Previous daf

1)

(a) When Esther asked the Chachamim 'Kav'uni la'Doros' - she meant that they should commemorate her by fixing the annual reading of the Megilah as an obligation.

(b) When they initially declined, on the grounds that doing so would only incite the hatred of the Nochrim - she replied that the entire incident was anyway recorded in the annals of Medes and Persia, and that reading annually it would make no difference.

(c) And when she asked them to include Megilas Esther among the holy writings, and they quoted the Pasuk in Mishlei "ha'Lo Kasavti Lecha Shalishim" - they meant that Shlomoh ha'Melech indicated in this Pasuk that the battle with Amalek is to be hinted in T'nach only three times and no more; and it has already been hinted three times: in Beshalach, in Ki Seitzei and in Shmuel. Consequently, there is no room for Megilas Esther in T'nach.

(a) The Chachamim relented however, on account of the Pasuk in Beshalach "K'sov Zos Zikaron ba'Seifer" - "K'sov Zos" - what is written in the Torah, Chazal explain, counting all the occasions that Amaleik is mentioned in the Torah as one (presumably because "Zos" refers to Torah - like we find "ve'Zos ha'Torah"), "Zikaron", what is written in Shmuel, "ba'Seifer", in Megilas Esther.

(b) The above explanation is the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ha'Muda'i. Rebbi Yehoshua explains this Pasuk - "K'sov Zos", what is written here in Beshalach, "Zikaron", what is written in Ki Seitzei, "ba'Seifer" in Shmuel.

(c) We can infer from Shmuel's statement that Esther does not render one's hands Tamei - that it was not written with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.

(d) We reconcile this with another statement of his, where he says that Esther was said with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh - by explaining his first statement (that Esther was not said with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh) to mean that she was not granted permission to write it down in the form of a Seifer, only orally (although the content of the Megilah was still said with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh).

(a) According to Rebbi Meir, Koheles does not render the hands Tamei, and there is a Machlokes by Shir ha'Shirim; according to Rebbi Yossi, there is a Machlokes by Koheles, Shir ha'Shirim definitely *does*. Rebbi Shimon says that ...

1. ... Koheles - is from the leniences of Beis Shamai (that it does *not* render the hands Tamei) and the stringencies of Beis Hillel (that it *does*).
2. ... Rus, Shir ha'Shirim and Esther - render the hands Tamei.

(b) Shmuel (who just said that Esther does not render the hands Tamei) does not hold like Rebbi Shimon and the Tana'im who appear to agree with him. He holds like Rebbi Yehoshua - whom we saw earlier maintains that Esther does not render the hands Tamei.

(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya maintains that Koheles does not render the hands Tamei - because he says, it constitutes the wisdom of Shlomoh ha'Malech, and was not written with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.

(d) It appears from the Pasuk in Melachim "Vayedaber Sheloshes Alafim Mashal (which are *not* recorded) that those parables that *are* (including Koheles) were said with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. We finally prove it from the Pasuk - "Al Tosef Al Devarav", implying that it was written with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.

(a) The Tana'im bring a number of proofs that Esther was said with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. Some say from "va'Yomer Haman be'Libo" (Rebbi Eliezer), others from "va'Tehi Esther Noseis Chein be'Einei Kol Ro'ehah" (Rebbi Akiva) ... from "va'Yivada ha'Davar le'Mordechai" (Rebbi Meir) ... and from "u'va'Bizah Lo Shalchu es Yadam" (Rebbi Yossi ben Durmaskis). Shmuel brings a proof - from the Pasuk in Esther "Kiymu ve'Kiblu ha'Yehudim", 'Kiymu Lema'alah Mah she'Kiblu Lematah', something which no-one could possibly have known without Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.

(b) According to Rava, there is a flaw in each of the Tanas' proofs. The flaw in the proof from ...

1. ... "Vayomer Haman be'Libo" - is that everybody knew that Haman was the most esteemed man in the king's eyes, in which case it is obvious from his words that that is what he was thinking.
2. ... "va'Tehi Esther Noseis Chein be'Einei Kol Ro'ehah" - is that Esther found favor with everybody, because she appeared to them like a woman from their own country (like Rebbi Elazar says), and Esther simply overheard people telling each other that she was from their country.
3. ... "va'Yivada ha'Davar le'Mordechai" - is that Mordechai actually overheard them plotting to kill the king (as the Gemara will explain later in the name of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba).
4. ... "u'va'Bizah Lo Shalchu es Yadam" - is that Mordechai may well have been informed of this fact through messengers sent to him expressly to supply him with this information.

(a) We can infer from the words ...

1. ... "u'Mishlo'ach Manos Ish le'Re'eihu" - that the Mitzvah of 'Sh'lach Manos' consists of two gifts to one friend.
2. ... "u'Matanos la'Evyonim" - that the Mitzvah of Matanos la'Evyonim consists of two gifts to two needy people (one gift to each). Note: 'Manos' also implies ready-to-eat food, whereas Matanos means any kind of gift.

