Daf Yomi - Megillah 10 - THE CHOSEN CITY

Tosfos cites the opinion of Rabbeinu Chaim that even if one maintains that the initial sanctification of the Beis Hamikdosh was not for all time and it would be forbidden to offer sacrifices on the site of the Temple Altar, one is nonetheless prohibited from offering a sacrifice on a private altar.

Rashi disagrees and holds that if the sanctity of the Beis Hamikdosh ceased by its destruction, it would be permitted to offer sacrifices on a private altar nowadays.

The commentators ask on Rabbeinu Chaim: If the sanctity ceased after the destruction, why would it be forbidden to offer sacrifices on a private altar? After the destruction of Shiloh, bamos became permitted, so why not after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh?

Minchas Chinuch (254:7) writes that although Yerushalayim has lost its sanctity in regards to offering sacrifices and eating Kodoshim, the city remains the “chosen place” and the third Beis Hamikdosh will be built there. This is why private altars are still forbidden. This is the distinction between Shiloh and Yerushalayim. Shiloh was not the chosen city and when the Tabernacle was destroyed, there was no vestige of sanctity left in the city and bamos became permitted. Minchas Chinuch states that this is the explanation as to why we are still subject to a prohibition of fearing the Mikdash nowadays, since it is still the chosen place although it has not retained its sanctity.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 10 - Shabbos in the Daf

by Reb Ben

The Gemara states that the Aron, the Holy Ark, did not take up any room in space in the Mishkan and in the Bais HaMikdash. This was truly a miracle. Similarly, we can suggest that Shabbos, despite the prohibition from refraining to work, does not take up any space either. The Zohar states that ones sustenance is blessed from Shabbos. Although one refrains from work on Shabbos and it would seem that this would be detrimental to ones livelihood, one should not be concerned, because by observing Shabbos, his efforts during the week will be blessed.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 10 - Highlights

The Mishna states: There is no difference between a major Altar (Moshe’s mizbeach when the Mishkan was in Nov and Givon) and a small altar (private altar that one erects in his backyard, during the time that these were permitted), except Pesach sacrifices. This is the general rule: What one vowed and donated freely may be offered on a private altar, but what is neither vowed nor donated freely, but rather compulsory, may not be offered on the altar.

The Gemora explains that the Mishna follows the viewpoint of Rabbi Shimon who maintains that the community may not bring obligatory korbanos on the major altar except for the korban Pesach and any communal korban that has a set time. Korbanos that did not have a set time were not brought at all. (9b)

The Mishna states: There is no difference between Shiloh and Yerushalayim except that in Shiloh (when the Tabernacle was there), one may eat kodshim kalim (sacrifices with a lesser degree of sanctity) and ma'aser sheni in any location that Shiloh can be seen, however, in Yerushalayim, one could eat only inside the wall. And in both locations, kodshei kodashim (sacrifices with a higher degree of sanctity) must be eaten inside the enclosures. The sanctity of Shiloh is followed by permission (private bamos may be used after the destruction of the Shiloh Tabernacle), and the sanctity of Jerusalem is not followed by permission (once the Temple was constructed, bamos are always prohibited).

Rabbi Yitzchak said: I have heard from my teachers that one may sacrifice in the Temple of Chonyo, even at this time. (The Gemora (Menachos 109b) records the story of Shimon Hatzaddik, the great Kohen Gadol, who, nearing death, instructed his younger son, Chonyo, to take over as Kohen Gadol. Soon thereafter, an incident occurred, which forced him to flee to Alexandria, Egypt. Once there, Chonyo built a temple, an altar and offered sacrifices there.)

The Gemora explains: Rabbi Yitzchak maintains that Chonyo’s Temple was not regarded as a house of idol worship and the sanctification of Yerushalayim and the Beis Hamikdosh were only for the period that the Beis Hamikdosh was in existence and that explains why it would be permitted to offer sacrifices in Chonyo’s Temple.

Rabbi Yitzchak retracted from his statement because of our Mishna which explicitly rules that bamos are prohibited after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh. (9b – 10a)

The Gemora attempts to prove from a Mishna in Eduyos (8:6) that there is a Taanaic dispute whether the sanctity of Yerushalayim and the Beis Hamikdosh ceased upon its destruction. The Mishna states: Rabbi Eliezer said: I heard that when they were building the Beis Hamikdosh, they made curtains for the Sanctuary and hangings for the courtyards (temporary partitions until the walls were constructed), except that for the Sanctuary they built the wall outside those curtains, and in the courtyard they built the walls from within. Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard that one may offer sacrifices on the site of the Beis Hamikdosh even after its destruction, and that the kohanim may eat the kodshei kodashim even though there are no curtains, and we may eat kodshim kalim and ma'aser sheni in Yerushalayim even though there is no wall surrounding the city, because the first sanctification of Yerushalayim and the Beis Hamikdosh was sanctified for that time and for the future.

The Gemora assumes that Rabbi Eliezer, the first Tanna of the Mishna, disagrees with Rabbi Yehoshua and maintains that after the destruction of the first Beis Hamikdosh, there was no sanctity there and that is why it was necessary to hang the curtains there; the hanging of the curtains resanctified the Beis Hamikdosh, thus permitting the offering of sacrifices.

The Gemora rejects this explanation and states that Rabbi Eliezer agrees to Rabbi Yehoshua that the initial sanctification remained even after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh; the curtains were needed only for privacy (to prevent people from peering inside while the kohanim were performing the service). (10a)

The Gemora proves from two other braisos that the issue is indeed a dispute amongst the Tannaim. The braisos cited teach us a novelty that if Yerushalayim loses its sanctity after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh, a walled city in Eretz Yisroel loses its sanctity as well. This is significant because of the following halacha: One who sells a house inside a walled city has one year to redeem the house. If he chooses not to redeem the house, it becomes the property of the buyer permanently. If their sanctity ceased at the time of the destruction of the Beis Hamikdosh, they would be required to resanctify them upon returning from exile. (10a – 10b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 9 - Greek Translation

GREEK TRANSLATION
The Gemora relates that when the Greek king Ptolemy ordered the Sages to translate the Torah into Greek, they made a number of changes, including changing the name of the hare mentioned (14:7) as one of the four forbidden animals which possess one sign of kashrus but not the other. Because Ptolemy’s wife was named “Arneves,” the word the Torah uses for the hare, the Sages changed the wording so as not to offend him. Reb Oizer Alpert cites the Taam V’Daas in Parshas Shemini who asks: How were they permitted to do so in light of the ruling of the Yam Shel Shlomo (Bava Kamma 4:9) that one is required to give up his life rather than alter a single word or ruling of the Torah to appease others?

