megillah

On the first of Adar they make a public announcement about the shekels and concerning kilayim. On the fifteenth: they read the Megillah [Esther] in walled cities, and they fix the roads and the streets and the ritual water baths, and they perform all public duties, and they mark the graves, and [messengers] go forth also concerning kilayim.

One who blows into a pit or a cistern or a jug, if he heard the sound of the shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if he hears the echo [also], he has not fulfilled his obligation. And also one who was passing behind a synagogue or if his house was next to the synagogue and he heard the sound of the shofar or of the megillah [being read], if he directed his heart (had intention), then he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not he has not fulfilled his obligation. Even though this one heard and this one heard, this one directed his heart and this one did not.

The Megillah is read on the eleventh, the twelfth, the thirteenth, the fourteenth, and the fifteenth [of Adar], never earlier and never later. Cities which have been walled since the days of Joshua ben Nun read on the fifteenth; villages and large towns read on the fourteenth, Except that villages move the reading up to the day of gathering.

What is considered a large town? One which has in it ten idle men. One that has fewer is considered a village. In respect of these they said that they should be moved up but not postponed. But with regard to the bringing the wood for the priests, the [fast of] Tisha B’Av, the hagigah, and assembling the people they postpone [until after Shabbat] and they do not move them up. Although they said that they should be moved up but not postponed, it is permissible to mourn, to fast, and to distribute gifts to the poor [on these earlier days]. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? In a place where people gather on Mondays and Thursdays, but in places where people do not gather on Mondays and Thursdays, the Megillah is read only on its proper day.

If they read the Megillah during the first Adar and the year was intercalated (a month was added), it is read again in the second Adar. There is no difference between the first Adar and the second Adar except the reading of the Megillah and the giving of gifts to the poor.

If they read the Megillah during the first Adar and the year was intercalated (a month was added), it is read again in the second Adar. There is no difference between the first Adar and the second Adar except the reading of the Megillah and the giving of gifts to the poor.

If one reads the Megillah out of order, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he reads it by heart, if he reads it in a translation [targum], or in any other language, he has not fulfilled his obligation. But they may read it to those who do not understand Hebrew in a language other than Hebrew. One who doesn’t understand Hebrew who heard it in Assyrian [Hebrew], has fulfilled his obligation.

A resident of a town who has gone to a walled city or a resident of a walled city who has gone to a town, if he is to return to his own place he reads according to the rule of his own place, and if not reads with them. From where does a man read the Megillah and thereby fulfill his obligation? Rabbi Meir says: all of it. Rabbi Judah says: from “There was a Jew” (Esther 2:5). Rabbi Yose says: from “After these things” (Esther 3:1).

All are qualified to read the Megillah except a deaf person, an idiot and a minor. Rabbi Judah qualifies a minor. They do not read the Megillah, nor circumcise, nor go to the mikveh, nor sprinkling [purificatory waters], and similarly a woman keeping day for day should not take a ritual bath until the sun has risen. But if any of these things is done after dawn, it is valid.

All are qualified to read the Megillah except a deaf person, an idiot and a minor. Rabbi Judah qualifies a minor. They do not read the Megillah, nor circumcise, nor go to the mikveh, nor sprinkling [purificatory waters], and similarly a woman keeping day for day should not take a ritual bath until the sun has risen. But if any of these things is done after dawn, it is valid.

The whole day is a valid time for reading the Megillah; reciting Hallel; for the blowing of the shofar; for taking up the lulav; for the Musaf prayer; for Musaf sacrifices; for confession over the oxen; for the confession over the tithe; for the confession of sins on Yom HaKippurim; for laying on of hands; for slaughtering [the sacrifices]; for waving [them]; for bringing near [the vessel with the minhah-offering to the altar]; for taking a handful; for placing it on the fire; for pinching off [the head of a bird-offering]; for receiving the blood [in a vessel]; for sprinkling [the blood on the altar]; for making the sotah drink [the bitter waters]; for breaking the neck of the heifer; and for purifying the metzora.

He who reads the Megillah may either stand or sit. Whether one read it or two read it [together] they [those listening] have fulfilled their obligation. In places where it is the custom to say a blessing, they say the blessing, and where it is not the custom they do not say the blessing. On Mondays and Thursdays and on Shabbat at minhah, three read from the torah, they do not add [to this number] nor decrease [from it], nor do they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets. The one who begins the Torah reading and the one who concludes the Torah reading blesses before it and after it.

Jeremiah the Scribe asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: What does one read if the day of the New Moon is a Sabbath? He said to him: One reads about the New Moon. Rebbi Ḥelbo said before Rebbi Ammi: The Mishnah says so (Megillah 3:6), “One interrupts for everything, for New Moons, for Ḥanukkah, and for Purim.”

