. Ashi, and he blessed M”N”H.
  Shesheth from Katrazya happened [once to read] in the presence of R. Ashi, and he blessed M”N”H. Blessed are You, O Lord our God, king of the universe, [the God] who fought our fight and judged our judgment and avenged our vengeance and punished our adversaries for us and paid back retribution on all the enemies of our lives. Blessed are You, O Lord, who pays back retribution to all the enemies of Israel. Rava Says: [The concluding words are], “The God who saves.” R. Papa said: Therefore we should say both:  “Blessed are You, O Lord, who pays back retribution to all the enemies of Israel, the God who saves.”
  On Mondays and Thursdays and on Shabbat at minhah three read. What do these three represent? R. Assi said: The Torah, the Prophets and the Writings. Rava said: Priests, Levites, and Israelites.
  But that which R. Shimi taught, They do not read less than ten verses [of the Torah] in the synagogue, and the verse “And [God] spoke to [Moses saying]” counts as one of the ten:”  What do these ten represent?
  R. Joshua b. Levi said: The ten men of leisure in the synagogue. R. Joseph said: The ten commandments which were given to Moses on Sinai. R. Levi said: The ten times Hallels [praises] which David said in the book of Psalms.) R. Yohanan said: The ten statements with which the world was created.
  What are these?  The expressions “And [God] said” in the first chapter of Genesis. But there are only nine? “In the beginning” is also a statement [through which the world was created], since it is written, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all of the hosts” (Psalms 33:6).
  Rava said:  If the first one reads four verses he is praiseworthy; if the second reads four verses he is praiseworthy; if the third reads four verses he is praiseworthy.
  “If the first reads four verses he is praiseworthy”, as we have learned “There were three baskets holding three se’ahs each, in which the priests take up the money-offerings out of the [shekel] chamber, and on them were written Aleph, Beth, Gimel, so as to show which was taken out first, so that sacrifices could be brought from that one first, since it is a mitzvah to offer from the first.
  “If the middle one reads four verses, he is praiseworthy”, as it has been taught: ‘[The seven lamps] shall give light in front of the candlestick” (Numbers 8:2); this teaches that they leaned in to face the western lamp and the western lamp faced the Shekhinah. And R. Yohanan said: This shows that the middle one is praiseworthy.
  “If the last reads four verses he is praiseworthy”: Because of the principle that “in dealing with holy things we go up but never go down.” R. Papa was once in the synagogue of Ave Govar, when the first one [who was called up] read four verses, and R. Papa praised him.
  They may not read less, nor may they read more. It was taught: The one who reads first blesses before the reading, and the one who reads last blesses after it.
  Now all bless both before and after the reading, the reason is that the rabbis decreed this because of people entering and leaving the synagogue.
  On Rosh Hodesh and Hol Hamoed four people read… Ulla b. Rav enquired of Rava: How is the portion of Rosh Hodesh read? “Command the children of Israel and say to them” has eight verses. How are we to deal with them?
  If two persons read three verses each, then two verses will be left [to the end of the paragraph], and we do not leave over less than three verses to the end of the paragraph. Let them read four verses each? Then seven verses will be left altogether, “And on the Shabbat day” is two, and “And on your new moons” is five. How are we to deal with this? Let him read two from one paragraph and one from the next?
  
  Daf 22a
  
  We do not read less than three verses together at the beginning of a paragraph. Let him read two from one and three from the other? Then only two verses are left [to the end of the second paragraph]! 
  He replied: I have not heard [any halakhah] about this but I have heard a rule in a similar case, as we have learned On Sundays, [the ma’amad read the paragraph] “In the beginning” and “Let there be a firmament”, and we taught about this, “In the beginning” is read by two and “Let there be a firmament” by one”
  and we were somewhat perplexed by this. It is okay that “Let there be a firmament” can be read by one since it has three verses, but how can “In the beginning” be read by two, seeing that it has only five verses, and it has been taught, He who reads in the Torah should not read less than three verses.”
  He who reads in the Torah should not read less than three verses.” Rav says he should repeat, and Shmuel says he should divide a verse.
  Rav said he should repeat. Why did he not say “divide”? He was of opinion that any verse which Moses had not divided, we may not divide.
  And Shmuel held that  we may divide. But did not R. Hananiah the Bible teacher say: I was in great pain in the house of R. Hanina the Great, for he would not allow me to make [additional verse] divisions except for the school children, because they are there to be taught?
  Now what was the reason there [why he was allowed to make divisions]? Because it could not be avoided; here too it cannot be avoided.
  Shmuel said that he divides.  Why did he not say that he repeats?  It is a decree to prevent error on the part of those coming in and going out.
  They brought an objection [against both these views]:  A section of six verses is read by two people, a section of five verses must be read by one. If the first read three verses, the second reads the remaining two from this section and one from the next; And some say that he reads three from the next, because we do not begin a section with less than three verses.
  Now if it is as you said, then according to the one who says he should repeat, let him repeat, and according to the one who says he should divide, let him divide?
  It is different here, because this is possible.
  R. Tanhum, said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: The halakhah follows the "others says". R. Tanhum also said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: Just as at the beginning of a section not less than three verses should be read, so too at the end of a section not less than three verses should be left.
  This is obvious! Now that in regard to the beginning of a section where the first tanna is lenient the alternative opinion is strict, is it not certain that in regard to the verses left [at the end of the section] where the first tanna is strict the alternative opinion will also be strict.
  What might you have said? People who enter [the synagogue late] are common but people who go out and leave the Sefer Torah while it is being read are uncommon; therefore he tells us [that we do not think this]
  But now with regard to the First Tanna: Why does he forbid leaving [less than three verses]? Because of people going out of synagogue. But at the beginning also he should take decree on account of people coming in? I can say that a person coming in asks [how much has been read].
  Rabbah the son of Raba sent to R. Joseph: What is the law?  He sent him back: The law is that the verse is repeated, and it is a middle reader who repeats.
  This is the general rule: whenever there is a musaf etc. They asked: How many read on a public fast day? On Rosh Hodeah and the intermediate days of the festival when there is an additional sacrifice four read, but here where there is no additional sacrifice this is not the case? Or here also there is an additional prayer [and therefore four read]?
  Come and hear: On Rosh Hodesh and on the intermediate days of festivals four read. Thus on public fasts only three read But what about the previous clause: On Mondays and Thursdays and on Shabbat at minhah three read. Thus on public fasts four read! Rather we cannot learn from here.
  Come and hear: Rav happened to be at Babylon during a public fast. He got up and read in the scroll [of the Torah]. He blessed when he began but he did not bless when he finished. The whole congregation [afterwards] fell on their faces, but Rav did not fall on his face.
  Since Rav read as a lay Israelite, why did he not bless after finishing? Was it not because another was to read after him?
  No, Rav read as kohen, for R. Huna also read as kohen.
  I can understand that R. Huna read as kohen, because even R. Assi and R. Ammi who were important kohanim of Eretz Israel were subject to the authority of R. Huna. But as for Rav, there was Shmuel, who was a kohen and who took precedence over him? 
  Shmuel also was subject to the authority of Rav, and it was Rav who of his own accord honored him. But he would do so only in his presence, but not when he was not present.
  It is also reasonable to assume that Rav read as kohen, because if you should think that he read as an Israelite, why did he say a blessing before reading? It was after the enactment.
  If so, he should have said a blessing after reading also? It is different where Rav was present,
  
  Daf 22b
  
  but did not go out [during the Torah reading].
  Come and hear: This is the general principle: Wherever people would be prevented from working, as on a public fast and on the ninth of Av, three read.
  Wherever people would not be prevented from working, as on Rosh Hodesh and the intermediate days of festivals, four read. Learn from this.
  R. Ashi said: But we have not taught this way: This is the general rule: wherever there is a musaf but not a festival four read: What does this come to include? Does it not include a public fast and the ninth of Av?
  But according to R. Ashi, who is the author of the Mishnah? It is neither the First Tanna nor R. Yose, as it has been taught: If it [the ninth of Av] falls on Monday or Thursday, three read and one [of them] says a haftarah. If on Tuesday or Wednesday, one reads and [the same] one says the haftarah. R. Yose, however, says that in all cases three read and one [of them] says the haftarah.
  But then the words “this is the general rule” are difficult! No. They include Rosh Hodesh and the intermediate days of the festival.
  But these were stated explicitly: On Rosh Hodesh and the intermediate days of the festival four read!
  The Mishnah] is merely giving a sign that you should not say that the festivals and the intermediate days have the same rule, but rather you should take this general principle in your hands: For every additional distinguishing mark an additional person reads.
  Therefore on Rosh Hodesh and the intermediate days of the festival, when there is an additional sacrifice, four read; on festivals (Yom Tov), when [in addition] work is prohibited, five read; on Yom Kippur when [in addition] there is a penalty of karet, six read; on Shabbat when there is a penalty of stoning, seven read.
  The text [above stated]: Rav happened to be in Babylon on a public fast day. He got up forward and read in the Torah scroll. He blessed before beginning, but when he finished he did not bless.  The whole congregation [subsequently] fell on their faces, but Rav did not fall on his face. Why did not Rav fall on his face?
  There was a stone pavement there and it has been taught:  “You shall not put any figured stone in your land to bow down upon it” (Leviticus 26:1): On it you may not bow down in your land, but you may bow down on the stones in the Temple. Like Ulla, who said:  The Torah [here] is forbidding only a pavement of stone.
  If that is the case, why is only Rav mentioned?  All the rest should also have not done so! It was in front of Rav.
  Let him then go among the congregation and fall on his face? He did not want to trouble the congregation. Or if you like I can say that Rav usually spread out his hands and feet [when he fell on his face], and he followed the opinion of Ulla, who said, The Torah forbade only the spreading out of the hands and feet.
  But let him fall on his face without spreading out his hands and feet? He did not want to change his custom.
  Or if you like I can say that an important man is different, as R. Elazar; for R. Elazar said: An important man is not permitted to fall on his face unless he is [sure of being] answered like Joshua son of Nun, as it is written, “And God said to Joshua why have you fallen on your face” (Joshua 7:10).
  Our rabbis have taught: Kidah means falling upon the face, as it says,  “Then Bathsheba bowed [vatikod] with her face to the earth” (I Kings 1:31). Keri’ah means going down on the knees, and so it says, “[Solomon arose] from kneeling [mikroa] on his knees” (I Kings 8:34). Hishtahava’ah means spreading out of the hands and feet, as it says, “Shall I and your mother and your brothers come to prostrate ourselves [lehishtahavot] before you to the ground” (Genesis 37:10).
  Levi displayed a kidah in the presence of Rabbi and became lame.
  But did this cause his lameness?  Did not R. Elazar Say: One should never cast words against Heaven, because a great man complained against heaven and he became lame; and who was he? Levi? Both things caused it.
  Hiyya b. Abin said: I saw Abaye and Rava leaning over.
  