He answers that by the fact that Hashem put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did, this is similar to a Divine spirit and therefore it was permitted. Furthermore, they didn’t change the meaning of the words, only the language.
Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld of Har Nof, Jerusalem discusses our Gemora In an article.
GREEKS & DARKNESS
The world was chaos and void, with darkness over the face of the deep; and the spirit of Hashem hovered over the water. (Bereishit 1:2)
"The world was chaos" -- this is an allusion to the Babylonian exile... "And void" -- this refers to the Medean exile... "With darkness" -- this is an allusion to the exile imposed by the Greeks, who darkened the eyes of Israel with their decrees. They would tell the Jews, "Write on the horns of an ox that you have no more to do with the G-d of Israel!" (Bereishit Rabba 2:4)
Why is specifically the Greek exile represented by the word "darkness?" Didn't other nations also persecute the Jewish People through their anti-religious decrees? What, then, is unique about the Greek exile that it is likened to darkness?
Rav David Cohen of Cong. G'vul Yaavetz in Flatbush, N.Y., suggests a novel explanation for this Midrash based on the following selection from Massechet Sofrim:
Five elders translated the Torah into Greek for King Ptolemy (a successor to Alexander the Great). The day this was accomplished was as unfortunate for Israel as the day that the Golden Calf was worshipped, because it is impossible to present a truly adequate translation of the Torah in any foreign language.
On another occasion, Ptolemy gathered together seventy-two elders and placed them in seventy-two separate rooms, not informing any of them the purpose of their summons. He approached each of them and said, "Write down the Torah of your teacher Moses for me." Hashem arranged that the same thoughts occurred to all of them and they made the same thirteen modifications in their translations. [This translation is commonly known as Targum Shiv'im, or the Septuagint.] (Sofrim 1:7-8; Megillah 9a)
The Tur (Orach Chayim 580; see also Shulchan Aruch ad loc.) quoting the opinion of the Halachot Gedolot, tells us that one should observe a fast day on the eighth day of Tevet because that is the anniversary of the day that Ptolemy commissioned his translation of the Torah. On the day that the translation commenced, adds the Tur, "A three-day long period of darkness descended upon the world." This, Rav Cohen suggests, is the "darkness" of the Greek exile.
II
THE LIGHT OF THE ORAL TORAH
It remains to be explained why the translation of the Torah should cause a global darkness. What was the great tragedy of translating the Torah into another language, and why should it cause the world to become dark?
The tragedy, Rav Cohen explains, is implicit in the words of Massechet Sofrim -- "because the Torah could not be translated adequately." Although the written text of the Torah can be translated with reasonable accuracy into another language, all the nuances of meaning -- the double-entendres and the various implicit insinuations in the words of the Torah -- are lost in the process. Gematrias, acrostics and other word-based analyses are impossible to carry over from one language to another. The entire body of the Oral Torah which lies beneath the surface of the written text was thus severed -- and deleted -- from the Torah.
It is interesting to note that, as Rav Cohen points out, the Sadducees (a sect that believed in the literal interpretation of the written Torah and denied the existence of an oral tradition) were a powerful force in Israel only until the Hasmonean uprising which culminated in the Chanukah miracle (Megillat Ta'anit, Ch. 5). Once the Hasmoneans succeeded in uprooting Greek culture from the hearts of the Jewish people, the Sadducees also submitted to the Halachic renderings of the Torah-true elders of the generation. The Greek influence on Torah analysis that caused the Sadducees to give credibility to the written word alone was done away with along with the Greek culture.
The Oral Torah is compared in the Midrash to a light that illuminates the darkness:
The Oral Torah is difficult to learn and its mastery involves great hardship. It is therefore compared to darkness in the verse "the people who walked in darkness saw a great light," (Yeshayahu 9:1). The "great light" is a reference to the great light that is seen by the Talmudic sages [i.e. they understand matters with great clarity], for Hashem enlightens their eyes in matters of ritual law and laws of purity. In the future it is said of them, "those who love Him will shine as bright as the sun when it rises with its full intensity" (Shoftim 5:31)....
Reward for the study of the Oral Torah is to be received in the Next World, as it says, "The people who walk in darkness saw a great light." "Great light" is a reference to the primeval light which was hidden away by Hashem during Creation as a reward for those who toil over the Oral Torah day and night. (Midrash Tanchuma, Noach #3)
Those who "shed a great light" on the Oral Torah are allowed, in return, to benefit from the "great light" of Creation. It is now clear why translating the Torah into Greek caused a darkness to descend upon the world. The darkness was caused by the obstruction of the "great light" of the Oral Torah that resulted from the translation of the Torah into a foreign language. It is this "great light" that shines true once again in our Chanukah candles, in which we celebrate the Hasmonean victory over Greek culture and its destructive effects! (Rav David Cohen in "Bircat Yaavetz," p. 147)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 9 - Highlights

The Mishna states: There is no difference between the Books of Scripture and tefillin and mezuzos, except that the Books of Scripture may be written in any language, and tefillin and mezuzos are written only in Ashurit (the Hebrew script that is used in our Torah scrolls). Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The Books of Scripture may be written only in Greek (not any foreign language).

The Gemora infers from the Mishna that with regard to sewing them with sinews and rendering the hands tamei, they are both identical. (8a)


The Mishna had stated that the Books of Scripture can be written in any language. The Gemora asks from a braisa which states: If one wrote a Hebrew text in Aramaic or an Aramaic text (certain words in the Torah that are Aramaic) in Hebrew (from any Scripture Book) or he used the Ivri script (instead of Ashuris), the scroll is not sacred and does not render the hands tamei. The scrolls must be written with the Ashuris script on parchment and with ink. It is evident from this braisa that a Book of Scripture must be written in Ashuris.

Rava answers: Our Mishna is referring to a case where the Scriptures were written in a different language but it was transliterated in the Ashuris script; that is why the Book is sacred. The braisa is referring to a case where the Scriptures were written using the Ivri script; this is why the Book is not sacred.

Abaye questions Rava’s answer: If the reason the braisa states that the Scripture scrolls are not sacred is because they were not written in Ashuris script, why does the braisa mention cases of writing Hebrew texts in Aramaic or vice versa? Even a Hebrew text written in Hebrew or an Aramaic text written in Aramaic will not be sacred if it is not written with the Ashuris script?

The Gemora answers that the braisa is following the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel of the Mishna, who maintains that the Scriptures can be sacred even if they are not written in Ashuris.

The Gemora asks: The braisa states that the scrolls must be written with the Ashuris script on parchment and with ink. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it will be sacred even if it is written in Greek?

The Gemora offers another answer. The braisa is referring to tefillin and mezuzos, which everyone agrees, must be written in Hebrew and with the Ashuris script. This is learned from the verse [Devarim 6:6]: and they shall be, which means that they should stay as they are; their language and script should not be changed.
The Gemora questions this: The braisa states a case where Aramaic text was written in Hebrew; this is understandable if it is referring to the Torah, where there are Aramaic words (yegar sahadusa Breishis 8:48), but there are no Aramaic words mentioned in tefillin and mezuzos?

The Gemora presents a final answer: The braisa is referring specifically to a Megillah and that must be written in Hebrew and with Ashuris script. (8b – 9a)

Rav Ashi answers that the braisa is referring to the other Books of Scripture (the Prophets and the Writings, not the Torah), and it is following the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who explains the viewpoint of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabbi Yehuda said: Although Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permitted using Greek, this is only in regards to the Torah, but not for the other books of Scripture; they must be written in Hebrew and in Ashuris.

The Gemora explains: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permitted a Torah scroll to be written in Greek based on the incident that occurred with King Talmai, an Egyptian king. Talmai gathered the seventy-two Elders of Israel and placed them in seventy-two chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: “Write for me a Greek translation of the Torah.” Hashem put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did. The Gemora proceeds to illustrate the changes that these Elders made in the Torah in order not to anger Talmai or to prevent a denigration of the Torah, Heaven forbid. (9a – 9b)

The Mishna had stated: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The Books of Scripture may be written only in Greek (not any foreign language).

Rabbi Avahu says in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that the halacha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
Rabbi Yochanan offers a reason explaining Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s viewpoint. It is written [Breishis 9:27]: May Hashem extend Yefes and He will dwell in the tents of Shem. We can interpret these words as follows: The language of Yefes (Greek) will be in the tents of Shem (the Torah). (9b)

The Mishna states: There is no difference between a Kohen Gadol who is anointed with the oil of anointing (shemen hamishchah) and the Kohen Gadol whose dignity was marked with a larger number of garments (ribuy begadim, when the oil was lacking), except the bull which comes for all the mitzvos (a Kohen Gadol that was anointed will bring a bull chatas if he issued an erroneous ruling, however, a kohen gadol appointed through the extra garments will bring a regular chatas).

The Mishna continues: There is no difference between a serving Kohen Gadol and one who has retired except for the bull of Yom Kippur and the tenth of the efah (which is offered every day).

The Gemora states that the first part of our Mishna does not subscribe to Rabbi Meir’s viewpoint for he states in a braisa that a kohen gadol appointed through the extra garments will bring the bull which comes for all the mitzvos.

The Gemora infers from the end of the Mishna that a serving Kohen Gadol and a retired Kohen Gadol are identical and both would be permitted to perform the service in the Beis Hamikdosh while wearing the eight garments (reserved for the Kohen Gadol). This would be in accordance with the viewpoint of Rabbi Meir cited in the following braisa. The braisa states: Rabbi Meir maintains that if the Kohen Gadol became temporarily disqualified and another Kohen Gadol was appointed to replace him, when the first Kohen Gadol becomes fit again, he returns to his service, but the second Kohen Gadol still has all the mitzvos of a Kohen Gadol upon him i.e. he cannot let his hair grow very long, he cannot tear his garments in mourning, he cannot become tamei to deceased relatives, he cannot marry a widow, and when he performs the service in the Beis Hamikdosh, he must wear the eight vestments of a Kohen Gadol. Rabbi Yosi, however, maintains that the first Kohen Gadol returns to his service when he becomes fit again, but the substitute Kohen Gadol can no longer serve in the Beis Hamikdosh as a Kohen Gadol wearing eight vestments or as an ordinary Kohen wearing four vestments. He cannot serve as a Kohen Gadol because this will cause hard feelings for the first Kohen Gadol, and he cannot serve even as an ordinary Kohen because there is a rule that one can ascend in matters of sanctity but one cannot descend in matters of sanctity.