(b) Rebbi Oshaya said to Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'a when he sent him the thigh of a third calf and a flask of wine - that with that, he had fulfilled the Mitzvah of Sh'lach Manos.

(c) When Rabah gave Abaye Sh'lach Manos which included a sack of dates to take to Mari bar Mar, Abaye commented to Rabah - that when a farmer becomes a king, he continues to place a basket around his neck, like he did when he was a farmer. Likewise Rabah, who had now become the Rosh Yeshivah, nevertheless continued to send Sh'lach Manos like an ordinary person.

(d) And when Mari sent him back with a sack of ginger and a cupful of long peppers - he passed the comment that Rabah would complain that he had sent him sweet things, whereas in return he received sharp ones.

6)

(a) Abaye related how, he once left Rabah's house satisfied, yet, when, in Mari's house, they brought him sixty different kinds of sweet dishes, he not only ate them all, but he wanted to chew the dishes as well.

(b) To prove his point - he quoted the folk-saying that there is always room for sweet things.

(c) Abaye bar Avin and Rav Chanina bar Avin were both very poor. They killed two birds with one stone on Purim - by exchanging their Purim Se'udos.

(a) One is obligated to become drunk to the point that one is unable to distinguish the difference between 'Arur Haman' and 'Baruch Mordechai'.

(b) One Purim, when Rabah and Rebbi Zeira fulfilled that Mitzvah - Rabah Shechted Rebbi Zeira. On the following day, he Davened and brought him back to life.

(c) When, on the following year, Rabah suggested that they eat their Purim Se'udah together again - Rebbi Zeira replied that miracles do not occur every day.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Esther "*Yemei* Mishteh ve'Simchah" - that the Purim Se'udah must be eaten by day, and not by night.

(b) When Ameimar assumed that the Rabbanan were late for the Derashah one Purim because they were busy with the Purim Se'udah - Rav Ashi suggested that they could have eaten it on the previous night (after the reading of the Megilah).

(c) Ameimar corrected him - by quoting Rava, who says that the Purim Se'udah can only be fulfilled by day, and not by night.

(d) Rav Ashi asked Ameimar to repeat it - forty times, until he felt that he had it 'in his pocket'.

(a) According to our Mishnah, the only difference between what is permitted and what is forbidden on Shabbos and on Yom-Tov is 'Ochel Nefesh'. The author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Yehudah - because, in addition to Ochel Nefesh, he permits Machshirei Ochel Nefesh on Yom-Tov, although it is forbidden on Shabbos.

(b) The Tana of our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk in Bo "Hu" 've'Lo Machshirav'. Rebbi Yehudah learns his concession from a Pasuk in the same Parshah - "Hu Levado Ye'aseh *Lachem*" 'le'Chol Tzorcheichem'.

(c)

1. ... the Tana Kama learns from "Lachem" - "Lachem" 've'Lo le'Akum' "Lachem" 've'Lo li'K'lavim'.
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah learn from "Hu" - that Machshirin which he could have prepared before Yom-Tov are not permitted on Yom-Tov.

(d) An example of a Melachah that could not have been performed on Erev Yom- Tov - is a knife that only became jagged on Yom-Tov.

(a) The only difference between the Melachos of Shabbos and those of Yom Kipur - is that whereas the former is punishable at the hands of Beis-Din (S'kilah), the latter is punishable only at the hands of Hashem (Kareis).

(b) The author of our Mishnah must be Rebbi Nechunyah ben ha'Kanah who holds that Shabbos and Yom Kipur have the same Din as regards 'Tashlumin' - meaning that someone who set fire to someone's haystack (for example) on Yom-Kipur, is Patur from paying (because he receives the stricter punishment), in the same way as he would have been Patur for doing so on Shabbos.

(c) The Rabbanan say - that it is only on Shabbos (when the stricter punishment is at the hands of Beis-Din) that one is Patur from the lesser punishment (of Beis-Din), but not on Yom-Kipur, when the stricter punishment is only at the Hands of Hashem.

(a) We learned in a Mishnah in Makos that, according to Rebbi Chananyah ben Gamliel, all Chayvei Kerisus who receive Malkos, are absolved from Kareis. Rebbi Yochanan comments - that the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Chananyah ben Gamliel. According to them, he remains Chayav Kareis.

(b) Rava tries to prove Rebbi Yochanan's statement from our Mishnah - which differentiates between Shabbos, which is punishable by Beis-Din, and Yom Kipur, which is punishable by Hashem. Now if our Tana would hold like Rebbi Chananya ben Gamliel, then Yom Kipur too, would be punishable by Beis-Din.

(c) Rav Nachman (bar Yitzchak) refutes Rava's proof by establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Yitzchak - who says that someone who is Chayav Kareis is not subject to Malkos at all.

(d) Rav Ashi considers that unnecessary. He refutes Rava's proof even if the author would not be Rebbi Yitzchak - because, he explains, when the Tana says that Yom-Kipur is *punishable* at the Hands of Hashem (and not by Beis-Din), he is referring to the *main* punishment, no matter that, under certain circumstances, he can receive Malkos.