  Daf 23a
  
   I saw Abaye and Rava leaning over.
  On festivals five read, on Yom Kippur six etc. Whose view is that of the Mishnah?  It is neither R. Ishmael nor R. Akiba, as it has been taught:  On festivals five read, on Yom Kippur six, and on Shabbat seven. They may not decrease or increase this number, the words of R. Ishmael. R. Akiva says:  On festivals five read, on Yom Kippur seven and on Shabbat six. They may not decrease this number, but they may increase it. 
  Whom [does the Mishnah follow]?  If R. Ishmael, it conflicts with him over the additional number, if R. Akiva, it conflicts with him over the question of six and seven!
  Rava said:  It follows the Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael, for in the school of R. Ishmael it was taught:  On festivals five, on Yom Kippur six, on Shabbat seven, they may not add to decrease this number but they may increase it, the words of R. Ishmael.
  R. Ishmael is now a difficulty on R. Ishmael!  Two tannaim in the name of R. Ishmael. 
  Who taught the following which has been taught:  On festivals people come late to synagogue and leave early. On Yom Kippur they come early and leave late. On Sabbath they come early and leave early? Shall I say it is R. Akiva who makes an extra man [read on Yom Kippur]?  You may also say it is R. Ishmael, [his reason being that] the order [of the service] of the day is very long.
  What do these three, five and seven represent? This was a dispute between R. Isaac b. Nahmani and one who was with him, and who was he, R. Shimon b. Pazzi, or, according to others, by R. Shimon b. Pazzi and one who was with him, and who was with him, R. Isaac b. Nahmani,  or according to others,  R. Shmuel b. Nahmani. One said that [these represent] the [number of Hebrew words in the three verses of the] priestly blessings, while the other said  "the three keepers of the door" (II Kings 25:18); [the five represent] "five of them that saw the king's face" (II Kings 25:19) [and the seven] "seven men of them that saw the king's face" (Esther 1:14).
  R. Joseph taught:  Three, five and seven:  "three keepers of the door", "five of them that saw the king's face", and "seven that saw the king's face". Abaye said to him:  Up until now why did you not explain this to us?  He replied:  I did not know that you wanted to know. Did you ever ask me anything which I did not tell you? 
  Jacob the Min asked R. Judah:  What do the six of Yom Kippur represent? He replied:  The six who stood at the right of Ezra and the six who stood at his left, as it says, "And Ezra the scribe stood on a stand of wood which they had made for the purpose, and beside him stood Matatyah, Shema and Aniaah and Uriah and Hilkiah and Maasiyah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael and Malchiyah and Hashum and Hashbaddanah, Zechariah, Meshullam" (Nehemiah 8:14).
  But these last are seven?  — Zechariah is the same as Meshullam. And why is he called Meshullam? Because he was perfect [mishlam] in his acts. 
  Our Rabbis taught:  All are qualified to be among the seven [who read], even a minor and a woman,  only the Sages said that a woman should not read in the Torah out of respect for the congregation.
  The question was raised:  Should the person who takes the Maftir Aliyah be counted among the seven? R. Huna and R. Jeremiah b. Abba: One said that  he does count and the other that  he does not count. The one who says he does count, for he too reads, while the
  one who says he does not count is like Ulla, who said: Why is it proper for the one who reads the haftarah from the Prophet to read in the Torah first? To show respect for the Torah. Since he reads [only] out of respect for the Torah, he should not be counted to make up the seven.
  They objected:  He who says the haftarah from the Prophet should not read less than twenty-one verses, corresponding to [those read by] the seven who have read in the Torah. Now if it is as you say, there are twenty-four? Since it is only out of respect for the Torah [that he reads],
  
  Daf 23b
  
  no corresponding verses are required [in the haftorah]. 
  Rava raised a difficult:  There is, he said, [the haftarah of] "Add your burnt-offerings" (Jeremiah 7:21) in which there are not twenty-one verses, and yet we read it! The case is different there, because the subject is completed [before twenty-one verses]. 
  But where the subject is not completed, we do not [read less than twenty-one verses]?  Didn't R. Shmuel b. Abba say: Many times I stood before R. Yohanan, and when I had read ten verses he said,  Stop! In a place where there is a translator it is different,  since R. Tahlifa b. Shmuel has taught:  They only taught this in a place where there is no translator, but where there is a translator a stop may be made [earlier]. 
  1) They do not recite the Shema responsively, 2) And they do not pass before the ark; 3) And [the priests] do not lift up their hands; 4) And they do not read the Torah [publicly]; 5) And they do not conclude with a haftarah from the prophets;
  6) And they do not make stops [at funeral] processions; 7) And they do not say the blessing for mourners, or the comfort of mourners, or the blessing of bridegrooms; 8) And they do not mention God’s name in the invitation [to say Birkat Hamazon]; a) Except in the presence of ten. 9) [For redeeming sanctified] land nine and a priest [are sufficient], and similarly with human beings.
  GEMARA. From where do we know this?  R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan:  Because the verse says, "But I will be sanctified among the children of Israel" (Leviticus 22:32): every act of sanctification should not be done with less than ten.
  How does the verse say this?  As R. Hiyya taught:  The word "among" is understood in reference to its use in another place. It is written here, "But I will be sanctified among the children of Israel" and it is written elsewhere, "Separate yourselves from among this congregation" (Numbers 16:21);
  and the word "congregation" here is understood as a reference to what is written in another place, "How long shall I bear with this evil congregation" (Numbers 14:27). Just as there it was ten, so too here there are ten.
  Nor are stops made at funerals with less than ten: Since they must say, "Stand, dear friends, stand;  sit, dear friends, sit," it is not proper [to have less than ten]. 
  Nor do they say the blessing of mourners nor the blessing of bridegrooms etc. What is the blessing of mourners?  The blessing said in the public square,  as R. Yitzchak said in the name of R. Yohanan:  The blessing of mourners requires the presence of ten, the mourners are not counted;  the blessing of bridegrooms requires the presence of ten, and the bridegroom is counted.
  And they do not mention God’s name in the invitation [to say Birkat Hamazon], except in the presence of ten. Since the one who invites has to say, "Let us bless our God" it is not proper to do so with less than ten.
  [For redeeming sanctified] land nine and a priest [are sufficient] From where are these words? 
  Shmuel said: Ten priests are mentioned in the section [dealing with sanctifications], one for the actual priest required, and the rest constitute a limitation after a limitation, and a limitation after a limitation has the results in an addition, to include, namely, nine Israelites and one priest.
  But say rather five priests and five Israelites? This is a difficulty
  And similarly with human beings. But can a human being become sanctified?
  R. Abbahu said:  It refers to one who says, "My monetary [value] be upon me"  as it has been taught:  "One who says, My monetary [value] be upon me, we estimate his value as we would that of a slave."  And a slave is compared to property, as it is written, "And you shall pass them down as an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession" (Leviticus 25:46). 
  One who reads the Torah [in public] may not read less than three verses. And he should not read to the translator more than one verse [at a time], 
  
  Daf 24a
  
  but [if reading from the book of a] prophet [he may read to him] three at a time. If the three verses constitute three separate paragraphs, he must read them [to the translator] one by one.
  They may skip [from place to place] in a prophet but not in the Torah. How far may he skip [in the prophet]?  [Only] so far that the translator will not have stopped [before he finds his place].
  GEMARA. What do these three verses represent? R. Assi said: The Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings.
  And he should not read to the translator more than one verse [at a time], but [if reading from the book of a] prophet [he may read to him] three at a time. If the three verses constitute three separate paragraphs, he must read them [to the translator] one by one. For instance, [the three verses], “For thus says the Lord, you were sold for nothing” … For thus says the Lord God, my people went down to Egypt in times of yore”…; Now therefore what is there for me here, says the Lord” (Isaiah 52:3-5).
  They may skip [from place to place] in a prophet but not in the Torah. They raised contradiction [between this and the following]:  He [the High Priest] reads [on Yom Kippur] “After the death” (Leviticus 16) and “Only on the tenth day” (Leviticus 23:26-32). But he is skipping?
  Abaye said: There is no contradiction;  here so that the translator will have come to a stop [before the place is found] in the other case he will not have come to a stop.
  They may skip [from place to place] in a prophet but not in the Torah. How far may he skip [in the prophet]? [Only] so far that the translator will not have stopped [before he finds his place]. How far may he skip [in the prophet]? [Only] so far that the translator will not have stopped [before he finds his place].
  Rather Abaye said:  There is no contradiction: Here [the reader deals] with one subject, in the other case with two; and in fact it has been taught: The reader may skip in the Torah within one subject, and in a Prophet even if he goes on to another subject’;  and in both cases only so far that the translator will not have stopped [before he finds the place].
  It has been taught in another baraita:  They may not skip from one prophet to another. In the Twelve Minor Prophets they may skip, as long as he does not skip from the end of the book to the beginning.
  The one who concludes with the haftarah also leads the responsive reading of the Shema and he passes before the ark and he lifts up his hands. If he is a child, his father or his teacher passes before the ark in his place.
  A child may read in the Torah and translate, but he may not pass before the ark or lift up his hands.
  A person in rags may lead the responsive reading of the Shema and translate, but he may not read in the Torah, pass before the ark, or lift up his hands.
  A blind man may lead the responsive reading of the Shema and translate. Rabbi Judah says: one who has never seen the light from his birth may not lead the responsive reading of the Shema.
  GEMARA. What is the reason [why the one who says the haftarah does all of these other things]? Papa said:  For his honor. Rabbah bar Shimi said:  So they do not come to quarrel.
  What practical difference is there between them? There is a difference, in the case of one who reads for free.
  We learned: if he is a child, his father or his teacher passes before the ark in his place.  If now you say it is to avoid quarrels, will a child pick a quarrel?
  What then? It is a show of respect? Does a child receive a show of respect? What you must say is, out of respect for his father and his teacher.
  