The Gemora asks: It emerges that the first part of the Mishna does not follow Rabbi Meir’s opinion and the end part of the Mishna follows his view? Rav Chisda states that indeed, this is the explanation of the Mishna. Rav Yosef says that the Mishna is actually the opinion of Rebbe; he agrees with the Chachamim in the first part and with Rabbi Meir in the end part. (9b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 8 - Vow Offering

The Mishna had stated: There is no difference between vow offerings and freewill offerings except that regarding vow offerings he is liable for their security (if the animal gets lost or stolen, he will be required to bring another one), and regarding freewill offerings he is not liable for their security.

If one says, "Behold, an olah sacrifice is upon me (harei alay)," or "Behold, a shelamim is upon me," this is a vow; but if he says, "Behold, this animal is an olah or a shelamim (harei zu)," this is a freewill offering.

The Gemora cites the source teaching us this halacha. The verse says [Vayikra 1:4]: And it shall be accepted for him, to atone for him. Rabbi Shimon expounds this passuk to mean that if the vow is upon him, he is liable for the security, but if it is not upon him, he is not liable. Rabbi Yitzchak bar Avdimi explains: When he said “upon me,” that is as if he said that he will be accepting responsibility on the sacrifice.

The Brisker Rav asks: Isn’t this halacha (being liable for the security of the offering when he said “upon me”) an obvious one? Why is it necessary to cite a passuk explaining this? One who made a vow obligating himself to offer a korban will not discharge his obligation until he actually offers the korban.

He explains: It is evident from here that one can fulfill his vow of offering a korban when he designates the animal or when he brings it to the Beis Hamikdosh. The passuk teaches us that although his vow was fulfilled, he is liable to bring another korban (if it got lost or stolen) because there is a commitment of security on the account of his vow.

This is proven from the Rambam in Hilchos Maaseh Hakorbanos (16:7), where he writes: One who says, "Behold, an olah sacrifice is upon me," and he designates a bull and the bull got stolen, he is permitted to bring a sheep as a replacement and he has discharged his obligation coming from the vow.

The Brisker Rav asks: Why is this a novelty? In his vow, he never mentioned what type of animal he would be offering. Why can’t he bring any animal? The answer is that there is a commitment of security on the sacrifice and perhaps he should be required to replace the initial animal with another of the same type; The Rambam teaches us that the security is on the korban and not on the animal.

The Chochmas Shlomo (C”M 66:40) holds that the obligation to bring another one is only if it was through a negligence, however if it was a complete accident, he will not be liable to bring another one. The question is asked: What should be the difference how the animal got lost? One who made a vow to offer a korban, should not discharge his obligation until he actually brings the korban. Tehila L’Yonah answers according to the Brisker Rav. He has fulfilled his vow by designating the korban; he has an obligation of security based on the passuk and the Chochmas Shlomo holds that this liability is only if there was negligence but not by an accident.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 8 - Food for Thought

1. Why is our ksav called "ksav ashuris"? (Sanhedrin 22a, Ritva, Rosh Yosef, Rashi Noach 10:11, S.M.B.)

2. The Mishna states that if one made a vow prohibiting his fellow from deriving benefit from him, he is not permitted to set foot on the vowers property. Is this halacha only if he is making a shortcut through the property or even if not? (Bach Y"D 221, Mefaresh Nedarim 32b,Sifsei Chachamim)

3. By a negah, where the Torah states "v'hisgir es habayis," does that mean literally that the kohen must close the door? (Mishna L'melech Tumas Tzora'as 14:5)

4. Is interpreting the Torah into Greek a good thing or a bad thing?

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 7 - STATUS OF RABBI ZEIRA AFTER HIS RESURRECTION

Rabbah and Rabbi Zeira ate the Purim meal together. They became intoxicated. Rabbah got up and slaughtered Rabbi Zeira. On the following day, Rabbah pleaded for mercy and he revived Rabbi Zeira. On the next year, Rabbah invited Rabbi Zeira to eat with him. Rabbi Zeira replied: A miracle does not occur at all times.

The Kli Chemda at the end of Parshas Breishis cites a kuntrus called Over Oreach. In this sefer, a question is asked: The Gemora Brochos (46a) records an incident where Rabbi Avahu honored Rabbi Zeira to recite the blessing and cut the bread. The Rashba asks that this is inconsistent with the halacha which states that this honor should be reserved for the host. The Rashba answers: since the meal was on behalf of Rabbi Zeira (he had recovered from a sickness), Rabbi Zeira was considered the host. Why didn’t the Rashba answer that Rabbi Zeira was a kohen (Yerushalmi Brochos 8:6)? He answers that since this incident happened after the episode of Rabbah with Rabbi Zeira mentioned in Megillah (Rabbah slew him and the following day revived him), Rabbi Zeira lost his sanctity of being a kohen and did not merit the right of this honor.

The Kli Chemda is greatly perplexed by this answer. Every kohen is considered a kohen because his father was a kohen. It is obvious that He did not lose his relations with his relatives because he dies, so why shouldn’t he be a kohen? Perhaps he would have required a new inauguration to serve in the Beis Hamikdosh but he definitely did not lose the status of being a kohen. He cites proof from the story with Elisha that one does not relinquish his relations with his relatives after he dies.

(Look at the Ramban in the beginning of Parshas Emor, where he writes that a kohen has certain halachos because he is a descendant of Aharon Hakohen and other halachos are because he is a kohen himself.)

After his resurrection, would he be required to marry his wife again? Reb Elchonon Wasserman discusses the status of the wife of Eliyahu after he ascended to Heaven without dying.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 7 - Food for Thought

1. What is the distinction between "sefer hazichronos divrei hayamim" and "sefer divrei hayamim"? In the Megillah (6:1), it mentions the former and later (10:2), the latter is mentioned?

2. Why was it necessary to write about eradicating Amalek in the Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim?

3. Rabbi Meir said: Esther was composed through the Divine spirit, as it is written [ibid. 2:22]: "And the incident became known to Mordecai" and if it was not composed with the Divine spirit, how could Mordechai have known about the secret plot to kill Achashverosh. Perhaps Mordechai had ruach hakodesh and the Megillah was not written with ruach hakodesh? (Turei Even, Ya'aros D'vash, Sfas Emes)

4. What is the explanation in the psak of the Rama that you have discharged your obligation of mishloach manos even if the recipient is mochel the gift? (Chasam Sofer, Ksav Sofer, Aruch Hashulchan)

5. Are the guidelines for matanos l'evyonim and tzedakah the same?

6. (This one might require its own post) Rabbah said: A man is obliged to intoxicate himself with wine on Purim, until he cannot distinguish between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordechai. what is the explanation in this obligation?

7. Did Rabbah actually kill Rabbi Zeira?

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 7 - SHMUEL’S STATEMENT RESEMBLED A SHARP PEPPER

The Gemora cites a braisa which proves from verses in the Megillah that Esther was written with Divine Spirit. Rabbi Eliezer said: Esther was composed through the Divine spirit, as it is written [Esther 6:6]: "And Haman said in his heart"; and if it was not composed with the Divine spirit, how could we know what he said in his heart? Rabbi Akiva said: Esther was composed through the Divine spirit, because it is written [ibid.2:15]: "And Esther found favor in the eyes of all those that saw her" and if it was not composed with the Divine spirit, how could we know that she found favor in everyone’s eyes. Rabbi Meir said: Esther was composed through the Divine spirit, as it is written [ibid. 2:22]: "And the incident became known to Mordecai" and if it was not composed with the Divine spirit, how could Mordechai have known about the secret plot to kill Achashverosh. Rabbi Yosi ben Durmaskis said: Esther was composed through the Divine spirit, because it is written [ibid. 9:10]: ''They did not stretch forth their hands on the booty" and if it was not composed with the Divine spirit, how could it be known what was done in all one hundred and twenty-seven provinces. Shmuel said: If I had been there, I would have cited a superior proof: It is written [ibid. 9:27]: "The Jews confirmed it as a duty, and took it upon themselves." This means that they confirmed in Heaven what they accepted upon themselves below. If it was not composed with the Divine spirit, how could the happenings of the Heavenly court be known to us.

 Rava said: To all the above sayings I have objections, except to Samuel, to whom it cannot be objected. Regarding that which Rabbi Eliezer said; that was common sense. Haman knew there was not a man in the king's court that was so respected as he himself, and it is self-evident that he believed that he was the intended beneficiary of the king’s honor. Regarding that which Rabbi Akiva said; perhaps it was as Rabbi Elozar explains below, that every nation thought Esther was of its race and thereby liked by everyone that saw her. Regarding that which Rabbi Akiva said; perhaps it was as Rabbi Chiya bar Abba will explain below, that Mordecai understood the language of Tarsi because he was a member of the Sanhedrin and understood seventy different languages. Regarding that which Rabbi Yosi ben Durmaskis said; perhaps messengers were sent to Mordechai and Esther that the booty wasn’t taken. Regarding that which Shmuel said; there is no objection. Ravina said: This is as people say, it is better to have one sharp pepper than a full basket of melons.