Ahi [asked of him] a Tanna of the school of R. Hiyya, asked R. Hiyya : May one interrupt the Hallel or the Megillah [to greet a person] ? Do we argue a fortiori : If with the reading of the Shema', which is an ordinance of the Torah, one may interrupt, how much more so should it be permitted in the case of the Hallel or the Megillah, which is only a Rabbinical ordinance ! Or is it perhaps that the proclamation of a miracle is superior [to the reading of the [Shema'] ?

Ahi [asked of him] a Tanna of the school of R. Hiyya, asked R. Hiyya : May one interrupt the Hallel or the Megillah [to greet a person] ? Do we argue a fortiori : If with the reading of the Shema', which is an ordinance of the Torah, one may interrupt, how much more so should it be permitted in the case of the Hallel or the Megillah, which is only a Rabbinical ordinance ! Or is it perhaps that the proclamation of a miracle is superior [to the reading of the [Shema'] ?

We have learnt elsewhere in the Mishnah : All are fit and proper persons to read the Megillah, except a deaf person, a mentally defective, and a minor. R. Judah allows a minor to read.

How can we know that [this quoted Mishnah] is R. Jose's view [and means that the reading of the Megillah by a deaf person] is also invalid post factum ;

This cannot enter thy mind ; because the Mishnah refers to a deaf person exactly as to the mentally defective and minor ; and therefore, as in the case of a mentally defective and minor even post factum [the reading of the Megillah] is invalid, so also if a deaf person has read it, it is likewise invalid.

Still thou canst not possibly maintain that it is in accord with R. Judah ; because from what is stated in the sequel, "R. Judah allows a minor to read [the Megillah]" it is to be inferred that the first part is not R. Judah's view !

But perhaps the whole of it is R. Judah's view, there being two kinds of "minor," and [the wording of the Mishnah] is defective and should read thus : "All are fit and proper persons to read the Megillah except a deaf person, a mentally defective person and a minor. Of whom does this speak ? Of a minor who has not yet reached Initiation; but a minor who has reached Initiation is fit to read it even ab initio. These are the words of R. Judah, for R. Judah permits a minor to read."

Having demonstrated that [the Mishnah about the reading of the Megillah] is in accord with R. Judah and post factum it is permissible, but not ab initio, what, however, of the teaching of R. Judah, the son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi : A deaf person who speaks but cannot hear may separate the Terumah ab initio ? Whose view is that?

they read it then. In accord with whose opinion is this ? That of the Tanna of the teaching : If one rises early to set out on a journey, they may bring him a Shofar which he blows, a Lulab which he shakes, a Megillah in which he reads ; and when the time arrives for reading the Shema' he reads it. If he rose early to sit in a travelling coach or ship, he may say the Tefillah, and when the time arrives for reading the Shema' he reads it.

and thereby he will be carrying it for four cubits through a public domain. And the same reason applies to the shofar, and the same reason applies to the megillah.

It was reported: R. Ḥiyya b. 'Ashi said in the name of Rab, the law is in accordance with R. Jose, but Samuel said, it is in accordance with R. Meir. Did Samuel say so? Is it not stated in a Baraita: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Why is the word behon (בהון = on them) used (in the Scroll of Fasts) twice in succession? In order to indicate that the prohibition applies only to the days specified, but not to the days immediately preceding or following them—to which Samuel remarked that the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel! Answer: Originally Samuel was of the opinion that there was no authority as lenient in the matter as was R. Meir, and therefore he said that the law is in accordance with R. Meir, but when he heard of the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who is still more lenient, he said, the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Bali, too, said in the name of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba, who had it from R. Johanan: The law is in accordance with R. Jose, whereupon R. Ḥiyya b. Abba said to Bali, I must inform you that when R. Johanan said the law is in accordance with R. Jose, he referred only to those days on which the Scroll of Fasts forbids fasting (but not mourning). Did R. Johanan say so? Did he not say, the law always follows the anonymous opinion of a Mishnah? Now, we read in an anonymous Mishnah: Although it has been decided that under certain circumstances the Megillah of Esther should be read several days before, instead of after, Purim,