  Daf 24b
  
  So here too, there is the question of quarrels, involving him or his teacher.
  A person in rags may publicly recite the Shema etc. Ulla b. Rab asked of Abaye:  Is a child in rags allowed to read in the Torah? 
  He replied: You might as well ask about a naked one. Why is a naked person not allowed? Out of respect for the congregation. So too here, [he is not allowed] out of respect for the congregation.
  A blind man may publicly recite the Shema etc. It has been taught: They said to R. Judah: Many have seen [with their mind’s eye] to expound the Chariot, and yet they never saw it?
  What says R. Judah to this?  In that case all depends on the understanding of the heart, ... and the expounder directs his mind and knows, but here it is because of the benefit [he derives from light], and this one derives no benefit.
  The Rabbis, however, hold that he does derive benefit, like R. Yose,  as it has been taught: R. Jose said: ... All my life I was troubled by this verse, “And you shall grope at noonday as the blind gropes in darkness” (Deuteronomy 28:29). Now why should a blind person care whether it is dark or light?
  And then the following incident occurred. I was once walking on a pitch black night when I saw a blind man walking in the road with a torch in his hand. I said to him, My son, why do you carry this torch? He replied: As long as I have this torch in my hand, people see me and save me from the holes and the thorns and briars.
  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.
  GEMARA. A Tanna stated: he deformities which they said were [disqualifying] are on the face, the hands and the feet. Joshua b. Levi said: If his hands are spotted he should not lift up his hands.  It has been taught similarly:  If his hands are spotted, he should not lift up his hands.  If they are curved inwards or bent sideways, he should not lift up his hands.
  Assi said: A priest from Haifa or Beth Shean should not lift up his hands.  It has been taught to the same effect: We do not allow to pass before the ark either men from Beth Shean or from Haifa or from Tivonim, because they pronounce alef as ayin and ayin as alif.
  Hiyya said to R. Shimon b. Rabbi: f you were a Levite, you would be disqualified from [singing] on the platform, because your voice is thick. He went and told his father  who said to him: Go and say to him,  When you come to the verse, “And I will wait [vehikiti] for the Lord,” (Isaiah 8:17) will you not be a reviler and blasphemer?
  Huna said: A man whose eyes run should not lift up his hands.  But was there not one in the neighborhood of R. Huna who used to spread forth his hands? The townspeople had become accustomed to him. It has also been taught: A man whose eyes run should not lift up his hands, but if the townspeople are accustomed to him, he is permitted.
  Yohanan said: A blind person in even one of his eyes should not lift up his hands. But was there not one in the neighborhood of R. Yohanan who used to spread forth his hands?... The townspeople had become accustomed to him. It was also taught in a baraita: A blind person even in one of his eyes should not lift up his hands, but if the townspeople are accustomed to him, he is permitted.
  Judah says: A man whose hands are discolored should not lift up his hands. It was taught:  If most of the men of the town have the same occupation it is permitted.
  If one says, “I will not pass before the ark in colored clothes,” even in white clothes he may not pass before it. [If one says], “I will not pass before it in shoes,” even barefoot he may not pass before it.
  One who makes his tefillin [for the head] round, it is dangerous and has no religious value. If he put them on his forehead or on the palm of his hand, behold this is the way of heresy. If he overlaid them with gold or put [the one for the hand] on his sleeve, behold this is the manner of the outsiders.
  GEMARA. What is the reason [why he must not act as reader]?  We suspect that some heresy has been put into him.
  One who makes his tefillin [for the head] round, it is dangerous and has no religious value. Shall we say that that we have already taught this, as our Rabbis taught: [The obligation for] tefillin to be square is a law set down by Moses at Sinai. And Rava explained [this refers]  to their stitching and their diagonal.
  Papa said: The Mishnah is speaking only of those which are made as round as a nut.
  If one says 
  
  Daf 25a
  
  “May the good bless you,” this is the way of heresy.[If one says], “May Your mercy reach the nest of a bird,” “May Your name be mentioned for the good,” “We give thanks, we give thanks,” they silence him.
  One who uses euphemisms in the portion dealing with forbidden marriages, he is silenced. If he says, [instead of] “And you shall not give any of your seed to be passed to Moloch,” (Leviticus 18:21) “You shall not give [your seed] to pass to a Gentile woman,” he silenced with a rebuke.
  GEMARA. We understand [the prohibition of saying] “We give thanks, we give thanks,” because it looks like there are two Powers; also of “Your name should be mentioned for the good”, because it implies, for good, yes, for evil, no, and we have learned: One is obligated to bless [God] for evil in the same way as he blesses for good. But what is the reason for prohibiting, “May Your mercy reach the nest of a bird”? 
  Two amoraim in the West [Palestine] differed over this: R. Yose b. Abin and R. Yose b. Z’vida. One said,  it is because he creates jealousy in the work of the creation, and the other says it is because he makes the qualities of the Holy One, blessed be He, acts of mercy, whereas they are only decrees.
  A certain man went down [before the ark] in front of Rabbah and said: You have shown pity on the nest of a bird, have pity and mercy on us. (You have shown pity to an animal and its young, have pity and mercy on us. Rabbah said: ... How well this Rabbi knows how to please his Master. Abaye said to him:  But we have learned, they silence him?
  Rabbah only wanted to sharpen Abaye.
  A certain person went down before the ark in the presence of R. Hanina and said, “God, the great, the mighty, the terrible, the majestic, the strong, the powerful.”
  He said to him: Have you finished the praises of your Master? Even the first three, had it not been that Moses wrote them in the Torah and the Men of the Great Assembly came and established them, we would not say them; and you say all this. It is comparable to a man who had thousands of thousands of denarii of gold and people would praise him for having a thousand. Would this not be demeaning to him?
  Hanina said: Everything is in the hands of heaven except the fear of heaven as it says, “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you but to fear” (Deuteronomy 10:12).
  From here are we to conclude that fear is a small thing? Yes; for Moses our teacher it was a small thing. This is comparable to a man who was asked for a big vessel and who has it. To him it seems like a small thing, but if he is asked for a small vessel and he does not have it, it seems like a big thing.
  Zera said: One who says, “Hear, Hear” is like one who says, “We give thanks, we give thanks.”
  They objected: He who recites the Shema and repeats is disgraceful. He is only disgraceful, but we do not silence him. There is no difficulty: In the one he repeats each word as he says it, in the other that he repeats a whole sentence.
  Papa said to him: But maybe [the reason he repeats] is because at first he did not have proper intention, and now he has proper intention? He said to him: Is he to treat heaven like an ordinary friend? If he does not have intention, I will hit him with a hammer until he does have intention.
  One who uses euphemisms in the portion dealing with forbidden sexual relations, he is silenced. Joseph taught: [If, for example, he says] “The shame of his father, the shame of his mother.”
  If he says, [instead of] “And you shall not give any of your seed…”. In the school of R. Ishmael it was stated: The verse speaks of an Israelite who has intercourse with a Gentile woman and gives birth through a son for idolatry.
  The incident of Reuven is read but not translated. he story of Tamar is read and translated. The first part of the incident of the golden calf is both read and translated, but the second is read but not translated. The blessing of the priests, the stories of David and Amnon are read but not translated.
  They do not conclude with the portion of the chariot as a haftarah. But Rabbi Judah permits this. Eliezer says:  They do not conclude with “Proclaim Jerusalem’s [abominations]” (Ezekiel 16) as a haftarah.
  GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Some portions [of Scripture] are both read and translated, some are read but not translated, and some are neither read nor translated.  The following are both read and translated: (Mnemonic: B’L’T’ ‘E’K’N’ N’SH’P’H’).
  The account of the creation is both read and translated. This is obvious! What might you have thought?  That people might ask what is above and what is below,
  
  Daf 25b
  
  and what is before and what is after. Therefore it teaches us.
  The story of Lot and his two daughters is both read and translated. This is obvious! We should be  concerned for the respect for Abraham. Therefore it teaches us.
  The story of Tamar and Judah is both read and translated. This is obvious! What might you have thought?  We should be concerned about the honor of Judah. Therefore it teaches that  this is actually to his credit.
  The first account of the making of the calf is both read and translated. This is obvious!  What you have thought? That we should be concerned for the honor of Israel.  Therefore it teaches us that all the more so it is to them, because it was followed by atonement.
  The curses and blessings are both read and translated. This is obvious! What might you have thought? That we should be concerned lest the congregation should become disheartened; therefore it teaches us.
  Warnings and penalties are both read and translated. This is obvious! What might you have thought? That they will come to observe the commandments out of fear; therefore it teaches us.
  The story of Amnon and Tamar is both read and translated. This is obvious!  What might you have thought? That we should be concerned for the honor of David. Therefore it teaches us.
  The story of the concubine in Gibeah is both read and translated. This is obvious!  What might you have thought? That we are concerned for the honor of Benjamin. Therefore it teaches us.
  The passage beginning “Make known to Jerusalem her abominations” (Ezekiel 16) is both read and translated. This is obvious! This is stated to exclude the view of R. Elazar, as it has been taught: I happened that a man read in the presence of R. Elazar, “Make known to Jerusalem her abominations.” He said to him, While you are investigating the abominations of Jerusalem, go and investigate the abominations of your own mother. They investigated him, and he was found to be illegitimate.
  The following are read but not translated (Mnemonic: R’E’B’D’N’). The incident of Reuben is read but not translated. On one occasion R. Hanina b. Gamaliel went to Kabul, and the reader of the congregation read, “And it came to pass when Israel dwelled” (Genesis 35:22), and he said to the translator: Translate only the latter part of the verse, and the sages praised him.
  The second account of the calf is read but not translated. What is the second account of the calf?  rom “And Moses said” up to “And Moses saw.”
  It has been taught:  A man should always be careful in wording his answers, because from the answer which Aaron made to Moses the heretics denied God were able to deny [God], as it says, “And I cast it into the fire and this calf came forth” (Exodus 32:24).
  The priestly blessing is read but not translated. What is the reason? —...  Because it contains the words, “May God show favor to you.”
  The accounts of David and Amnon is read but not translated. But you just said that the story of Amnon and Tamar is both read and translated? —  There is no contradiction; the former statement refers to where it says “Amnon son of David,”  the latter to where it says “Amnon” simply.
  Our Rabbis taught: Wherever a disgraceful expression is written in the text, we read it in a more polite way. [Thus for] yishgalenah [we read] yishkavenah (Deuteronomy 28:30); [for] ba’afolim [we read] batehorim (Deut 28:27); [for] hiryonim   [we read] divyonim (II Kings 6:25); [for] le’ekhol et horehem velishtot et meme shinehem [we read] le’ekhol et zo’atham velishtot et meme raglehem (II Kings 18:27);   [for] lamahara’ot [we read] lemoza’ot (II Kings 10:27).
  Joshua b. Korha says that the actual word lamahara’ot [is read] because it is a term of disgrace for idolatry.
  Nahman said: All mocking is forbidden except mocking idolatry, which is permitted, as it is written, “Bel is bowed, Nebo is cowering” and the text goes on, “They cowered, they bowed as well, they could not rescue the burden” (Isaiah 46:1-2). Jannai learns from here: The inhabitants of Samaria fear for the calf of Bet Aven, Indeed, its people and priestlings, whose joy it once was. Mourn over it for the glory that is departed from it” (Hosea 10:5). Do not read “for the glory” [kevodo], but “for the burden”.
  Huna b. Manoah said in the name of R. Aha the son of R. Ika: It is permitted to an Israelite to say to a non-Jew, “Take your idol and put it in your shin tof.” Ashi said: It is permissible to disgrace a person with the term gimel shin who has terrible reports about him. It is permissible to praise a person who has good reports about him and if one does praise him, “blessings shall rest upon his head.”
  May we return to you “One who reads the megillah while standing.”
  Townspeople who sold the town square, they may buy with the proceeds a synagogue. [If they sold] a synagogue, they may buy with the proceeds an ark. [If they sold] an ark they may buy covers [for scrolls].
  