It is brought in the name of Rabbi Moshe Leib Shachor: One cannot eat sharp peppers by themselves. However, when they are placed in a cooked dish, the peppers can provide the taste for the entire dish. So too, in this Gemora, all the proofs offered that the Megillah was written under the influence of the Divine spirit were refuted. Shmuel’s proof was the only one that did not have any imperfection in it and indicated without a doubt that Esther was written through the Divine spirit.

It emerges that Shmuel’s statement is compared to the sharp pepper. It is his proof which confirms that the entire Megillah was written under the influence of the Divine spirit.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 7 - ESTHER’S REQUEST

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said: Esther appealed to the sages: "Establish me for the later generations (her intent was that Purim should be created and the Megillah should be read)." They replied: "You want to excite the envy of other nations against us (that we are happy when our enemies fall)." She rejoined: "My history is already written in the chronicle of the kings of Media and Persia."

Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetzky explains: There are many stories recorded in the Medrash. There have been many books written relating numerous stories from Tzadikim and the Leaders of past generations. One who reads these stories can fulfill the mitzva of Loving Hashem and fearing Him providing that the stories inspire him to elevate his deeds, thoughts and actions in serving Hashem. However, one who reads these stories and does not become inspires, does not receive any reward whatsoever.

This would not be true regarding one who reads an incident that has been recorded in the Holy Scriptures. One who reads a story recorded in the Torah has fulfilled a mitzva of studying Torah even if the story did not inspire him to reach greater heights in serving Hashem.

This is what Esther requested from the Rabbis of her time. Although the story of Purim was recorded in the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia, this was not sufficient. Esther wanted that anyone who reads the story of Purim should fulfill the mitzva of studying Torah.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 7 - Highlights

Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said: Esther appealed to the sages: "Establish me for the later generations (her intent was that Purim should be created and the Megillah should be read)." They replied: "You want to excite the envy of other nations against us (that we are happy when our enemies fall)." She rejoined: "My history is already written in the chronicle of the kings of Media and Persia." (7a)

Rav, Rav Canina, Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Chaviva taught: Esther appealed to the sages: "Write about me for later generations." They replied: It is written [Tehillim 22:20]: "Have I not written for you three times?" This means that only three times shall the war against Amalek be mentioned in Scriptures and not four times. Finally, they found a verse in the Torah [Shmos 17:14]: "Write this for a memorial in a book"; and they interpreted the verses as follows: "Write this" is referring to what is written in the Torah; "for a memorial" is referring to what is written in Shmuel; "in the book" is referring to what is written in the Megillah. (7a)

[A brief introduction: To ensure that people would not touch a Sefer Torah with bare hands, the Chachamim decreed that one who touches a sefer with bare hands, his hands are rendered tamei. If subsequently, he would touch Terumah, the Terumah would become tamei.]

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: A Megillah does not render one’s hand tamei because it is not regarded as being one of the Holy Scriptures. The Gemora asks: doesn’t Shmuel himself hold that the Megillah was composed through the Divine spirit? The Gemora answers: It was only composed through the Divine spirit to be read but it was not intended to be written.

The Gemora asks on Shmuel from a Mishna proving that the Megillah will render one’s hands tamei. The Mishna states: Rabbi Meir maintains that Ecclesiastes (Koheles) does not render one’s hands tamei and there is an argument regarding Song of Songs (Shir Hashirim). Rabbi Yosi holds that Shir Hashirim will render one’s hands tamei and the argument is regarding Koheles. Rabbi Shimon says: Koheles is from the lenient rulings of Beis Shamai (it does not render one’s hands tamei) but from the strict rulings of Beis Hillel (it does render one’s hands tamei); Rus, Shir Hashirim and Esther will render one’s hands tamei.

It emerges that the Megillah will render one’s hands tamei, which is contrary to Shmuel’s opinion. The Gemora answers that Shmuel follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua who maintains that Esther is not included in the Holy Scriptures and thereby will not render one’s hands tamei.

The Gemora cites a braisa: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya rules that Koheles does not render one’s hands tamei because it was not written with Divine spirit and it is merely the wisdom of Shlomo Hamelech. The Chachamim disagreed with him because Shlomo spoke three thousand proverbs and nevertheless Koheles was the only one written. This indicates that Koheles was written with Divine spirit and therefore it will render one’s hands tamei. (7a)

The Gemora cites a braisa which proves from verses in the Megillah that Esther was written with Divine Spirit. Rabbi Eliezer said: Esther was composed through the Divine spirit, as it is written [Esther 6:6]: "And Haman said in his heart"; and if it was not composed with the Divine spirit, how could we know what he said in his heart? Rabbi Akiva said: Esther was composed through the Divine spirit, because it is written [ibid.2:15]: "And Esther found favor in the eyes of all those that saw her" and if it was not composed with the Divine spirit, how could we know that she found favor in everyone’s eyes. Rabbi Meir said: Esther was composed through the Divine spirit, as it is written [ibid. 2:22]: "And the incident became known to Mordecai" and if it was not composed with the Divine spirit, how could Mordechai have known about the secret plot to kill Achashverosh. Rabbi Yosi ben Durmaskis said: Esther was composed through the Divine spirit, because it is written [ibid. 9:10]: ''They did not stretch forth their hands on the booty" and if it was not composed with the Divine spirit, how could it be known what was done in all one hundred and twenty-seven provinces. Shmuel said: If I had been there, I would have cited a superior proof: It is written [ibid. 9:27]: "The Jews confirmed it as a duty, and took it upon themselves." This means that they confirmed in Heaven what they accepted upon themselves below. If it was not composed with the Divine spirit, how could the happenings of the Heavenly court be known to us.

Rava said: To all the above sayings I have objections, except to Samuel, to whom it cannot be objected. Regarding that which Rabbi Eliezer said; that was common sense. Haman knew there was not a man in the king's court that was so respected as he himself, and it is self-evident that he believed that he was the intended beneficiary of the king’s honor. Regarding that which Rabbi Akiva said; perhaps it was as Rabbi Elozar explains below, that every nation thought Esther was of its race and thereby liked by everyone that saw her. Regarding that which Rabbi Akiva said; perhaps it was as Rabbi Chiya bar Abba will explain below, that Mordecai understood the language of Tarsi because he was a member of the Sanhedrin and understood seventy different languages. Regarding that which Rabbi Yosi ben Durmaskis said; perhaps messengers were sent to Mordechai and Esther that the booty wasn’t taken. Regarding that which Shmuel said; there is no objection. Ravina said: This is as people say, it is better to have one sharp pepper than a full basket of melons. (7a)

The Mishna had stated that there is a halacha to give gifts to the poor on Purim. Rav Yosef cited a braisa: One must send two portions to one man (to fulfill the mitzva of mishloach manos) and he must give two gifts to two poor people (to fulfill the mitzva of matanos l’evyonim, he must give one gift to each of two people).

Rabbi Yehuda Nesiah sent to Rabbi Oshaya a thigh of a third-born calf and a pitcher of wine. Rabbi Oshaya sent to him the following message: "The Master has confirmed both duties to send portions one to another; and to give gifts to the needy."

Rabbah sent to Mari bar Mar through Abaye a basket of dates and a goblet filled with flour of roasted wheat. Abaye said to him: Now Mari will say: When a countryman becomes a king, he is still unable to remove the basket from his shoulder. It is the same with you: You are the Head of Pumbedisa and you are sending commonplace articles. Mari bar Mar returned to Rabbah through Abaye a basket of ginger and a goblet full of long pepper. Abaye said: Now the Master will say: I had sent him sweet foods and he has sent to me pungent things.

Abaye said: When I left the house of my Master, I was satisfied. When I arrived there, they furnished the table with sixty diverse cooked dishes and I ate one piece from each dish. The last dish served was called pot roast and it was so good that I wanted to eat up the dish with it. And this is what people say: "The poor does not know even when he is hungry." Alternatively, people say: "There is always room in the stomach for sweet things." (7a – 7b)

Rabbah said: A man is obliged to intoxicate himself with wine on Purim, until he cannot distinguish between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordechai.

Rabbah and Rabbi Zeira ate the Purim meal together. They became intoxicated. Rabbah got up and slaughtered Rabbi Zeira. On the following day, Rabbah pleaded for mercy and he revived Rabbi Zeira. On the next year, Rabbah invited Rabbi Zeira to eat with him. Rabbi Zeira replied: A miracle does not occur at all times.

Rava said: If one has eaten the Purim meal in the night, he has not fulfilled his duty, because it is written, "days of entertainment and joy."

