the term: The second, and it was also necessary to write the phrase: In each and every year; proof from one of the verses would have been insufficient. As, if I had derived the halakha only from the phrase: In each and every year, I would have said my conclusion according to our question raised earlier: Why not celebrate Purim in the Adar adjacent to Shevat? Therefore, it teaches us using the term: The second. And had it taught us only the term: The second, I would have said that Purim must be celebrated both in the first Adar and in the second Adar, ab initio. Therefore, it teaches us: In each and every year, indicating that even in an intercalated year, just as in an ordinary year, Purim is to be celebrated only once. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, what does he do with this term: The second? Since he holds that the Megilla is read in the first Adar, what does he derive from the verse? The Gemara answers: He requires the term to derive that statement of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, as Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said: Initially, they established the observance of Purim in the city of Shushan alone, and ultimately they established it throughout the world, according to the second letter of Purim. Apropos the statement of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda with regard to the establishment of the holiday of Purim, the Gemara cites a related statement. Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said: Esther sent to the Sages: Establish me for future generations. Esther requested that the observance of Purim and the reading of the Megilla be instituted as an ordinance for all generations. They sent to her: You will thereby arouse the wrath of the nations upon us, as the Megilla recounts the victory of the Jews over the gentiles, and it is best not to publicize that victory. She sent back to them: I am already written in the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia, and so the Megilla will not publicize anything that is not already known worldwide. It was related that Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rav Ḥaviva taught the statement cited below. The Gemara comments: Throughout the order of Moed, wherever this latter pair of Sages is mentioned, exchange Rabbi Yoḥanan and insert Rabbi Yonatan in his place. They said: Esther sent to the Sages: Write me for future generations and canonize my book as part of the Bible. They sent to her that it is written: “Have I not written for you three times” (Proverbs 22:20), indicating that Israel’s battle with Amalek is to be mentioned three times in the Bible and not four times? Since it is already mentioned three times (Exodus 17:8–16; Deuteronomy 25:17–19; I Samuel 15), there is no need to add a fourth source. The Sages did not accede to Esther’s request until they found a verse written in the Torah: “Write this for a memorial in the book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: That I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under the heavens” (Exodus 17:14). The Sages interpreted the verse: “Write this,” that which is written in the Torah here in Exodus, and in Deuteronomy; “a memorial,” that which is written in the Prophets, i.e., in I Samuel, on this matter; “in the book,” that which is written in the Megilla. The Megilla is the third mention of Amalek and not the fourth, as both mentions in the Torah pertaining to Amalek are considered one; therefore, Esther would be the third, not the fourth source. The Gemara comments: This matter is parallel to a dispute between the tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: “Write this,” that which is written here, in the book of Exodus; “a memorial,” that which is written in Deuteronomy; “in the book,” that which is written in the Prophets; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i disagrees and says: “Write this,” that which is written in the Torah here in Exodus, and in Deuteronomy; “a memorial,” that which is written in the Prophets on this matter; “in the book,” that which is written in the Megilla. Here too, the tanna’im disagreed whether or not the book of Esther has the same force and sanctity as that of the canonized books of the Bible. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The book of Esther does not render the hands ritually impure. Although the Sages issued a decree that sacred scrolls render hands ritually impure, the book of Esther was not accorded the sanctity of sacred scrolls. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Shmuel maintains that the book of Esther was not stated with the inspiration of the Divine Spirit? But didn’t Shmuel himself say elsewhere that the book of Esther was stated with the inspiration of the Divine Spirit? The Gemara answers: It was stated with the Divine Spirit that it is to be read in public; however, it was not stated that it is to be written. Therefore, the text was not accorded the sanctity of sacred scrolls. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. Rabbi Meir says: The book of Ecclesiastes does not render the hands ritually impure, as it was not accorded the sanctity of sacred scrolls; however, there is a dispute with regard to whether or not the Song of Songs renders the hands impure. Rabbi Yosei says: The Song of Songs renders the hands ritually impure, but there is a dispute with regard to the book of Ecclesiastes. Rabbi Shimon says: The ruling with regard to Ecclesiastes is among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and among the stringencies of Beit Hillel, as according to Beit Hillel it renders the hands impure and according to Beit Shammai it does not. However, everyone agrees that the books of Ruth, and the Song of Songs, and Esther render the hands ritually impure, contrary to the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: It was Shmuel who stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua cited earlier that the book of Esther was not accorded the sanctity of sacred scrolls. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: The book of Ecclesiastes does not render the hands ritually impure because it is the wisdom of Solomon, and not divinely inspired. They said to him: It was certainly divinely inspired and that is the reason that the book of Ecclesiastes was added to the canon; as was it this alone that Solomon said? Wasn’t it already stated: “And he spoke three thousand proverbs, and his poems were a thousand and five” (I Kings 5:12)? Solomon spoke many proverbs, but only a portion of them were canonized in the Bible. Apparently, what is unique about those in Ecclesiastes is that they were divinely inspired. And it says: “Add you not unto his words” (Proverbs 30:6). The Gemara asks: What is added by the proof introduced with the phrase: And it says? Why wasn’t the first proof sufficient? The Gemara answers: And if you would say that in terms of what he said, he said a great deal, with regard to which, if he so desired, it was written, and if he so desired, it was not written; then that is why not all of his statements were preserved. Therefore, come and hear: Add you not unto his words. Apparently, the reason that it is prohibited to add to the proverbs is that the book of Ecclesiastes was divinely inspired. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: The book of Esther was said with the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, as it is stated: “And Haman thought in his heart” (Esther 6:6). If the book of Esther was not divinely inspired, how was it known what Haman thought in his heart? Rabbi Akiva says: The book of Esther was said with the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, as it is stated: “And Esther obtained favor in the sight of all those who looked upon her” (Esther 2:15); this could have been known only through divine inspiration. Rabbi Meir says: The book of Esther was said with the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, as it is stated with regard to the conspiracy of Bigtan and Teresh against Ahasuerus: “And the thing became known to Mordecai” (Esther 2:22). This too could have been known only through divine inspiration. Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit says: The book of Esther was said with the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, as it is stated: “But they did not lay their hands on the plunder” (Esther 9:15). The only way that could have been stated with certainty is through divine inspiration. Shmuel said: Had I been there among the tanna’im, I would have stated a matter that is superior to them all, as it is stated: “They confirmed, and took upon themselves” (Esther 9:27), which was interpreted to mean: They confirmed above in heaven what they took upon themselves below on earth. Clearly, it is only through divine inspiration that this could have been ascertained. Rava said: There is a refutation for all of these proofs, except for the proof cited by Shmuel, for which there is no refutation. The Gemara elaborates. That which Rabbi Eliezer said with regard to knowledge of what Haman was thinking in his heart can be refuted, as it is based on logical reasoning to conclude that this was his thinking. There was no other person as important to the king as he was; and the fact is that when he elaborated extensively and said: “Let the royal apparel be brought” (Esther 6:8), he said it with himself in mind. That which Rabbi Akiva said with regard to the knowledge that Esther found favor in the eyes of all, perhaps it can be understood and refuted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said: This teaches that she appeared to each and every one as one of his nation, and they expressed that sentiment aloud. And that which Rabbi Meir said, i.e., that the divine inspiration of the book of Esther is clear from the fact that Mordecai exposed the conspiracy against Ahasuerus, perhaps this can be explained and refuted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, who said: Bigtan and Teresh were both members of the Tarsi people and conversed in their own language. Mordecai, who was a member of the Sanhedrin and therefore fluent in many languages, understood what they were saying. And that which Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit said with regard to the knowledge that no spoils were taken, perhaps this can be explained and refuted by the fact that they dispatched messengers who informed them of the situation. However, with regard to Shmuel’s proof from the fact that they confirmed above what they took upon themselves below, there is certainly no refutation. Ravina said: This explains the folk saying that people say: One sharp pepper is better than a basketful of pumpkins, as the quality of the pepper’s taste is more significant than the quantity of the pumpkins. Rav Yosef said: Proof that the book of Esther was divinely inspired may be cited from here: “And these days of Purim shall not cease from among the Jews” (Esther 9:28), an assertion that could have been made only with divine inspiration. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Proof may be cited from here, at the end of that verse: “Nor the memorial of them perish from their seed” (Esther 9:28). The mishna mentions: And gifts distributed to the poor. Rav Yosef taught a baraita that the verse states: “And of sending portions one to another” (Esther 9:22), indicating two portions to one person. The verse continues: “And gifts to the poor” (Esther 9:22), indicating two gifts to two people. The Gemara relates that, on Purim, Rabbi Yehuda Nesia sent to Rabbi Oshaya the leg of a third-born calf and a jug of wine. Rabbi Oshaya sent him a message of gratitude: You have fulfilled two mitzvot through us, our teacher: The mitzva of: “And sending portions one to another,” and the mitzva of: “And gifts to the poor,” as Rabbi Oshaya was poor and this was a substantial gift. The Gemara relates that Rabba sent Purim portions from the house of the Exilarch to Marei bar Mar in the hands of Abaye, who was his nephew and student. The Purim portions consisted of a sack [taska] full of dates [kashva] and a cupful of roasted flour [kimḥa de’avshuna]. Abaye said to him: Now, Mari will say the popular expression: Even if a farmer becomes the king, the basket does not descend from his neck. Rabba was named the head of the yeshiva in Pumbedita, and nevertheless, he continued to send very plain gifts, because he was impoverished. Marei bar Mar sent back to him a sack full of ginger and a cupful of long peppers [pilpalta arikha], a much more expensive gift. Abaye said to him: The master, Rabba, will now say: I sent him sweet items and he sent me pungent ones. In describing that same incident, Abaye said: When I left the house of the master, Rabba, to go to Marei bar Mar, I was already satiated. However, when I arrived there at Marei bar Mar’s house, they served me sixty plates of sixty kinds of cooked dishes, and I ate sixty portions from each of them. The last dish was called pot roast, and I was still so hungry that I wanted to chew the plate afterward. And in continuation Abaye said: This explains the folk saying that people say: The poor man is hungry and does not know it, as Abaye was unaware how hungry he had been in his master’s house. Alternatively, there is another appropriate, popular expression: Room in the stomach for sweets can always be found. The Gemara relates that Abaye bar Avin and Rabbi Ḥanina bar Avin would exchange their meals with each other to fulfill their obligation of sending portions on Purim. Rava said: A person is obligated to become intoxicated with wine on Purim until he is so intoxicated that he does not know how to distinguish between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordecai. The Gemara relates that Rabba and Rabbi Zeira prepared a Purim feast with each other, and they became intoxicated to the point that Rabba arose and slaughtered Rabbi Zeira. The next day, when he became sober and realized what he had done, Rabba asked God for mercy, and revived him. The next year, Rabba said to Rabbi Zeira: Let the Master come and let us prepare the Purim feast with each other. He said to him: Miracles do not happen each and every hour, and I do not want to undergo that experience again. Rava said: A Purim feast that one ate at night did not fulfill his obligation. What is the reason? “Days of feasting and gladness” (Esther 9:22) is written, i.e., days and not nights. The Gemara relates: Rav Ashi was sitting before Rav Kahana his teacher on Purim, and it grew dark and the Sages who usually came to study with him did not come. Rav Ashi said to him: What is the reason that the Sages did not come today? Rav Kahana answered: Perhaps they are preoccupied with the Purim feast. Rav Ashi said to him: Wasn’t it possible for them to eat the feast at night on Purim, instead of being derelict in their Torah study on Purim day? Rav Kahana said to him: Didn’t the master learn that which Rava said: A Purim feast that one ate at night did not fulfill his obligation? Rav Ashi said to him: Did Rava say that? Rav Kahana said to him: Yes. Rav Ashi then learned it from him forty times until he remembered it so well that it seemed to him as if it were placed in his purse. mishna The previous mishna concluded with the formula: The difference between…is only, thereby distinguishing between the halakhot in two different cases. The following mishnayot employ the same formula and distinguish between the halakhot in cases unrelated to Purim and the Megilla. The first is: The difference between Festivals and Shabbat with regard to the labor prohibited on those days is only in preparing food alone. It is permitted to cook and bake in order to prepare food on Festivals; however, on Shabbat it is prohibited. gemara The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of actions that facilitate preparation of food, e.g., sharpening a knife for slaughter, this, Shabbat, and that, Festivals, are equal, in that actions that facilitate preparation of food are prohibited. The Gemara comments: If so, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: The difference between Festivals and Shabbat is only is preparing food. Rabbi Yehuda permits even actions that facilitate preparation of food on Festivals. The Gemara elaborates. What is the reason for the opinion of the first tanna? It is as the verse states: “Except that which every person must eat, only that may be done for you” (Exodus 12:16). “That” is permitted, and not actions that facilitate it. And Rabbi Yehuda says: “For you” means for you, for all your needs. The Gemara asks: And for the other, first, tanna too, isn’t it written: “For you”? The Gemara answers: He infers: For you, and not for gentiles; for you, and not for dogs. It is forbidden to perform labors for the sake of gentiles, or for animals, even if it is to feed them. The Gemara asks further: And for the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, too, isn’t it written: “That,” which is a restrictive term that limits the application of a particular halakha? The Gemara answers: It is written: “That,” which is restrictive, and it is written: “For you,” which is inclusive. Rabbi Yehuda resolves the conflict between the two: Here, the word: “That,” is referring to actions that facilitate, in which it is possible to perform them on the Festival eve but which are prohibited on the Festival; there, the phrase: “For you,” is referring to actions that facilitate, in which it is impossible to perform them on the Festival eve and which are permitted even on the Festival. MISHNA: The difference between Shabbat and Yom Kippur with regard to the labor prohibited on those days is only that in this case, i.e., Shabbat, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of Man, as he is stoned by a court based on the testimony of witnesses who forewarned the transgressor; and in that case, i.e., Yom Kippur, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of God, with karet. GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of payment of damages, both this, Shabbat, and that, Yom Kippur, are equal in that one is exempt in both cases. If one performs an action on Shabbat that entails both a prohibited labor and damage to another’s property, since his transgression is punishable by death, he is exempt from paying damages. Apparently, according to the mishna, the same halakha applies to Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion is the mishna taught? The Gemara answers: It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana would render Yom Kippur like Shabbat with regard to payment of damages. Just as in the case of one who intentionally desecrates Shabbat he is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment of damages caused while desecrating Shabbat, so too, in the case of one who intentionally desecrates Yom Kippur, he is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment of damages caused while desecrating Yom Kippur. We learned there in a mishna (Makkot 23a): All those liable to receive karet who were flogged in court were exempted from their karet, which is imposed by heaven. Most transgressors are liable to receive karet for violating prohibitions that are punishable by flogging. If they are flogged, they are exempt from karet, as it is stated with regard to one liable to receive lashes: “Then your brother shall be dishonored before you” (Deuteronomy 25:3), indicating that once he was flogged he is like your brother, and his sins have been pardoned; this is the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him on this issue. Rava said that the Sages of the school of Rav said: We learned: The difference between Yom Kippur and Shabbat is only that in this case, Shabbat, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of Man; and in that case, Yom Kippur, its intentional desecration is punishable with karet. And if the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel is so, in both this case, Shabbat, and that case, Yom Kippur, the punishment is at the hand of Man. Rav Naḥman said: There is no proof from here that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him, as in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, who said: There are no lashes in cases of those liable to receive karet, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: All those liable to receive karet in cases of incest were included in the principle: “For whoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the persons that commit them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29). And why was karet administered to one’s sister excluded from this verse and mentioned independently (Leviticus 20:17)? It is to sentence her to the punishment of karet and not to the punishment of lashes. This serves as a paradigm; wherever one is liable to receive karet, there are no lashes. Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that the mishna is according to the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yitzḥak and hold that there are lashes even in cases where there is liability for karet, there is no proof that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him. The mishna can be understood as follows: In this case, Shabbat, the primary punishment for its intentional desecration is at the hand of Man; and in that case, Yom Kippur, the primary punishment for its intentional desecration is with karet. If, however, he was flogged, he is exempt from karet.