  Daf 26a
  
  [If they sold] covers, they may buy scrolls [of the Tanakh].
  [If they sold] scrolls they may buy a Torah. But if they sold a Torah they may not buy with the proceeds scrolls [of the Tanakh]. If [they sold] scrolls they may not buy covers. If [they sold] covers they may not buy an ark.If [they sold] an ark they may not buy a synagogue. If [they sold] a synagogue they may not buy a town square.
  The same applies to any money left over.
  GEMARA. Townspeople who sold the town square. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: This is the view of R. Menahem b. Yose the anonymous author, but the sages that there is no sanctity in the town square.
  What is the reason of R. Menahem b. Yose? —  Because the people pray in it on fast days and at gatherings of the ma’amad. And the rabbis? — That happens only on occasion.
  If [they sell] the synagogue they may buy an ark. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Yonatan:  This rule applies only to a synagogue in a village, but a synagogue in a town, since people from all parts come to it, it may not be sold, for it belongs to the public.
  Ashi said: As for this synagogue in Matha Meha although people come to it from all parts, since they come at my discretion, I can if I like sell it.
  An objection was raised: R. Judah says: It happened with synagogue of the coppersmiths in Jerusalem that they sold it to R. Eliezer and he used it for his own purposes. And yet that was one in a large town? That was a very small synagogue, and they themselves had made it.
  They objected: “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. Judah said: I have not heard this said except about the area of the Sanctuary alone.
  We thus see that [according to R. Judah] synagogues and houses of study are defiled; and yet why, seeing that they belong to the town? I would emend [the above statement to read]: R. Judah says: I have not heard said except about a sanctified place alone.
  On what point do they disagree? The First Tanna holds that  Jerusalem was not apportioned to [any of] the tribes, while R. Judah holds that it was apportioned to [certain of] the tribes;
  and they disagree as in the following tannaitic dispute,
  as it has been taught: What [part of Jerusalem] was in the portion of Judah? The Temple mount, the chambers, and the courtyards. And what was in the portion of Benjamin? The hall, the sanctuary and the holy of holies.
  A strip went out from the portion of Judah into the portion of Benjamin, and in it the altar [of sacrifice] was built, and every day the righteous Benjamin was distressed over it, wanting to swallow it up, as it says, “Crouching over it all the day” (Deuteronomy 33:12). Therefore Benjamin merited becoming the host of the Shekhinah.
  The following Tanna, however, held that Jerusalem was not apportioned to any of the tribes,  as it has been taught: It is forbidden to rent out houses in Jerusalem as they do not belong to them. R. Elazar b. Zadok says: It is even forbidden to rent out beds.  Therefore householders [who took in guests] would seize the hides of [their visitors’] sacrifices forcibly.
  Abaye said: We learn from this that it is proper behavior for a man to leave his [empty] wine-flask and his skin-rug at his guest-house.
  Rava said: This rule was only taught where the seven “good men” of the town did not sell [the synagogue] in the assembly of the townspeople. But if the seven “good men” of the town sold it in the assembly of the townspeople, even if
  
  Daf 26b
  
  even if it was to drink liquor in it, the transaction is good.
  Ravina had the ground (the tel) of a synagogue. He came in front of R. Ashi and said to him: Can seeds be planted there. He replied: Go and buy it from the seven “good men” of the town in the assembly of the townspeople, and you may then sow it.
  Rami b. Abba was building a synagogue. There was a certain old synagogue which he wanted to tear down, and to bring the bricks and beams from it and use them for the other. He was sitting and trying to figure out the implications of what R. Hisda had said, for R. Hisda said: A man should not tear down a synagogue until he has built another [to take its place]. The reason there [that it was prohibited] was so that there should be no negligence. But what about in a case like this? He came in front of R. Papa, who forbade him; and in front of R. Huna, and he also forbade him.
  Rava said: This synagogue—it may be exchanged or sold [for secular purposes], but may not be rented out or pledged [to secure a loan]. What is the reason? [In the latter case] its holiness remains.
  Its bricks also may be exchanged or sold [for secular purposes], but they may not be lent out. This rule applies only to old ones, but in the case of new ones there is no objection.
  And even if we adopt the view that the mere intention [to use a thing for a certain purpose] has force, this refers to a case, for instance, when one weaves a shroud for a dead body, but in this case [the bricks and beams in question] are like thread which has still to be woven into cloth, and no one says [that in such a case there is force in mere intention].
  [With regard to a synagogue which has been made] a gift, R. Aha and Ravina disagree, one forbids [it to be used for secular purposes] and one permits. The one who forbade—how is its sanctity removed? While the one who permitted if the giver [the giver] did not derive some benefit from the act he would not give it, so that in the end the gift is equivalent to a sale.
  Our rabbis taught: Accessories used in a mitzvah [when worn out] may be thrown away; accessories of holiness are must be placed in a geniza. The following are accessories used in a mitzvah: A sukkah, a lulav, a shofar, tzitzit. The following are accessories of holiness: large sacks for scrolls of Scripture, tefillin and mezuzot, a mantle for a Sefer Torah, and a tefillin bag and tefillin straps.
  Rava said: At first I used to think that the stand [on which the Sefer Torah is placed] is an accessory to an accessory and that it is permitted [to throw it away when worn out].  When, however, I saw that the Sefer Torah is placed actually on it, I said  that it is an accessory of holiness and is forbidden.
  Rava further said: At first I used to think that the curtain is an accessory of an accessory. When, however, I saw that it is folded over and a scroll is placed on it, I said  that it is itself an accessory of holiness, and forbidden.
  Rava further said: When an ark is falling apart, to make it into a smaller ark is permitted, but to make it into a stand is forbidden. Rava further said: When a curtain is worn out, to make it into a mantle for a [whole] scroll is permitted, but for a single humash is forbidden.
  Rava further said:  These bags for humashim and boxes for scrolls are accessories of holiness and must be stored away in the geniza [when worn out]. Is not this obvious? What might you have said? These were used not out of respect [for the scrolls] but merely for protection. Therefore he tells us.
  There was a synagogue of the Roman Jews which opened out into a room where a dead body had been put. The kohanim wanted to go in there to pray. They came and told Rava. He said:  Take the ark and put it down there, since it is a wooden vessel which is meant to be stationary, and every wooden vessel which is meant to be stationary is not susceptible to defilement and forms a partition to prevent the passage of defilement.
  The rabbis said to Rava: But sometimes it is moved while a Torah scroll is on it, and thus it becomes a vessel which is moved both when full and when empty? If that is so [he said], then it is not possible.
  Mar Zutra said: The covers of scrolls which have worn out may be used for making shrouds for a met mitzvah; and this constitutes their “storing away.”
  Rava also said:  A Torah scroll which is worn out should be buried by the side of a disciple of the sages, even if he is only one who repeats halakhot. Aha b. Jacob said:  It should be put in an earthenware vessel, as it says, “And put them in an earthen vessel that they may stand for many days” (Jeremiah 32:14). Papi said in the name of Rava:
  To turn a synagogue into a study hall is permitted; to turn a study hall into a synagogue is forbidden. Papa in the name of Rava taught the opposite. Aha said:
  
  Daf 27a
  
  The statement of R. Papi is the more reasonable, since R. Joshua b. Levi said:  It is permissible to make a synagogue into a bet hamidrash. Learn from this.
  Bar Kappara gave the following derashah: What is it that is written, “And he burned the house of the Lord and the king’s house and all the houses of Jerusalem even every great house he burned with fire” (II Kings 25:9)?  “The house of the Lord” this is the Temple. “The king’s house”: this is the royal palace. “All the houses of Jerusalem”: literally. “Even every great house he burned with fire’: Yohanan and R. Joshua b. Levi gave different interpretations of this. One said, it means the place where the Torah is magnified; the other said, the place where a prayer is magnified.
  The one who says Torah bases himself on the verse, “The Lord was pleased, for His righteousness sake to make the Torah great and glorious” (Isaiah 45:21). The one who says prayer bases himself on the verse, “Tell me….the great things that Elisha has done” (II Kings 8:4);  and what Elisha did, he did by means of prayer.
  It may be presumed that it was R. Joshua b. Levi who said, “the place where Torah is magnified”, since R. Joshua b. Levi said that  a synagogue may be turned into a bet ha-midrash; learn from this.
  But if they sell a Torah they may not buy [other biblical] scrolls. They asked: Is it allowed to sell an old Sefer Torah to buy a new one? Since he is not raising [the level of sanctity] it is forbidden, or shall we say that since there is no higher level to go to, it is okay?
  Come and hear: But if they sell, a Torah they may not buy scrolls; it is scrolls that they may not buy, but if they buy a Torah with the proceeds from the sale of a Torah it is okay! [No.] The Mishnah refers to something already done, and the question we asked was whether it is permitted?
  Come and hear: A Sefer Torah may be rolled up in the coverings of a humash, or a humash in the coverings of a scroll of prophets or writings, but prophets and writings may not be rolled up in the coverings of a humash, nor a humash in the coverings of a Sefer Torah.
  It teaches in any case  that a Sefer Torah may be rolled up in the coverings of a humash; implying, in the coverings of a humash it may be wrapped up, but in those of [another] Sefer Torah it may not be?
  What about the last clause: Nor a humash in the coverings of a Sefer Torah, which would imply that a Sefer Torah in the coverings of another Sefer Torah is allowed? Rather from this we cannot learn [the answer to our question].
  Come and hear: A [Sefer] Torah may be put on top of on another [Sefer] Torah, and a [Sefer] Torah on top of humashim, and humashim on top of scrolls of the prophets and writings, but scrolls of the prophets and writings may not be placed on humashim, nor humashim on a [Sefer] Torah.
  You speak here of placing on top; Placing something on top of something else is different, because it is impossible to avoid it. For if you do not say this, [we may ask,] how are we allowed to roll up the scrolls,  seeing that in so doing we lay one sheet on another? The fact is that since this cannot be avoided, it is permitted; and so too here, since it cannot be avoided, it is permitted.
  Come and hear, that Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan in the name of Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel: A man should not sell an old Torah in order to buy a new one with the proceeds!
  There the reason is lest he should [afterwards] neglect to do so; here we speak of a case where the new one is written and waiting to be paid for. What is the rule?
  Come and hear, that R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Meir: A man should not sell a Sefer Torah except to study Torah or to marry a woman.
  From this we may conclude that that selling one Sefer Torah to buy another is permitted? Perhaps study comes under a different rule, since study leads on to practice. Marrying also [is permitted because it says], “He created it not as waste, he formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18) but to selling a Sefer Torah to buy another is not permitted.
  Our rabbis taught: One should not sell a Sefer Torah even though he does not need it. Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel went further and said: Even if a man has no food and he sells a Sefer Torah or his daughter, he will never have any luck [from that money]
  The same applies to any money left over. Rava said: They taught this only if they had money left over from a sale; but if they had money left over from a collection, it is permitted [to use it for any purpose].
  Abaye objected: What was this a case of? If we say that they sold [something sacred] and had money left over [after purchasing a new one], then even if they made a stipulation [that they could do what they liked with it], what does it matter?
  Rather, ... we must say that they collected money and some was left over, and the reason is given  that “they made a stipulation” but if they made no stipulation they cannot [use the left over].
  [No, what is meant] is that they sold and had something left, and this is what it should say:  When does this rule apply? When the seven “good men” of the town did not make any stipulation in the assembly of the townspeople; but if the seven good men of the town made a stipulation in the assembly of the townspeople, it may be used even for paying a dukhsusya.
  Abaye said to a one of the rabbinical students who used to arrange his mishnah in front of R. Sheshet: Have you ever heard from R. Shesheth what is meant by dukhsusya? He replied: This is what R. Shesheth said: The town horseman.
  Abaye said: This shows that a rabbinical student who has heard something of which he does not know the meaning should ask one who is frequently in the company of the Rabbis, since he is almost certain to have heard the answer from some great man.
  Yohanan said in the name of R. Meir: If the people of one town go to another town and the [charity collectors] there assessed them for charity, they should pay it and on leaving they should bring the money back with them to assist with it the poor of their own town. It has also been taught in a baraita:
  If the people of one town go to another town and the [charity collectors] there assessed them for charity, they should pay it and on leaving they should bring the money back with them. If an individual, however, goes to another town and the [charity collectors] there assessed him for charity, it is given to the poor of that town.
  Huna once proclaimed a fast day. R. Hana b. Hanilai and all the men of his place happened to visit him [on that day], and he made them give charity and they gave it.  When they were about to leave, they said to him [R. Huna]:  Please return it to us so that we may go and provide for the poor of our own town.
  He replied to them: We have learned: When does this rule apply? When there is no town scholar in charge there;
  