Rav Ashi was sitting in the presence of Rav Kahana on Purim. It became dark, and the Rabbis had not yet come to the Beis Medrash to study. Rav Ashi asked Rav Kahana: Why haven’t the Rabbis come yet? Rav Kahana answered him: Perhaps they are engaged with the Purim meal? Rav Ashi asked him: Could they not have had the Purim meal in the evening? Rav Kahana answered him: Has the Master not heard what Rava said, that if one has eaten the Purim meal in the night, he has not fulfilled his duty. Rav Ashi asked him: Did Rava indeed say so? Rav Kahana replied: Yes. Rav Ashi learned this from him forty times, and afterward it was as if he had put it into his pocket (he memorized it). (7b)

The Mishna states: There is no difference between a Festival and Shabbos except in regards to food preparation.

The Gemora infers from the Mishna that regarding the preliminaries needed for food preparation; Shabbos and Yom Tov will be the same (on both days, it will be forbidden). This would not be in accordance with the viewpoint of Rabbi Yehuda who maintains that one can perform the preliminaries needed for food preparation on Yom Tov. (7b)

The Mishna states: There is no difference between Shabbos and Yom Kippur except that an intentional sin committed on Shabbos is punishable by the hands of man, and the punishment for one's intentional sin on Yom Kippur is with kares (premature death).

The Gemora infers from the Mishna that regarding monetary payment; Shabbos and Yom Kippur are the same. (If one violates Shabbos and at the same time commits an act in which there would be a monetary obligation, he would be exempt from paying. This is based on the principle that a person incurs the greater punishment from the two.)

The Gemora cites a braisa: Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah maintains that just as one who violates Shabbos and at the same time commits an act in which there would be a monetary obligation, he is exempt from paying because he receives the death penalty (by a human court), so too one who violates Yom Kippur and at the same time commits an act in which there would be a monetary obligation, he would be exempt from paying because he receives the death penalty (kares). (7b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 6 - Food for Thought

1. The Gemora states that Zevulun complained about their portion and Hashem answered them that they should be appeased because of the chilazon that is in their portion. Rashi in Devarim [33:19] says that it can be found in Yisachar and Zevulun's portion.
(Maharsha, Igros Moshe (Y"D 4:37:1)

2. The Gemora states regarding Teveria that it is referred to as Rakas because even the sinners amongst them are full of mitzvos like a pomegranate has seeds. Why is this unique to Teveria? It states this regarding all of Klal Yisroel in Sanhedrin 37a? What was unique about Teveria more than any other city in Eretz Yisroel?
(Turei Even, Pesach Einayim, Mitzapeh Eisan)

3.If a person has yahrtzeit in Adar,in which Adar does he conduct the yahrtzeit? (Maharil, Terumos Hadeshen, Shulchan Aruch 668, Chasam Sofer 163)

4. Rabbi Yitzchak said: If someone tells you, "I labored (studying Torah) but I did not succeed," don't believe him. If he tells you "I haven't labored, yet I did succeed," don't believe him. If, however, he tells you "I have labored and did succeed," you may believe him. What is the meaning of "believe him" or "don't believe him"?

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 6 - Mountains vs. Plains

The Gemora elaborates on Zevulun’s complaint. Zevulun said before Hashem: You gave to me mountains and hills while You gave to my brothers fields and vineyards. You gave to me lakes and rivers while You gave to my brothers land. Hashem responded: All your brothers will need to rely on you for the chilazon (a creature that comes up from the water and the blue dye for tzitzis is created from its blood). Zevulun asked Hashem: Who will notify me if anyone attempts to steal the chilazon from me? Hashem answered him that the dye produced from a stolen chilazon will be ruined.

It is evident from Zevulun’s complaint that fields and vineyards are superior to mountains and hills.

My Rosh Yeshiva, Harav Avrohom Chaim Levin asked on this Gemora from a Rashi in Chumash. The possuk in Parshas Ekev [11:11] states: But the land to which you cross over there to take possession of it is a land of mountains and valleys. Rashi explains that mountains are superior to the plains for on a plain, one can plant in a beis kor a kor’s worth of seeds; but on a mountain, one can plant five kors; four on the four slopes and one on the top.

It emerges from this Rashi that it is agriculturally advantageous to have mountains over plains. This is seemingly inconsistent with our Gemora which states that fields are superior to mountains.

I searched but did not find anyone ask this question.

My brother, Reb Binyomin, showed me a Yalkut Shimoni that has a different version regarding Zevulun’s complaint. He asked Hashem why his brothers received fields and vineyards and he only received the chilazon. According to this version, Zevulun never said that fields are superior to mountains.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 6 - FINDING TORAH

Rabbi Yitzchak said: If someone tells you, "I labored (studying Torah) but I did not succeed," don't believe him. If he tells you "I haven't labored, yet I did succeed," don't believe him. If, however, he tells you "I have labored and did succeed," you may believe him. The Gemora qualifies this teaching to be referring only to the study of Torah, but regarding business; his fortune depends on Hashem’s assistance. The Gemora qualifies further: If a person labors to understand Torah, he will succeed but regarding retaining that which he learned; that would require Hashem’s assistance.

Reb Isser Zalman Meltzer, in his introduction to Sefer Kinyan, cites a question from the Beis Halevi. He asks: Why does the Gemora use the word metziah (lost article) when it is discussing laboring and toiling? A person finds something when he is not searching for it (Sanhedrin 97a). He answers that this is the novelty in the studying of Torah. One can shvitz (sweat) over a difficult question and consider several different approaches to answer the question and ultimately, he must abandon all of them because there will be flaws in each answer. Unexpectedly, he will think of the correct answer, one, that had no connection to any of the thoughts that he was pondering. This is a true metziah (find).

The Chidushei HaRim adds that any understanding in Torah is a gift from Heaven. Torah measures longer than the land and broader than the sea. Hashem gives this gift of understanding only to someone who labors for it.

The Gaon in Mishlei says that one who toils in Torah will merit that he will remember the Torah that he learned with the angel inside his mother’s womb. This is the lost articles that a person is finding after he labors to understand Torah.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 6 - Highlights

The Gemora mentioned earlier that Chizkiyah was uncertain if Teveria was surrounded by a wall in the times of Yehoshua or not and therefore he read the Megillah on the fourteenth and the fifteenth. The Gemora asks: It is written in Yehoshua [19:35] And the fortress cities are: Tzidim, Tzeir, Chamas, Rakas and Kineres. It has been established that Rakas is Teveria. Since Teveria (Rakas) is referred to as a fortress city, it obviously was surrounded by a wall; why was Chizkiyah uncertain? The Gemora answers: There was a body of water on one side of Teveria and he was unsure if this constitutes a wall.

The Gemora elaborates on why he was uncertain. What is the defining distinction between a walled city and an unwalled city? If the distinction is based on the fact that an unwalled city is exposed, Teveria is also exposed and the Megillah should be read on the fourteenth. If the distinction is based on the fact that an unwalled city is not defended, Teveria is defended (the body of water functioned as a defending barrier) and the Megillah should be read on the fifteenth. (5b)

Rabbi Yochanan said that when he was a child, he said something and subsequently asked the elders and it was found that he was indeed correct. Rabbi Yochanan said: The city mentioned in the Torah called Chamas is in fact Teveria. It is called Chamas because of the hot springs that are located in Teveria. The city mentioned in the Torah called Rakas is in fact Tzipori. It is called Rakas because it is situated on the top of a mountain, as the banks of a river are more elevated than the river. The city mentioned in the Torah called Kineres is in fact Genosar. It is called Kineres because the fruit of this city are as sweet as the sound of a harp.

Rava asks: Can anyone state that Rakas is not Teveria? It is well known that if a great man dies here in Bavel, they eulogize him in Teveria as follows: The man was great in Sheshach (Bavel, based on At-Bash) and his name has reached Rakas. Evidently, Rakas is Teveria.

Rava learns differently. Chamas is Chamei-Grar, Rakas is Teveria and Kineres is Genosar. Teveria is referred to as Rakas because even the sinners that reside there are full of religious merits just as a pomegranate is full of seeds.

Rabbi Yirmiyah states that its actual name is Rakas. It is referred to as Teveria because it is located in the center (navel) of Eretz Yisroel. Rabbah states that its actual name is Rakas. It is referred to as Teveria because of its nice appearance.

Zeira said that Kitron is Tzipori. It is referred to as Tzipori because it is located on the top of a mountain like a bird. The Gemora asks: Is Kitron Tzipori? This cannot be because Kitron was part of the land appropriated to the tribe of Zevulun and Zevulun complained about his portion of land.