  Daf 27b
  
  but if there is a scholar in charge [of charity] there, it should be given to the town scholar, and all the more so in this case, seeing that both my poor and your poor depend upon me.
  They may not sell [something] belonging to a community because this lowers its sanctity, the words of Rabbi Meir. They said to him: if so, it should not be allowed to sell from a larger town to a smaller one.
  GEMARA. The rabbis gave a good response to R. Meir? And R. Meir [what would he say]? [To sell] from a large town to a small one [is unobjectionable], because if it was holy to begin with, it is still holy now. But if it goes from a community to an individual, there is no holiness left.
  And what about the rabbis? If there is cause for concern, then there would be cause for concern in this case as well because “The glory of the king is in the presence of the multitudes” (Proverbs 14:28).
  They may not sell a synagogue except with the stipulation that it may be bought back whenever they want, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they may sell it in perpetuity, except for four purposes for it to become one of four things:  a bathhouse, a tannery, a ritual bath, or a urinal. Rabbi Judah says: they may sell it to be a courtyard, and the purchaser may do what he likes with it.
  GEMARA. According to R. Meir’s ruling, how do people live in it? [The rent they pay] would be interest!
  Yohanan said: R. Meir follows the view of R. Judah,  who said that interest which is only contingent is permitted, 
  as it has been taught: ‘If a man lent another a man a 100 zuz and the latter made a [conditional] sale to him of his field, if the seller takes the produce, this is permitted, but if the purchaser takes the produce, it is forbidden.
  Judah said: Even if the purchaser takes the produce it is permitted. Judah further said: It happened once that Baitus b. Zunin made a sale of his field with the permission of R. Elazar b. Azariah, and the purchaser took the produce.  They said to him: Do you cite that as a proof? It was in fact the seller who took the produce and not the purchaser.
  What do they argue about? They differ on the question of contingent interest;  one authority [R. Judah] held that  contingent interest is permitted, and the other held that it is forbidden.
  Rava said: All agree that contingent interest is forbidden, and they differ on taking interest on condition of returning it. One authority [R. Judah] held that to take interest on condition of returning it is permitted, while the other held that it is  forbidden.
  The sages say he may sell it permanently etc. Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: It is permitted for a man to urinate within four cubits of where prayers have been said.
  Joseph said: What has he told us? We have already learned it:  R. Judah says: it may be sold for use as a courtyard, and the purchaser may do what he likes in it; and even the rabbis did not forbid except for in the synagogue itself, since its sanctity is permanent, but for the four adjoining cubits, the sanctity of which is not permanent,   they did not make such a rule.
  A tanna recited in the presence of R. Nahman: One who has just said prayers should go a distance of four cubits and urinate, and one who has urinated should go a distance of four cubits and pray.
  He said to him: I grant you that that one who has urinated should go four cubits and pray, for we have taught this: How far should he go away from it and from excrement? Four cubits. But why should one who has prayed have to go four cubits before urinating?
  If that is the rule, you have sanctified all the streets of Nehardea! Rather teach,
  “He should wait [the time it takes to go four cubits]”. I grant you that one who has urinated should wait till he can go four cubits [before praying], on account of drippings [on his clothes]. But why should one who has just prayed wait long enough to go four cubits? Ashi replied Because for the time it takes to go four cubits his mouth is still full of his prayer and his lips are still muttering it.
  (Mnemonic Z’L’P’N’).
  Zakai was asked by his disciples: How have you lived so long? He said to them: I never urinated within four cubits of a place where prayers have been said, and I never called a friend by his nickname, nor have I omitted performing Kiddush [the sanctification of the day.] I had a grandmother who once sold her head covering so as to bring me [wine for] Kiddush. 
  It was taught: When she died she left him three hundred barrels of wine, and when he died he left his sons three thousand barrels.
  Huna once came before Rav girded with a string. He said to him: What is this? He replied: I had no [wine for] Kiddush, and I used my girdle as a pledge so as bring [wine] for Kiddush. He said: May it be the will of Heaven that you be [one day] smothered in robes of silk.
  When his son Rabbah was getting married, R. Huna, who was a short man, was lying on a bed and his daughters and daughters-in-law stripped [clothes] from themselves and threw them on him until he was smothered in silks. When Rav heard he was angry and said: Why when I blessed you did you not say, The same to you, Master?
  Elazar b. Shammua was asked by his disciples: How have you lived so long? He replied: Never in my life have I made a short cut through a synagogue, nor have I stepped upon the heads of the holy people, nor have I lifted my hands [to say the priestly blessing] without reciting a blessing.
  Peridah was asked by his disciples:  How did you live such a long life? He replied: My whole life no one came to the Bet Midrash before me,
  
  Daf 28a
  
  nor did I bless [birkat hamazon] before a kohen, nor did I eat from an animal from which the priestly dues were not take out,
  as R. Yitzchak said in the name of R. Yohanan: It is forbidden to eat from an animal from which the priestly dues have not been taken out; and R. Yitzchak further said: To eat from an animal from which the priestly dues have not been taken out is like eating untithed produce.  The halakhah does not follow him.
  Nor did I bless [birkat hamazon] before a Kohen: This implies that this is a positive attribute.
  But did not R. Yohanan said: Any talmid hakham in front of whom someone else blesses, even a high priest, who is all ignoramus, that talmid hakham is liable for the death penalty,  as it says, “All that hate me [mesanai] love death” (Proverbs 8:36); read not mesanai [that hate me], but masni’ai [that cause me to be hated]?
  When he [R. Peridah] said that, he was referring to equals.
  Nehunia b. Hakaneh was asked by his disciples: How have you lived so long? He replied: Never in my life have I been honored through the degradation of my friend, nor has the curse of my fellow gone up with me into my bed, and I have been generous with my money.
  I have not sought respect through the degradation of my fellow, as was the case with R. Huna who once was carrying a spade on his shoulder. R. Hana b. Hanilai wanted to hold it for him, but he said to him: If you are accustomed to carry it in your own town, take it, but if not, I do not want to be honored through your degradation.
  Nor did the curse of my fellow go up on my bed with me. This is illustrated by Mar Zutra, who, when he climbed into his bed said, I forgive all who have troubled me.
  I have been generous with my money: as a Master has said, Job was generous with his money; he used to leave with the shopkeeper a perutah of his change.
  Akiva asked R. Nehunia the Great: How did you live so long? His attendants came and beat him.  He went and sat on the top of a date tree. He said to him: Rabbi, seeing that it says “a lamb” why does it also say “one” (Numbers 28:4)? Thereupon he [R. Nehuniah] said: He is a rabbinical student, leave him alone.
  He said to him: “One” means “unique in its flock.”
  Then he said to him: Never in my life have I accepted presents, nor have I insisted on retribution [when wronged], and I have been generous with my money.
  “I have not accepted presents,” like R. Elazar, who, when presents were sent to him from the Patriarch’s [house], would not accept them and when he was invited there would not go. He said to them: Do you not want me to live,  since it says, “He that hates gifts shall live?” (Proverbs 15:27). Zera, when presents were sent to him from the Exilarch, would not accept them, but when he was invited there he used to go, saying, “They are honored by my presence.”
  Nor did I insist on retribution: as Rava said: He who waives his right to retribution they waive retribution for all his sins, as it says, “Who pardons sins and passes over transgression” (Micah 7:18). For whom does He forgive sin? For one who passes over transgression.
  Rabbi asked R. Joshua b. Korha: How have you lived such a long life? He said to him: Are you trying to shorten my life? Rabbi said to him: Rabbi, this is Torah and I need to learn. He replied: Never in my life have I looked at the countenance of a wicked man; As R. Yohanan said: It is forbidden for a man to look at the image of the countenance of a wicked man, as it says, “Were it not that I regard the presence of Yehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would not look toward you nor see you” (II Kings 3:14). Elazar said:
  His eyes become dim, as it says, “And it came to pass that when Yitzchak grew old that his eyes became dim, so that he could not see” (Genesis 27:1).   Because he used to look at the wicked Esau.
  But was that the cause? Did not R. Yitzchak say: Let not the curse of an ordinary person ever seem light in your eyes, for Avimelech cursed Sarah, and it was fulfilled in her seed, as it says, “Behold he is for you a covering [kesut] of the eyes” (Genesis 20:16). Read not “kesut” but “kesiyath” [blinding]?
  Both caused it [the dimming of his eyes]. Rava said. We learn it from here: “It is not good to favor the face of the wicked” (Proverbs 18:5).
  When he was about to die, Rabbi said to him: Bless me. He said to him: May it be God’s will that you live to half my days. Not to their whole length? He said back: Those who come after you, shall they graze cattle?
  Abuha b. Ihi and Minyamin b. Ihi: One said: May I be rewarded because I have never looked at a non-Jew, and the other said, May I be rewarded because I have never gone into partnership with a non-Jew.
  Zera was asked by his disciples: How have you lived such a long life? He replied: Never in my life have I been overly demanding with my household, nor have I walked in front of one greater than myself, nor have I meditated on the Torah in filthy alleys, nor have I gone four cubits without Torah and tefillin, nor have I slept in the bet hamidrash, either a long or a short sleep, nor have I rejoiced in the downfall of my fellow, nor have I called my fellow by a disgraceful name, or, as some say, his family nickname.
  Rabbi Judah said further: a synagogue that has fallen into ruins, they may not eulogize in it, nor twist ropes, nor spread nets [to trap animals], nor lay out produce on its roof [to dry], nor use it as a short cut, 
  as it says, “And I will desolate your holy places” (Leviticus 26:31)—their holiness remains even when they are desolate.
  If grass comes up in it, it should not be plucked, [in order to elicit] melancholy.
  GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: We do not act frivolously in a synagogue. We do not eat in them, nor drink in them,
  