The Gemora interrupts the proof and elaborates on Zevulun’s complaint. Zevulun said before Hashem: You gave to me mountains and hills while You gave to my brothers fields and vineyards. You gave to me lakes and rivers while You gave to my brothers land. Hashem responded: All your brothers will need to rely on you for the chilazon (a creature that comes up from the water and the blue dye for tzitzis is created from its blood). Zevulun asked Hashem: Who will notify me if anyone attempts to steal the chilazon from me? Hashem answered him that the dye produced from a stolen chilazon will be ruined.

The Gemora returns to its proof that Kitron is not Tzipori. The Gemora says: If Kitron would be Tzipori, Zevulun would have no reason to complain. Tzipori is certainly a better quality land than most others. Perhaps you will say that Tzipori is not a land that flows with milk and honey; this is false. Rish Lakish stated that he saw the milk and honey of Tzipori and it measured sixteen mil squared. Perhaps you will say that the milk and honey found in Tzipori pales in comparison with the rest of Eretz Yisroel; this is also false. Rabbi Yochanan stated that he saw the milk and honey that came from the entire Eretz Yisroel and it measured twenty-two parsah long and six parsah wide. This shows that Tzipori comprised a major part of the entire land that flowed with milk and honey.

The Gemora concludes that Kitori is in fact Tzipori and nevertheless, Zevulun complained because he favored fields and vineyards and there were none in his portion. (5b – 6a)

Rabbi Avahu says: The verse in Tzephaniah [2:4] states: Ekron shall be uprooted. This is understood to be the referring to the city of Caesaria, a city in Edom. Caesaria was a regular source of aggravation towards the Jewish people until the Chashmanoim came and defeated it.

Rabbi Yitzchak expounds on a different verse in Tzephaniah that teaches us regarding Yerushalayim and Caesaria. If someone tells you that both are destroyed, or both are settled, do not believe him. That Caesaria is destroyed and Yerushalayim is settled, or Yerushalayim is destroyed and Caesaria is settled, believe him. (Rabbi Winston says: From this statement, it seems that the two cities, Caesaria belonging to the Romans, and Yerushalayim belonging to the Jewish people, are polar extremes, radically different. Apparently, the world as it was created does not support the coexistence of such two contrary realities.) (6a)

The Gemora cites other teachings from Rabbi Yitzchak. Rabbi Yitzchak explained the verse in Tehillim [140:9]: Grant not, Hashem, the desires of the wicked one, do not remove his nose-ring that they should be exalted, selah. Yaakov Avinu said before Hashem: do not grant Esav the wicked the longing of his heart and do not allow Germamia of Edom to go forth for if they would go out, they would destroy the entire world.

Rabbi Yitzchak said: If someone tells you, "I labored (studying Torah) but I did not succeed," don't believe him. If he tells you "I haven't labored, yet I did succeed," don't believe him. If, however, he tells you "I have labored and did succeed," you may believe him. The Gemora qualifies this teaching to be referring only to the study of Torah, but regarding business; his fortune depends on Hashem’s assistance. The Gemora qualifies further: If a person labors to understand Torah, he will succeed but regarding retaining that which he learned; that would require Hashem’s assistance. (6a - 6b)

Rabbi Yitzchak said: If you have seen a wicked man who enjoys good fortune, do not provoke him – and furthermore, his ways will be successful. Not only this, but he will always win in a lawsuit. Furthermore, he will see vengeance on his enemies. The Gemora asks: Didn’t Rabbi Yochanan say in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai that one has permission to provoke the wicked in this world? The Gemora answers that Rabbi Yitzchak is referring to one’s own interests but regarding heavenly matters, one can defend the Torah and the mitzvos. Alternatively, we can answer that it depends if the person antagonizing the wicked is entirely righteous or not. A third explanation is offered that Rabbi Yitzchak is referring to a wicked person who is enjoying success but otherwise, one may contend with the wicked. (6b)

Ula said: Italia of Yavan is the great Roman city. It measured three hundred parsah squared three hundred and sixty-five market places. The smallest of the markets is for the chicken sellers, which measured sixteen mil squared. The king eats in one of them each and every day. Every person that was born there or presently resides there receives a stipend from the king’s palace. There were three thousand bathhouses in the city and five hundred windows positioned higher than the walls in order to prevent the smoke from blackening the walls (as a symbol of the city’s magnitude). One side faces the sea, one side faces mountains and hills, one side is an iron barrier, and one side is rocks and a swamp. (6b)

The Mishna states: If they read the Megillah in the first Adar and the year was intercalated, they are required to read the Megillah again in the second Adar. There is no difference between the first Adar and the second Adar except regarding the reading of the Megillah and the gifts to the poor.

The Gemora states that we can infer from our Mishna that there is no difference between the first Adar and the second Adar in respect to the four special portions of the Torah that must be read. They can be read in either month.

This is seemingly inconsistent with all three Tannaim recorded in the following braisa. The braisa states: If they read the Megillah in the first Adar and the year was intercalated, they are required to read the Megillah again in the second Adar because all the mitzvos that are obligatory in the second Adar apply also in the first Adar except for the reading of the Megillah. Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Yosi said: They are not required to read it in the second Adar because all the mitzvos that are obligatory in the second apply also in the first. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel in the name of Rabbi Yosi said: It must be read also in the second Adar because all the mitzvos that are obligatory in the second Adar apply also in the first Adar All three Tannaim agree that they are forbidden to eulogize or fast in the first Adar and the second Adar.

The Gemora asks: Isn’t Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel and the Tanna Kamma saying the same thing? Rav Papa answers: There is a dispute between them regarding the four special portions of the Torah. The Tanna Kamma maintains that it is preferable to read the four portions in the second Adar and if they are read in the first, it is nonetheless valid. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the four portions must be read in the second Adar.

The Gemora proves that our Mishna is not in accordance with any of the Tannaim mentioned in the braisa. The Tanna of our Mishna is not in accordance with the Tanna Kamma because of the gifts to the poor, which according to the Tanna Kamma may be given in the first Adar also. The Tanna of our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that we are not required to read the Megillah at all in the second Adar. The Tanna of our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel for he holds that the four portions must be read in the second Adar.

The Gemora answers that the Tanna of our Mishna is the Tanna Kamma in the braisa and when the braisa states that the Megillah must be read in the second Adar; the gifts to the poor are included in this ruling.

Alternatively, we can say that the Tanna of our Mishna is Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, but the Mishna does not discuss the laws regarding the special Torah readings and we can say that the mitzva of reading these portions only apply in the second Adar.

The Gemora cites the Scriptural sources for each of the Tannaim and discusses why each one does not agree with the other. (6b – 7a)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 5 - Asarah b'Teves on Shabbos

The Mishna states that if Tisha b’Av would fall out on Shabbos, the fast would be postponed until Sunday. Rashi says that the same halacha would apply if the Seventeenth of Tammuz or the Tenth of Teves would fall out on Shabbos; its observance would be postponed until Sunday. The Mishna made special mention of Tisha b’Av since it was the only fast that was compulsory in those times.

The Avudraham writes that all of the fasts could fall out on Shabbos and when that happens, they will be postponed; however, the Tenth of Teves can never occur on Shabbos. It could fall out on Friday and we would fast on Friday. The Avudraham concludes that if the Tenth of Teves would fall out on Shabbos, we would observe the fast on Shabbos and it could not be postponed. This is based on a verse in Yechezkel which states: b’etzem hayom hazeh etc. - on this very day, and since the prophet specifies the precise day in this manner, we cannot postpone the fast.

Rashi clearly does not subscribe to this viewpoint. In his explanation of the Mishna, Rashi states that Tisha b’Av, the Seventeenth of Tammuz and the Tenth of Teves would all be postponed to Sunday if they would fall out on Shabbos.

The sefer Iturei Megillah explains the Avudraham. The reason that we do not observe a fast on Shabbos is because there is the option of fasting the following day as a replacement for the fast on Shabbos. The Avudraham maintains that there is no such possibility by the Tenth of Teves (similar to Yom Kippur) and the fast must be observed on that day. This explanation is said in the name of Reb Chaim Brisker as well.

The Chasam Sofer offers a different explanation. He states that one does not fast on Shabbos for a calamity that has happened in the past. However, one who is compelled to fast on account of a succession of bad dreams would fast on Shabbos since he is fasting in order to prevent a tragedy from transpiring. A fast, such as Tisha b’Av or the Seventeenth of Tammuz are fasts which commemorate episodes of the past and if they would fall out on Shabbos, the fast would be postponed. The Chasam Sofer states that the fast on the Tenth of Teves is fundamentally different from all the other fasts. He explains that in the year that the Beis Hamikdosh was destroyed, Hashem had decreed on the Tenth of Teves beforehand that there will be a destruction. The Gemora states that any generation that does not have the Beis Hamikdosh built in is regarded as if they destroyed the Beis Hamikdosh. Every year, on the Tenth of Teves, there is a judgment from Hashem if the Beis Hamikdosh will be built this year or not. We are fasting on the Tenth of Teves not on the account of the past, but rather for the future. This fast can be observed on Shabbos.

An interesting aside: The Chasam Sofer (O”C 9) concludes a responsa by signing his name and dating it Sunday, the 11th of Teves 5578. Was the Tenth of Teves on Shabbos that year?

In the Likutei Heoros on the Chasam Sofer, he comments that the Tenth of Teves cannot fall out on Shabbos and in the year 5578 it happened to be a Friday, so there seemingly is a printers mistake and it should say Sunday, the twelfth of Teves.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 4 - THE OBLIGATION OF WOMEN TO READ THE MEGILLAH

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi ruled: It is obligatory for women to hear the reading of the Megilla, because they benefited also by the same miracle (Haman’s decree to kill all the Jewish people included the women).

The Rishonim dispute whether a woman can read the Megillah and discharge the obligation for a man. Rashi (Eruchin 3a) maintains that she could and Tosfos cites a Behag that she cannot. There are those that explain the Behag that he holds that a woman is only obligated to hear the Megillah but not to read it. Rashi’s viewpoint is easily understood by the fact that the Gemora explicitly states that women are obligated in the reading of the Megillah. The Beis Yosef (O”C 689) writes that according to the Behag, the correct version in the Gemora is that women are obligated to hear the Megillah.

Mishna Berura (689:13) writes that the reason a woman cannot read the Megillah on behalf of a man is because it is similar to Kerias HaTorah, where a woman is disqualified because of public dignity.

The Eshkol offers a different explanation and states that a woman cannot read the Megillah for a man because of the prohibition of “kol b’isha ervoh.”

The Imrei Baruch explains the viewpoint of the Behag why women will only be obligated to hear the Megillah and not to read it. The Gemora below (14a) states that the prophets offered a kal vachomer argument in creating an obligation to read the Megillah. If the Jews, who were liberated from slavery in Mitzrayim and brought to freedom, sang praises to Hashem when they saw the Egyptians drowning; certainly we should commemorate our deliverance from death to life. That is why we read the Megillah publicly, where we are thanking Hashem for saving us from Haman’s decree. There is a distinction, however, between the way the men sang praise and the way the women sang. Moshe recited each phrase and all the male Jews repeated after him. The women did not sing; Miriam said each phrase and they responded with musical instruments, not with singing. According to this, we can say that the same distinction should apply by Megillah. The men, who sang songs of praise by the sea, have an obligation to read the Megillah; the women who only heard the songs of praise have an obligation to hear the Megillah, but not to read it.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 4 - Highlights

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Lod, Ono and Gei Hecharashim were cities that have been surrounded by walls from the time of Yehoshua. Rabbi Elozar explains that these cities were surrounded by walls in the times of Yehoshua. They were subsequently destroyed during the Pilegesh b’Givah incident. Elpeal rebuilt them. They again fell and Asa came and rebuilt them. (4a)

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi ruled: It is obligatory for women to hear the reading of the Megillah, because they benefited also by the same miracle (Haman’s decree to kill all the Jewish people included the women). (4a)

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi ruled: If Purim falls on a Shabbos and thereby the Megillah is read earlier, there is nevertheless an obligation to publicly lecture about Purim. The Gemora asks: Isn’t this true regarding all the festivals? Wasn’t it taught in a braisa that Moshe ordained that we should publicly lecture on the duties of each day? We must lecture on the halachos of Pesach on Pesach, the halachos of Shavuos on Shavuos and the halachos of Sukkos on Sukkos. The Gemora answers that it was necessary to teach this halacha regarding Purim since one might have thought that on Shabbos, the public lectures pertaining to Purim should be prohibited on the account of Rabbah’s decree (Rabbah decreed that the Megillah should not be read on Shabbos since one might carry it four amos in a public domain). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi teaches us that such a precautionary measure is not taken regarding the public lecture. (4a)

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi cites a Scriptural verse demonstrating that one is obligated to read the Megillah on the night of Purim and repeat it on the day of Purim. (4a)

The Mishna had stated that the Megillah is read on the fourteenth of Adar but the villagers may advance to the day of the gathering. Rabbi Chanina said: The sages were lenient for the inhabitants of villages to read on the days of gathering, so that they will be available on the fourteenth to supply water and food for their brothers who live in the large towns.

The Gemora states that it emerges according to Rabbi Chanina; this leniency was enacted for the benefit of the people residing in the large towns. If so, the Gemora asks, why does our Mishna state that if the fourteenth of Adar falls on a Monday, villages and large towns read on that day; according to Rabbi Chanina, the villagers should advance their reading to the Thursday before? The Gemora answers that the Thursday before would be the tenth of Adar and that is not a possible date to read the Megillah.

The Gemora asks on Rabbi Chanina from a different case in our Mishna. The Mishna rules that if the fourteenth of Adar falls on a Thursday, villages and large towns read on that day; according to Rabbi Chanina, the villagers should advance their reading to the Monday before? The Gemora answers that the sages did not move the reading of the Megillah from one day of gathering to another.

The Gemora asks on Rabbi Chanina from a Mishna below (5a). Rabbi Yehuda states that the ordinance (of reading the Megillah early) was only in those places where the people from the villages came to the towns on Mondays and Thursdays; but in the places where they do not enter the towns, the Megillah is only read in its main time. If the reason for the leniency was for the benefit of the townspeople, why would the fact that the villagers don’t enter the towns prevent us from helping the townspeople?

This is a successful challenge to our initial understanding of Rabbi Chanina. The Gemora clarifies Rabbi Chanina’s viewpoint: The sages were lenient for the inhabitants of villages to read on the days of gathering because they supply water and food for their brothers who live in the large towns and this way, they would not be compelled to make another trip into the city on the fourteenth. (4a – 4b)

The Mishna had stated that if the fourteenth of Adar falls on a Friday, villages advance to the day of gathering, and the large towns and those surrounded by a wall read on that day. The Gemora states that the Mishna can be following the opinion of Rebbe or the opinion of Rabbi Yosi.

The Gemora cites a braisa: If the fourteenth of Adar falls on a Friday, villages and the large towns advance to the day of gathering, and those surrounded by a wall read on that day. Rebbe maintains that the large towns are not moved from their regular spot and they read on Friday, the fourteenth.

They both derive their opinions from the verse [Esther 9:27]: in each and every year. The Tanna Kamma maintains that just as every year large towns precede walled cities in the reading of the Megillah, so too in this case, the large towns must precede the walled cities and since the walled cities must read on Friday, the fourteenth, the large towns advance to Thursday. Rebbe learns from the same verse that just as every year the large towns do not move from their regular spot, so too in this case, the large towns read on Friday.

The Gemora cites a different braisa: If the fourteenth of Adar falls on a Friday, cities that are surrounded by a wall and villages advance to the day of gathering, and the large towns read on that day. Rabbi Yosi maintains that the walled cities can never precede the large towns and therefore the large towns and those surrounded by a wall read on Friday, the fourteenth.

They both derive their opinions from the verse [Esther 9:27]: in each and every year. The Tanna Kamma maintains that just as every year large towns and cities surrounded by a wall read on two different days, so too in this case, the large towns read on that day and the walled cities advance to the day of gathering. Rabbi Yosi learns from the same verse that just as every year the walled cities do not precede the large towns, so too in this case, the walled cities cannot precede the large towns and they both read on Friday.

It emerges that the Tanna of our Mishna can follow either Rebbe’s opinion or that of Rabbi Yosi.

The Gemora presents a contradiction regarding Rebbe’s viewpoint. In the braisa cited above, Rebbe maintained that the unwalled cities do not move to the day of gathering; yet Rebbe is quoted in a different braisa regarding a case where the fourteenth of Adar falls on Shabbos. The Tanna Kamma holds that the villages advance and read on the day of gathering, the large towns advance and read on Friday and the walled cities read on Sunday, the fifteenth. Rebbe maintains that once the large towns move from their regular spot, they move to the day of gathering.

The Gemora answers that the only reason the large towns are moved to the day of the gathering is because they are not reading on their regular day anyway; in such a case we move them to the day of the gathering. In the former case, where the fourteenth falls out on Friday, there is no reason to advance the large towns to the day of the gathering. (4b)

All the Tannaim agree that the Megillah must not be read on Shabbos. Rabbah explains: Since everyone is obligated to read the Megillah, but not all are able to read it; the Rabbis issued a decree not to read the Megillah on Shabbos as a precautionary measure, lest one take the Megillah in his hand and go with it to an expert to learn to read it, and at the same time he will carry four amos in a public domain. This is the same reason why we do not blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah when it falls on Shabbos, and we do not shake the lulav on Sukkos when it falls on Shabbos.