  Daf 28b
  
  we do not adorn ourselves in them, nor stroll about in them, nor go into them in summer to escape the heat or in the rainy season to escape the rain, nor to deliver a private eulogy in them. But we read [the Scriptures] in them and repeat the Mishnah in them and deliver public funeral addresses in them.
  Judah said: When is this so? When they are still in use; but when they are destroyed, we let grass grow in them, and it should not be plucked, so as not to cause excessive sorrow.
  Grass, who said anything about grass!? The baraita is lacking, and the statement should read thus: They should be swept and the floor beaten down so that grass should not grow in them. Judah said: When is this so? When they are still in use; but when they are destroyed, we let grass grow in them,  and it should not be plucked, so as not to cause excessive sorrow.
  Assi said: The synagogues of Babylon have been built with a stipulation, and even so we do not act frivolously in them.  What [for instance] is this? Doing calculations [for business purposes] in them.
  Assi said: A synagogue in which people make calculations, they leave a dead body overnight in there. You really think they leave a dead body overnight in it? Is this really necessary? Rather say in the end a met mitzvah will be kept there overnight.
  And we do not dress (adorn) ourselves in them. Rava said: The sages and their disciples are permitted,  since R. Joshua b. Levi has said: What is the meaning of “Be Rabbanan”? The rabbis’ house.
  Nor do we go into them in summer to escape the heat or in the rainy season to escape the rain. As was the case with Ravina and R. Ada b. Matanah who were once standing and asking questions of Rava and it started to rain. They went into the synagogue  and said: We came into the synagogue not because of the rain, but because the discussion of the tradition requires clarity, like a clear day.
  Aha the son of Rava asked R. Ashi: If a person needs to call another out of a synagogue, what is he to do? He said: If he is a rabbinical scholar, let him say some halakhah; if he is a tanna, let him recite a mishnah; if he is a kara, let him say a verse of Scripture;  if none of these, let him say to a child,  “Tell me your verse.” If not, let him stay a little while and then get up.
  And we deliver a public eulogy in them. If not, let him stay a little while and then get up. Hisda showed: For instance, a eulogy at which R. Sheshet is present. Shesheth showed:  For instance, a eulogy at which R. Hisda is present.
  Rafram eulogized his daughter-in-law in the synagogue, saying: For my honor and for the honor of the dead all the people will come. Zera eulogized a certain rabbinical student in the synagogue, saying: Either for my honor and for the honor of the dead all the people will come.
  Resh Lakish eulogized a certain rabbinical student who was frequently in the Land of Israel and who used to repeat halakhoth before twenty-four rows [of disciples]. He said: Alas! The Land of Israel has lost a great man.
  There was a certain man who used to repeat halakhot, Sifra and Sifre and Tosefta, and when he died they came  and said to R. Nahman: Let the master eulogize him. He said: How are we to eulogize him:  Alas! A bag full of books has been lost!
  Observe now the difference between the rigorous scholars of the Land of Israel and the saints of Babylon.
  We have learned in another place: Whoever makes use of a crown, passes away [from the world] and Resh Lakish taught:  This applies to one who accepts service from one who can repeat halakhoth, the crown of Torah. And Ulla said
  One may accept service from one who can repeat the four [orders of the Mishnah] but not from one who can [also] teach them. As in the following story of Resh Lakish, who was once traveling along a road when he came to a pool of water, and a man came up and put him on his shoulders and began taking him across. He said to the man: Can you read the Scriptures? He answered: I can read. Can you recite the Mishnah?  [He replied]: I can recite four orders of the Mishnah.  Resh Lakish thereupon said:  You have hewn four rocks, and you carry the son of Lakish on your shoulder?  Throw the son of Lakish into the water! 
  He replied: I would rather you teach me something. If so learn from me this statement that was said by R. Zera: The daughters of Israel were stringent upon themselves that even if they saw [on their garments] a spot of blood no bigger than a mustard seed, they waited for seven clean days [before taking a ritual bath].
  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.
  It was taught
  
  Daf 29a
  
  The study of the Torah may be suspended for escorting a dead body and for bringing a bride into marriage. It was said of R. Judah b. Ila’i that he used to suspend the study of the Torah for escorting a dead body and for bringing a bride into marriage. When was this said? When there are not present sufficient numbers, but if sufficient numbers are available, [the study of the Torah] is not suspended.
  How many are sufficient? R. Shmuel b. Inia said in the name of Rav: Twelve thousand and [in addition] six thousand trumpets,  or, as according to another version,  twelve thousand men of whom six thousand have trumpets. Ulla said: Enough to make a procession extending from the burying ground to the town gate.
  Sheshet said: The taking away of Torah [study] should correspond to its giving: just as it was given in the presence of sixty myriads, so to it should be taken away only in the presence of sixty myriads. This applies to one who read Scripture and recited Mishnah; but for one who [also] taught the Mishnah there is no limit.
  It was taught: R. Shimon b. Yohai said: Come and see how beloved are Israel to God—... every place to which they were exiled the Shekhinah (God’s Divine Presence) went with them. They were exiled to Egypt and the Shekhinah was with them, as it says, “Did I reveal myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt” (II Samuel 2:27). They were exiled to Babylon, and the Shekhinah was with them, as it says, “For your sake I was sent to Babylon” (Isaiah 43:14). And when they will be redeemed in the future, the Shekhinah will be with them, as it says, “Then the Lord your God will return [with] your captivity” (Deuteronomy 30:3). It does not say here veheshiv [and He shall bring back] but veshav [and he shall return]. This teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, will return with them from the places of exile.
  Where [is the Shekhinah] in Babylonia? Abaye said: In the synagogue of Huzal and in the synagogue of Shaf Veyativ (lit. was destroyed and then rebuilt) in Nehardea. Do not say that it is in both places, but  it is sometimes in one and sometimes in the other. Abaye said: May I be rewarded for whenever I am within a parasang I go in and pray there. The father of Samuel and Levi were sitting in the synagogue Shaf Veyativ in Nehardea. The Shekhinah came and they heard a sound of trembling  and rose and went out.
  Sheshet was once sitting in the synagogue Shaf Veyativ in Nehardea, when the Shekhinah came. He did not go out, and the ministering angels came and threatened him. He said to Him and said:  Master of the World,  if one is afflicted and one is not afflicted, who gives way to whom?  God said to them: Leave him alone.
  “Yet I have been to them as a little sanctuary [in the land into which they will go]” (Ezekiel 11:16). R. Yitzchak said: This refers to the synagogue and study houses Elazar says: This refers to the house of our teacher in Babylonia.
  Rava gave the following exposition: What is the meaning of the verse, “Lord, You have been our dwelling place” (Psalms 90:1)? This refers to synagogues and study houses. Abaye said: At first I used to study at home and pray in the synagogue, but when I heard the words of David, “O Lord, I love the dwelling place [me’on] of Your house” (Psalms 26:8), I began to study in the synagogue.
  It has been taught: R. Elazar HaKappar says: The synagogues and study houses in Babylon will in time to come be planted in Eretz Israel, as it says, “For as Tabor among the mountains and as Carmel by the sea came” (Jeremiah 46:18-19). Now can we not draw an a fortiori inference from here: Seeing that Carmel and Tabor which came only on a single occasion to learn the Torah were set in Eretz Israel, how much more so with the synagogues and study houses of learning where the Torah is read and spread throughout the land.
  Bar Kappara gave the following exposition: What is the meaning of the verse, “Why do you look askance [terazedun], mountains of peaks (gavnunim)” (Psalms 68:18). A bat kol (heavenly voice) went forth and said to them:  Why do ye desire litigation [tirzu din] with Sinai? You are all full of blemishes as compared with Sinai. It is written here “gavnunim,” and it is written elsewhere “or humpbacked [gibben] or a dwarf” (Leviticus 21:20). Ashi observed: You can learn from this that if a man is arrogant, this is a blemish in him.
  It should not be used as a short cut [kapandria]. What is kapandria?  Rava said: Kapandaria is as its name implies.... What does its name imply? As if one were to say, Instead of going round the building [makifna adare], I will enter here.
  Abahu said: If a path went through there originally, it is permitted.
  Nahman b. Yitzchak said: If one goes in without any intention of using it as a short cut, he may afterwards use it as a short cut. And R. Helbo said in the name of R. Huna: If one enters a synagogue to pray, he may afterwards use it as a short cut, as it says, “But when, the people of the land shall come before the Lord at the appointed times, he that enters by way of the north gate to worship shall go out by way of the south gate” (Ezekiel 46:9).
  If grass has grown in it, he should not pluck it, so as not to arouse distress. But it has been taught: He should not pluck it and give it as food [to cattle], but he pluck it and leave it there. The statement in our Mishnah also refers to plucking and giving it for food.
  Our Rabbis taught: One does not act disrespectfully in a cemetery:  We do not graze cattle in them, nor do we run a water channel through them, nor do we gather grass in them, and if he did gather grass they must be burned on the spot, out of respect for the dead.
  To what do these last words apply? Shall I say, to the last clause? Since he burns them on the spot, what respect does this show for the dead? Rather it refers to the preceding clauses.
   If Rosh Hodesh Adar falls on Shabbat the portion of shekalim is read [on that day]. 1. If it falls in the middle of the week, it is read on the Shabbat before, and on the next Shabbat there is a break. On the second [of the special Shabbatot] they read “Zakhor;”
  On the second [of the special Shabbatot] they read “Zakhor;” On the third the portion of the red heifer; On the fourth “This month shall be for you;” On the fifth the regular order is resumed.
  They interrupt [the regular order] for anything: for Rosh Hodesh, for Hanukkah, for Purim, for fasts, for Ma’amadot, and for Yom HaKippurim
  GEMARA. We have learned in another place (Mishnah Shekalim 2:1):  On the first of Adar they make a proclamation with regard to the shekels
  
  Daf 29b
  
  and with regard to diverse seeds (kilayim).
  It makes sense why they proclaim for kilayim because it is the time for sowing. But why for the shekels?
  Tabi said in the name of R. Yoshayah: For the verse says, “This is the burnt-offering of each new moon in its renewal” (Numbers 28:14). The Torah says to us: Renew and bring an offering from the new contributions.
  And since it is in Nisan that we have to bring from the new contributions, we read beforehand on the first of Adar so that shekels should be brought [in time] to the Sanctuary.
  With whose view does this accord? Not with that of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. For if it were R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, he said [only] two weeks, as it has been taught: They ask about the laws of Passover from thirty days before Passover; R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. who says we only begin talking about  Pesah two weeks before.
  You may even say it accords with the view of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel.  For since a Master has said: On the fifteenth of this month [Adar] tables are set up in the provinces and on the twenty-fifth in the Temple,” on account of the tables we read earlier [on the first of Adar].
  What is the portion of Shekalim? Rav said: “Command the children of Israel and say to them ‘My sacrifice, my food'” (Numbers 28:2) But Shmuel said: “When you count [the heads of the children of Israel]” (Exodus 30:12).
  It makes sense to the one who says the portion is “When you count,” that is why it is called the portion of Shekalim, because shekalim are written in it. ...But according to the one who says it is “My sacrifice, my food” are shekels written in it. Yes; the reason is based on the statement of R. Tabi.
  It is understandable to the one who says that “Command the children of Israel” [should be read], because sacrifices are written in it. But according to the one who says that “When you count” should be read, are sacrifices written there? It is the shekels for the sockets that are mentioned there!
  [The reason is] as R. Joseph taught: There were three contributions: of the altar for the altar, of the sockets for the sockets, and of the repair of the House for the repair of the House.
  It makes sense to the one who says that “When you count” should be read, because he thus makes a difference between this Rosh Hodesh and other cases of Rosh Hodesh. But the one who says that “Command the children of Israel” should be read, what difference does he make?
  He does make a difference, because on other cases of Rosh Hodesh six read in the portion of the day and one that of Rosh Hodesh,  whereas in this case all read in that of Rosh Hodesh.
  This works for the one who says that he returns to the regular order of portions
  but according to the one who says that that he returns to the regular order of haftarot and that the regular Torah portion is read, what difference is there [between this Rosh Hodesh and others]?
  There is a difference, because on other cases of Rosh Hodesh six read in the portion of the day and one reads the special portion for Rosh Hodesh, whereas on this occasion three read in the portion of the day and four in that of Rosh Hodesh.
  They objected: When Rosh Hodesh Adar falls on Shabbat, the portion of Shekalim is read, and they read as the haftarah the chapter of Yehoyada the Priest. This works for the one who says that “When you count” should be said, that is why they read the haftorah of Yehoyada the Priest because it is similar in subject, as it is written [there], “The money of the persons according to its value” (II Kings 12:5).   But according to the one who says that “My sacrifice, my food” is there any similarity?
  It is similar, as R. Tabi said.
  They objected: If it [Rosh Hodesh Adar] falls on the portion next to it [the portion of Shekalim], whether before or after, they read it and repeat it.
  This works for the one who holds that “When you count” is read because [the regular portion containing this passage] falls about that time. But according to the one who says that “Command…My sacrifice” does [the portion containing that passage] fall about that time?
  Yes, for the people of Eretz Yisrael, who complete the reading of the Torah in three years.
  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.”
  R. Yitzchak Nafha said: When Rosh Hodesh Adar falls on Shabbat, they take out three Torah scrolls and read them: from one the portion of the day, from one the portion for Rosh Hodesh, and from one “When you count.” R. Yitzckah b. Nafha also said: When Rosh Hodesh Tevet falls on Shabbat, they take out three Torah scrolls and read them: one from one the portion of the day, one from the portion for Rosh Hodesh, and from one the portion for Hannukah.
  Both statements are required.  For if it had been stated only about the latter, [I might have thought that] in this case R. Yitzchak required [three scrolls], but in the other case he followed the view of Rav who said that the portion of Shekalim is “My sacrifice, my food,” and therefore two would be enough. Therefore we are told that this is not so.
  But why not state the former [only] and the other would not need to be stated? One was inferred from the other. It was stated:
  It was stated: Rosh Hodesh Tevet that falls on a weekday, R. Yitzchak says that three read the portion of Rosh Hodesh and one the portion of Hanukkah. R. Dimi from Haifa, however, says that three read the portion of Hanukkah and one that of Rosh Hodesh.
  R. Mani said: The opinion of R. Isaac Nappaha is the more reasonable, because when it is a question between the frequent and the infrequent, the frequent takes precedence.
  R. Abin, however, said: The opinion of R. Dimi is the more reasonable. For what is it that causes a fourth man to read? Rosh Hodesh. Therefore the fourth ought to read the portion of Rosh Hodesh.
  What have we said about this? R. Joseph said: We take no notice of Rosh Hodesh. But Rabbah said: We take no notice of Hanukkah. The halakhah is that we take no notice of Hanukkah, and Rosh Hodesh is the main consideration.
  It was stated: ‘If it [Shabbat Shekalim] falls when the portion “And you shall command” is read: R. Yitzchak Nafha said: Six persons read from “And you shall command” up until “When you count”, and one from “When you count” to “You shall make.” Abaye said:
  
  Daf 30a
  
  People will say that  that is where they stop.
  Rather Abaye said: Six read from “And you shall command” to “And you shall make”, and one repeats and reads from “When you count” to “And you shall make.”
  They objected: If it [Shabbat Shekalim] falls on the Shabbat of the portion next to it, whether just before or just after, it is read and repeated.
  This works for Abaye, but it is a difficulty for R. Yitzchak Nafha.
  Yitzchak Nafha could say to you: And does it go so well with Abaye? It makes sense with the Shabbat before it, but does it make sense with the Shabbat after it?
  Rather what can you say [according to Abaye] this portion [of Shekalim] is read on two successive Shabbatot; so l too can answer that it is read on two consecutive Shabbatot.
  If it falls on the portion of “When you count” itself: R. Isaac Nappaha said: Six read from “You shall make” to “And Moses assembled” and one from “When you count” to “And you shall make.”
  Abaye objected: Now people will say that he can read backwards! Rather Abaye said: Six read to “And Moses assembled”, and one repeats from “When you count” to “And you shall make.”
  It has been taught in agreement with Abaye: If it falls on [the Shabbat of] “When you take” itself, it is read and repeated.
  If it falls in the middle of the week, it is read on the Shabbat before. It was stated: If Rosh Hodesh Adar falls on Friday: Rav says that [Parshat Shekalim] is read on the Shabbat before. But Shmuel says that  it is read on the Shabbat after.
  Rav says it is read before, because otherwise there will be too few days of the tables. Shmuel says  it is read after. He could say to you that in the end, the fifteenth day [from Rosh Hodesh] falls on a Friday, and the tables will not be taken out till the Sunday; therefore we delay the reading [of Shabbat Shekalim].
  It was taught: If it falls during the week, they move it [Parshat Shekalim] up to the previous Shabbat, and they stop [the order of special Shabbatot] for the following Shabbat.  Does not this rule apply even where it falls on Friday? No; only if it falls actually in the middle part of the week.
  Come and hear: Which is the first Shabbat [of the series]? The Shabbat in which Rosh Hodesh Adar falls in the previous week, even if it is on Friday. Is it not that “even on Friday” is the same as the middle of the week, so that just as when it falls in the middle of the week we read before, so too when it falls on Friday we read before?
  Shmuel said: It should read “on it.” So too a Tanna of the house of Shmuel taught:  “On it.”
  This is similar to the following tannaitic dispute: They interrupt [the series of special] Sabbaths, the words of R. Judah Hanasi. R. Shimon b. Elazar says: They do not interrupt. R. Shimon b. Elazar said: When do I say that they do not interrupt? When it [Rosh Hodesh] falls on Friday; but if it falls in the middle of the week, it [the portion of Shekalim] is read on the Shabbat before, even though that is still in Shevat.
  On the second, Zakhor etc. It was stated: If Purim falls on Friday, Rav says that the portion of Zakhor is read on the Shabbbat before, while Shmuel says it is read on the Shabbat after.
  Rav says it is read on the Shabbat before, so that the celebration [of Purim] should not precede the remembrance [of Amalek]. Shmuel says on the Shabbat after. He could say to you that  since there are the walled cities which celebrate on the fifteenth, celebration and remembrance come together.
  We learned: On the second, Zakhor. Now when Rosh Hodesh [of Adar] is on Shabbat, Purim falls on Friday, and it teaches “On the second, Zakhor”? Papa said: What is meant by “second”? The second to the interruption.
  Come and hear: Which is the second week? The one in which Purim falls in it, even if on Friday. Now is not Friday is the same as the middle of the week, so that just as when it falls in the middle of the week we read before, so when it falls on Friday we read before?
  Shmuel said: [The proper reading is] “on it”; and so a Tanna of the school of Shmuel taught, “On it.”
  If it falls on Shabbat itself: R. Huna said: All agree that Parshat Zakhor is not read on the Shabbat before. But R. Nahman said: There is still a dispute. It was also stated: R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Abba, who had it from Rav:... If Purim falls on Sabbath, Zakor is read on the Shabbat.
  On the third [Shabbat] the portion of the red heifer etc. (Parshat Parah). Our Rabbis taught: Which is the third Shabbat? The one which follows Purim. It was stated: R. Hama b. Hanina said: The Shabbat before Rosh Hodesh Nisan.
  There is no conflict [between these two statements]; the one refers to a case where Rosh Hodesh Nisan falls on Shabbat, and the other where it falls in the middle of the week.
  On the fourth, “this month shall be for you” (Exodus 12:2). Our Rabbis taught: If Rosh Hodesh Adar falls on Shabbat, we read Ki Tisa and as haftarah [the portion about] Yehoyada. Which is the first Shabbat? The one on which Rosh Hodesh Adar falls in the following week, even if on Friday. On the second Shabbat Zakhor is read, and for haftarah, “I have visited” (II Samuel 15:2). Which is the second Shabbat? The one in which Purim falls in the following week, even if on Friday.
  On the third Shabbat the portion of the red heifer is read, and for haftarah, “And I shall sprinkle on you” (Ezekiel 36:25). Which is the third Shabbat? The one which follows Purim. On the fourth “This month” is read, and for haftarah, “Thus says the Lord God, in the first month on the first of the month” (Ezekiel 45:18).
  
  Daf 30b
  
  Which is the fourth Shabbat?The one immediately preceding the week in which Rosh Hodesh Nisan falls, even if on Friday.
  On the fifth they return to the regular order. What regular order? R. Ammi said: They return to the order of weekly portions. Jeremiah said:  They return to the order of haftarot.
  Jeremiah said: The opinion of R. Ammi is the more reasonable,  as it was taught: the regular reading is interrupted for any special occasion: for Rosh Hodesh, for Hanukkah, for Purim, for fasts, for ma’amadot and for Yom Kippur.
  This accords well with the one who says that the order of weekly portions is resumed, that is why a portion is read on weekdays. But according to the one who says that the order of haftarot is resumed, is there any haftarah on [ordinary] weekdays?
  The one rule holds where it applies, and the other where it applies.
  But on fast days [according to R. Jeremiah], why should there be an interruption [of the regular portion]? Let us read in the morning from the portion of the week and at minhah on the subject of the fast? This supports R. Huna; for R. Huna said: In the morning of fast days there is a public assembly.
  What do we do? Abaye said: From the morning to midday we examine the affairs of the town; from midday to evening, for a quarter of the day we read the Torah portion and the haftarah, and for a quarter we ask for mercy as it says, “And they read in the scroll of the Torah of their Lord a fourth part of the day, and another part they confessed and prostrated themselves before the Lord their God” (Nehemiah 9:3).
  But could I not reverse this? Do not think this, since it is written, “Around me gathered all who were concerned over the words of the God of Israel because of the returning exiles’ trespass, while I sat desolate until the evening offering.” And it is written, “At the time of the evening offering I ended my self-affliction” (Ezra 9:4-5).
  On Pesah we read from the portion of the festivals in Leviticus (Torat Kohanim) (Leviticus 23:4). On Shavuot, “Seven weeks” (Deuteronomy 16:9). On Rosh Hashanah “On the seventh day on the first of the month” (Leviticus 23:23). On Yom Hakippurim, “After the death” (Leviticus 16). On the first day of the Festival [of Sukkot] they read from the portion of the festivals in Leviticus, and on the other days of the Festival [of Sukkot] the [sections] on the offerings of the Festival.
  On Hanukkah they read the section of the princes (Numbers 7). On Purim, “And Amalek came” (Exodus 17:8). On Rosh Hodesh, “And on the first of your months” (Numbers 28:11). On Maamadot, the account of the creation (Genesis 1:1-2:3).
  