Rabbi Yosi offered another reason: It is because the poor anxiously wait for the day when the Megillah is read to receive gifts which are usually allocated when the Megillah is read. Since the money cannot be distributed to the poor on Shabbos, they moved the reading of the Megillah to a different day. (4b)

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 3 - WILL MEGILLAH READING BE CONSIDERED LEARNING?

The Gemora learns that one must cease from learning Torah in order to go and hear the Megillah.

The Beis Efraim asked the son of the Noda B’Yehuda as to why this would be considered bitul Torah. Isn’t the reading of the Megillah also considered learning? The Beis Efraim maintains that one who reads the Megillah or listens to it will not be fulfilling a mitzva of studying Torah. The Avnei Neizer (O”C 517) disagrees with him vehemently to such an extent that he writes: “I do not believe that those words came out of the mouth from such a righteous person as the Beis Efraim.”

Reb Chaim Voloziner talks at great length that there is a concept of neglecting to study Torah in depth and not only time. According to this, the Gemora can be explained to mean that even though reading the Megillah is considered learning, nonetheless it would be regarded as bitul Torah since he is not delving into the depths of Torah; if not for the special halacha that one is obligated to close the Gemora and hear the Megillah.

The Beis Efraim himself speculates that perhaps one cannot fulfill the Mitzva of learning Torah through the reading of the Megillah because it is part of Tefillah. This is based on the viewpoint of the Beis Yosef, who rules regarding one who had forgotten to recite birchas hatorah in the morning. The blessing of Ahava Rabbah can be utilized as a birchas hatorah, providing that he learns immediately after Shemoneh Esrei. The recital of Krias Shema will not be sufficient because that is part of Tefillah. Perhaps, the same logic can be used for the reading of the Megillah.

The Chochmas Shlomo answers that according to those that rule that one needs intent in order for him to discharge his obligation; it is impossible to have in mind for two mitzvos when he is only performing one action.

Read more!

Daf Yomi - Megillah 3 - Highlights

Rabbi Yirmiyah said, and others say that it was Rabbi Chiya bar Abba who said: The final letters in the Hebrew alphabet - mem, nun, tzadi, pey, kaf; were established by the prophets. The Gemora questions this statement. Could the prophets have introduced such an original enactment? Is it not written: "These are the commandments"; from which we infer that these are the commandments, and no prophet has the right to institute new ones from that time? And furthermore, the Gemora asks, didn’t Rav Chisda state that the mem (when it is the last letter of the word) and the samech (which is round) of the Tablets were stayed in place only by a miracle? (The letters in the Tablets were engraved from one side to the other and the middle sections of these two letters were completely unattached. They remained in place only through a miracle.)Evidently, these final letters were in existence prior to the prophets. The Gemora answers that these letters did exist beforehand, but it was not known which form of the letter should be in the middle of the word and which at the end; the prophets ordained that the open form should be in the middle of a word and the closed form should be at the end of the word. The Gemora questions if the prophets had a right even to establish where each form should be placed. The Gemora answers that this information was forgotten through the passage of time and the prophets only restored them. (2b – 3a)

Rabbi Yirmiyah said, and others say that it was Rabbi Chiya bar Abba who said: The Targum [translation] of the Torah was composed by Onkelus HaGer, who learned it from Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. The Targum of the Prophets was composed by Yonasan ben Uziel, who learned it from Chaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. At the time that the Targum of the Prophets was composed, the ground of Eretz Yisroel trembled over an area of four hundred parsah by four hundred parsah. A Heavenly voice called out, saying, “Who is this that has revealed My secrets to human beings?” Yonasan ben Uziel rose to his feet and said, “I am the one who revealed Your secrets to human beings. It is revealed and known to You that I did not act for my own glory or for the glory of my father’s house, but rather for Your glory, that disagreement should not spread in Israel.” Yonasan ben Uziel also wished to reveal the Targum of Writings. A Heavenly voice called out and said to him, “Enough!” The Gemora explains that the reason he was not granted permission to compose the Targum of Writings was because it contains the date of the arrival of Moshiach. The Gemora asks: Why at the translation of the Torah did the ground not tremble, and at the translation of the Prophets, it did tremble? The Gemora answers because regarding the Torah; no secrets were revealed; but regarding the Prophets; there are parts that are clear but some parts that were intended to remain hidden became revealed. (3a)

It is written [Daniel 10:7]: "And I, Daniel, alone saw this appearance, but the men that were with me did not see the appearance; nevertheless a great terror fell upon them, and they fled into hiding." Who were these men? Rabbi Yirmiyah said, and others say that it was Rabbi Chiya bar Abba who said: They were Chaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. They were considered superior to him because they were prophets, and he, Daniel, was not a prophet. He was superior to them because he saw the vision and they did not. The Gemora asks: If they did not see, why did they tremble? The Gemora answers that although they literally did not see, their angel saw. Ravina states that we can learn from here that one who becomes terrified, although he himself does not see, his angel sees.

If a person becomes terrified and he doesn’t know why, the remedy is to recite Krias Shema. If he is standing in a dirty place where Krias Shema cannot be recited, he should jump four amos away from his original place. If he is not able to jump, he should say the following: The goat by the slaughterhouse is fatter than me.”(3a)

Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina states that the kohanim and levi’im must abandon their service in the Beis Hamikdosh to come hear the Megillah. A braisa is cited stating the following: The kohanim while they were engaged in the service of the Beis Hamikdosh, the levi’im from the balcony (while they were singing and playing musical instruments) and the people who were standing by the korbanos representing all of Klal Yisroel (ma’amados), all must forsake their service and go hear the Megillah.

The Gemora learns from here that one must cease from learning Torah in order to go and hear the Megillah. If the service in the Beis Hamikdosh, which is generally a stringent matter, must be suspended on the account of the reading of the Megillah; certainly the mitzva of reading the Megillah overrides Torah studying (which is usually not so strict).

The Gemora relates a conversation between Yehoshua bin Nun and an angel, proving that Torah study is regarded as being stricter than the service in the Beis Hamikdosh. Yehoshua bin Nun, during the night between two days of battle, had a vision of the Heavenly Warrior Angel. The angel was standing facing Yehoshua, his sword drawn (indicating that Yehoshua deserved to die). The angel confronted him, “Yesterday, you neglected to bring the korban tamid of the afternoon, and this evening, you have been lax regarding the studying of Torah!” Yehoshua replied, “For which one of these transgressions have you come?” The angel answered, “I have come now.” This indicated that the angel’s appearance was due to the neglect of Torah learning which was being committed now and not because of the sacrificial service.

The Gemora answers that there is a distinction between the Torah study of an individual and that of many people. Sacrificial service is superior to the learning of an individual, but the studying of Torah of all the Jewish people (like by Yehoshua) is greater than the sacrificial service. (3a – 3b)

Rava ruled that if there is a conflict between the mitzva of offering a korban and the mitzva of reading the Megillah, the latter takes precedence.

If there is a conflict between Torah study and the mitzva of reading the Megillah, the latter takes precedence.

If there is a conflict between Torah study and the burying of an unattended corpse, the latter takes precedence.

If there is a conflict between the sacrificial service and the burying of an unattended corpse, the latter takes precedence.

Rava inquires: If there is a conflict between the mitzva of reading the Megillah and burying of an unattended corpse; which takes precedence? Shall we assume that the reading of the Megillah takes precedence because it publicizes the miracle or does the burying of the unattended corpse take precedence because we are concerned on account of the human dignity factor? After he inquired, he himself decided that the burying takes precedence, as we have learned elsewhere (Shabbos 81b) that human dignity is so great that it even supersedes a negative commandment of the Torah; certainly it will take precedence over the mitzva of reading the Megillah, which is only Rabbinical. (3b)

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi had stated previously that a walled city, and its neighborhood, and all the places around that can be seen with it, must be considered like the walled city itself and they too would celebrate Purim on the fifteenth. The Gemora elaborates on this halacha and states from a braisa: If the open town is near the walled city even if it cannot be seen from a distance together with the city (if the town is located on top of a mountain); it would celebrate Purim on the fifteenth. If an open town can be seen with the city, although it is not near the city (if the town is located in a valley); it would celebrate Purim on the fifteenth. (3b)

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi rules: A city where the inhabitants had settled into and later it was surrounded with a wall; it is regarded as a village and will read the Megillah on the fourteenth. (3b)

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi rules: A city where there are not ten unoccupied men who dedicate all their time to Torah study; it is regarded as a village and may advance their Megillah reading to an earlier date. (3b)

Read more!