  Daf 31a
  
  Blessings and Curses They do not interrupt while reading the curses, but rather one reads them all.
  On Monday and Thursday and on Shabbat at minhah they read according to the regular order and this does not count as part of the reading [for the succeeding Shabbat]. As it says,
  “And Moshe declared to the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lord” (Leviticus 23:44)—it is their mitzvah that each should be read in its appropriate time.
  GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught:  On Pesah we read from the section of the festivals and for haftarah the account of the Pesah at Gilgal (Joshua 5). And now that we keep two days of Pesah, the haftarah of the first day is the account of the Pesah in Gilgal and of the second day that of the Pesah of Josiah (II Kings 23:1-9, 21-25).
  On the other days of Pesach the various passages in the Torah relating to Pesah are read. What are these?  R. Papa said: The mnemonic is MAPU.
  On the last day of Pesah we read, “And it came to pass when God sent” (Exodus 13:17-15:26), and as haftarah, “And David spoke” (II Samuel 22:1-51). On the next day we read, “All the firstborn” (Deuteronomy 15:19-16:19), and for haftarah, “This very day” (Isaiah 10:32-12:6).
  Abaye said: Nowadays the communities are accustomed to read  Draw the ox, Sanctify with money, Hew in the wilderness, and Send the firstborn.
  On Shavuot, we read “Seven weeks”, and for haftarah from Habakuk (3:1-19). According to others, we read “In the third month” (Exodus 19:1-20:23),   and for haftarah the account of the Divine Chariot (Ezekiel 1:1-28, 3:1-12). Nowadays that we keep two days, we act in accordance with both, but in the reverse order.
  On Rosh Hashanah we read “On the seventh month”, and for haftarah, “Ephraim a precious son to me” (Jeremiah 31:1-19). According to others, we read “And the Lord remembered Sarah” and for haftarah the story of Hannah (I Samuel 1:1-2:10).
  Nowadays that we keep two days, on the first day we follow the ruling of the other authority, and on the next day we say, “And God tested Abraham”, and for the haftarah we read “Ephraim is a precious son to me.”
  On Yom Kippur we read “After the death” (Leviticus 16) and for haftarah, “For thus said the high and lofty one” (Isaiah 57:14-58) At minhah we read the section of forbidden sexual relationships (Leviticus 18:1-30) and for haftarah the book of Jonah.
  Yohanan said:    Wherever you find [mentioned in the Bible] the power of the Holy One, blessed be He, you also find his humility.  This fact is stated in the Torah, repeated in the Prophets, and stated a third time in the [Sacred] Writings.
  It is written in the Torah, “For the Lord your God, He is the God of gods and Lord of lords,” and it says immediately afterwards, “He executes justice for the orphan and widow” (Deuteronomy 10:17). It is repeated in the Prophets: “For thus said He who high aloft forever dwells, whose name is holy” and it says immediately afterwards, “I dwell on high, in holiness yet with the contrite and lowly spirit” (Isaiah 57:15). It is stated a third time in the [Sacred] Writings, as it is written: “Extol him that rides the clouds, the Lord is his name,” and immediately afterwards it is written, “A father of orphans and a judge of the widows” (Psalms 68:5-6).
  On the first day of Sukkot we read the section of the festivals in Leviticus, and for haftarah, “Behold a day comes for the Lord” (Zechariah 14:1-21). Now that we keep two days, on the next day we read the same section from the Torah, but what do we read for haftarah? “And all the men of Israel assembled unto King Solomon” (I Kings 8:2-21). On the other days of the festival we read the section of the offerings of the festival.
  On the last day of the festival we read, “All the firstlings” [but first we read] the commandments and statutes [which precede it], and then “all the firstlings” (Deuteronomy 15:19-16:17) and for haftarah, “And when Solomon had finished” (I Kings 8:54-9:1). On the next day we read, “And this is the blessing” (Deuteronomy 33:1-34:12), and for haftarah, “And Solomon stood” (I Kings 8:23-53).
  Huna said in the name of R. Sheshet: On the Shabbat which falls in the intermediate days of the festival, whether Pesah or Sukkot, the passage we read from the Torah is “See, You [say to me]” (Exodus 33:14-34:26) and for haftarah on Pesah the passage of the “Dry bones” (Ezekiel 37:1-14) and on Sukkot, “In that day when Gog shall come” (Ezekiel 38:18-39:16).
  On Hanukkah we read the section of the chieftains: And for haftarah [on Shabbat] that of the lights in Zechariah (2:14-4:7). And if there are two Shabbatot in Hanukkah, on the first we read [for haftarah] the passage of the lights in Zechariah and on the second that of the lights of Solomon (I Kings 8:40-50).
  On Purim we read “And Amalek came” (Exodus 17). On Rosh Hodesh, “On your new moons” (Numbers 28). If Rosh Hodesh falls on Shabbat, the haftarah is [the passage concluding] “And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another” (Isaiah 66:1-24). If it falls on a Sunday, on the day before the haftarah is, “And Jonathan said to him, tomorrow is the new moon” (I Samuel 20:18-42).
  Huna said:
  
  Daf 31b
  
  If Rosh Hodesh falls on Shabbat the haftarah is “Your new moons and your appointed seasons are hateful to my soul, they are a burden for me” (Isaiah 1:14). What is the meaning of “they are a burden for me”? God said: It is not enough for Israel that they sin before Me, but they trouble Me to figure out what punishment I shall bring upon them.
  On the Ninth of Av itself what is the haftarah? Rav said: “How (איכה) has she become a harlot” (Isaiah 1:21). What is the section from the Torah? It has been taught: Others say,  But if you will not obey me” (Leviticus 26:14-46); R. Nathan b. Joseph says: “How long will this people despise me” (Numbers 14:11-25); and some say, “How long shall I bear this evil congregation” (Numbers 14:26-46). Abaye said: Nowadays the custom has been adopted of reading [from the Torah] “When you shall bear children” (Deuteronomy 4:25-40), and for haftarah, “I will utterly consume them” (Jeremiah 8:13-9:23).
  On ma’amadot the story of the creation. From where do we know this? Ammi said: Were it not for the ma’amadot, the heaven and earth would not be firmly established, as it says, “But if not for My covenant [which continues] day and night, I would not have set the laws of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). And it is written, “And he said, O Lord God, How shall I know that I shall inherit it?” (Genesis 15:8). Abraham said before the Holy One, blessed be He: 
  Master of the Universe, perhaps God forbid, Israel will sin before You and You will do to them as You did to the generation of the Flood and the generation of the Dispersal [of the world]? He answered:  No....
  He then said before Him: Master of the Universe: By what shall I know this? He said: “Take a heifer of three years old” etc. (Genesis 15:9).  He then said before Him: Master of the Universe: This is very well for the time when the Temple will be standing, but in the time when there will be no Temple what will happen to them? He replied to him: I have already set for them the order of the sacrifices. Whenever they will read the section dealing with them, I will account it to them it as if they were bringing me an offering, and forgive all their sins
  On fast days [the portion of] blessings and curses is read, and they may not break in [the reading of] the curses. How do we know this? Hiyya b. Gamda said in the name of R. Assi: As the verse says, “Do not reject the discipline of the Lord, My son” (Proverbs 3:11).
  Resh Lakish said: It is because a blessing should not be said for punishment. What then should he do? A Tanna taught: He begins his reading with a verse before them and concludes it with a verse after them.
  Abaye said: This rule was taught only with regard to the curses in Leviticus, but the curses in Deuteronomy one may interrupt [their reading]. What is the reason? The former are stated in the plural and Moses said them on behalf of the Almighty.  The latter are stated in the singular, and Moses said them in his own name.
  Levi b. Buti was once reading the curses [in Deuteronomy] in the presence of R. Huna hesitatingly. R. Huna said to him:... Do just as you want, This rule was taught only with regard to the curses in Leviticus, but the curses in Deuteronomy one may interrupt [their reading].
  It has been taught: R. Shimon b. Eleazar says:... Ezra established for Israel that they should read the curses in Leviticus before Shavuot and those in Deuteronomy before Rosh Hashanah. ... What is the reason? Abaye, or you may also say Resh Lakish said: So that the year may end along with its curses.
  It makes sense in regard to the curses in Deuteronomy you can say, “so that the year should end along with its curses.” But as regards those In Leviticus, is Shavuot a New Year? Yes; Shavuot is also a New Year, as we have learned: On Shavuot is the new year for [fruit of] the tree.
  It has been taught: R. Shimon b. Elazar says: If old men say to you, “tear down”, and boys say to you “build up,” tear down and do not build up, because destruction by old men is construction, and construction by boys is destruction; and the example is Rehoboam son of Solomon.
  Our Rabbis taught: The place [in the Torah] where they leave off in the morning service of Shabbat is the place where they begin at Minhah; the place where they leave off at Minhah [on Shabbat] is the place where they begin on Monday; the place where they leave off on Monday is the place where they begin on Thursday; the place where they leave off on Thursday is the place where they begin on the next Shabbat, the words of R. Meir. R. Judah says that the place where they leave off in the morning service on Shabbat is the place where they begin at Minah [on Shabbat], on Monday, on Thursday, and on the next Shabbat.
  Zera said: The halakhah is that the place where they leave off in the morning service on Shabbat is the place where they begin at Minhah, on Monday, on Thursday and on the next Shabbat. Why does he not say, “the halakhah follows Rabbi Judah”?
  
  Daf 32a
  
  Because [the names] might be reversed.
  Our Rabbis taught: [The one who reads] opens the scroll and sees [the place], then rolls it together and says the blessing, then opens it again and reads, the words of R. Meir. R. Judah says: He opens and looks and says the blessing, and reads.
  What is R. Meir’s reason? It like that of Ulla as Ulla said: Why did they say that he who reads from the Torah should not aid the translator? So that people should not say that the translation is written in the Torah. So too here [R. Meir’s reason is] so that they should not say that the blessings are written in the Torah.
   And R. Judah? [How would he respond]? With regard to translation a mistake might be made, but no mistake will be made with regard to the blessings.
  Zera said in the name of R. Matanah: The halakhah is that he opens and looks, then says the blessing and reads. Let him say, “The halakhah follows R. Judah”?  Because he might reverse the names.
  Zera said in the name of R. Matanah. The boards and the platforms do not have any sanctity in them.
  Sheftiah said in the name of R. Yohanan: One who rolls up a Sefer Torah, he should make it close at a seam.
  Shefatiah further said in the name of R. Yohanan: One who rolls together a Sefer Torah should roll it from outside and should not roll it from within, 
  and when he fastens it he should fasten it from within and should not fasten it from without.
  Shefatiah further said in the name of R. Yohanan: If ten have read in the Torah, the greatest among them rolls up the Sefer Torah. He who rolls it up receives the reward of all of them, since R. Joshua b. Levi said: If ten have read from the Torah, the one who rolls it up receives the reward of all of them. The reward of all of them, do you really think? Rather say he receives a reward equal to that of all of them.
  Shefatiah further said in the name of R. Yohanan: From where do we know that we do may make use of a heavenly voice? Because it says, “And your ears shall hear a word behind you saying” (Isaiah 30:21).   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.
  Sheftiah further said in the name of R. Yohanan: If one reads [Scripture] without a melody or recites the Mishnah without a tune, of him the verse says, “For I gave them also statutes that were not good.” (Ezekiel 20:25).
  Abaye raised a difficulty: Just because he cannot produce a sweet voice, [you say] “For I gave them also statutes that were not good”? Rather this is like R. Mesharshya who said: If two scholars live in the same town and do not treat one another’s halakhah respectfully, of them the verse says, “For I gave them also statutes that were not good.”
  Parnakh said in the name of R. Yohanan:  Whoever takes hold of a scroll of the Torah without a covering (naked) is buried naked. Naked! Do you really think? Rather say: naked without mitzvoth.
  Without mitzvot! Do you really think? Rather Abaye said: He is buried naked without that mitzvah.
  Yannai the son R. Yannai the elder said in the name of the great R. Yannai: It is better that the covering [of the scroll] should be rolled up [with the scroll] and not that the scroll of the Torah should be rolled up [inside the covering].
  “And Moses told the children of Israel of the appointed seasons of the Lord” (Leviticus 23:44). It is part of their mitzvah that [the section relating to] each one of them should be read in its season. Our rabbis taught: Moses established for Israel that they should enquire and give derashot concerning the subject of the day the laws of Pesah on Pesah, the laws of Shavuot on Shavuot, and the laws of Sukkot on Sukkot.
  May we return to you chapter “The people of the city” and this is the completion of Tractate Megillah.