mourning and fasting during these days is allowed. Now, which of these days is here meant? If you say that the Mishnah refers to those people who under ordinary circumstances would have to read the Megillah on the fifteenth of Adar but, as it happens, read it on the fourteenth, the question must be asked, is it true that in this event mourning and fasting are allowed on the fourteenth? Is it not written in the Scroll of Fasts that the fourteenth and fifteenth must be celebrated as Purim days, on which mourning is forbidden—, a rule on which Raba commented, saying that their listing in the Scroll was needed only for the purpose of emphasizing that whatever was prohibited on the one day should be prohibited also on the other? If, however, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth, but for given reasons are to read it on the thirteenth, you, then, face the difficulty that the thirteenth is Nicanor Day (on which fasting is likewise forbidden); if, finally, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but, as it happens, have to read it on the twelfth, you face again the difficulty that the twelfth is Trajan's Day (on which, too, fasting is forbidden). You will therefore have to say that the Mishnah refers to those that would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but happen to be compelled to read it on the eleventh, and it is thus with reference to this day that the anonymous Mishnah teaches that mourning and fasting thereon are allowed! No, the Mishnah, no doubt, refers to those who would ordinarily have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but who by reason of circumstances are permitted to read it on the twelfth, and as to your objection that the twelfth is Trajan's Day, the festive character of that day was later abolished, as is instanced by R. Naḥman who ordered a public fast on the twelfth, and when the Rabbis objected thereto, pointing out that it was Trajan's Day, he replied that Trajan's Day had been abolished, because on that day Shemaiah and Ahijah were executed. But ought not fasting on that day be prohibited on the ground that it precedes Nicanor Day? Said R. 'Ashi, if Trajan Day itself was abolished, should we declare it a holiday because it comes before Nicanor Day?

mourning and fasting during these days is allowed. Now, which of these days is here meant? If you say that the Mishnah refers to those people who under ordinary circumstances would have to read the Megillah on the fifteenth of Adar but, as it happens, read it on the fourteenth, the question must be asked, is it true that in this event mourning and fasting are allowed on the fourteenth? Is it not written in the Scroll of Fasts that the fourteenth and fifteenth must be celebrated as Purim days, on which mourning is forbidden—, a rule on which Raba commented, saying that their listing in the Scroll was needed only for the purpose of emphasizing that whatever was prohibited on the one day should be prohibited also on the other? If, however, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth, but for given reasons are to read it on the thirteenth, you, then, face the difficulty that the thirteenth is Nicanor Day (on which fasting is likewise forbidden); if, finally, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but, as it happens, have to read it on the twelfth, you face again the difficulty that the twelfth is Trajan's Day (on which, too, fasting is forbidden). You will therefore have to say that the Mishnah refers to those that would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but happen to be compelled to read it on the eleventh, and it is thus with reference to this day that the anonymous Mishnah teaches that mourning and fasting thereon are allowed! No, the Mishnah, no doubt, refers to those who would ordinarily have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but who by reason of circumstances are permitted to read it on the twelfth, and as to your objection that the twelfth is Trajan's Day, the festive character of that day was later abolished, as is instanced by R. Naḥman who ordered a public fast on the twelfth, and when the Rabbis objected thereto, pointing out that it was Trajan's Day, he replied that Trajan's Day had been abolished, because on that day Shemaiah and Ahijah were executed. But ought not fasting on that day be prohibited on the ground that it precedes Nicanor Day? Said R. 'Ashi, if Trajan Day itself was abolished, should we declare it a holiday because it comes before Nicanor Day?

mourning and fasting during these days is allowed. Now, which of these days is here meant? If you say that the Mishnah refers to those people who under ordinary circumstances would have to read the Megillah on the fifteenth of Adar but, as it happens, read it on the fourteenth, the question must be asked, is it true that in this event mourning and fasting are allowed on the fourteenth? Is it not written in the Scroll of Fasts that the fourteenth and fifteenth must be celebrated as Purim days, on which mourning is forbidden—, a rule on which Raba commented, saying that their listing in the Scroll was needed only for the purpose of emphasizing that whatever was prohibited on the one day should be prohibited also on the other? If, however, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth, but for given reasons are to read it on the thirteenth, you, then, face the difficulty that the thirteenth is Nicanor Day (on which fasting is likewise forbidden); if, finally, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but, as it happens, have to read it on the twelfth, you face again the difficulty that the twelfth is Trajan's Day (on which, too, fasting is forbidden). You will therefore have to say that the Mishnah refers to those that would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but happen to be compelled to read it on the eleventh, and it is thus with reference to this day that the anonymous Mishnah teaches that mourning and fasting thereon are allowed! No, the Mishnah, no doubt, refers to those who would ordinarily have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but who by reason of circumstances are permitted to read it on the twelfth, and as to your objection that the twelfth is Trajan's Day, the festive character of that day was later abolished, as is instanced by R. Naḥman who ordered a public fast on the twelfth, and when the Rabbis objected thereto, pointing out that it was Trajan's Day, he replied that Trajan's Day had been abolished, because on that day Shemaiah and Ahijah were executed. But ought not fasting on that day be prohibited on the ground that it precedes Nicanor Day? Said R. 'Ashi, if Trajan Day itself was abolished, should we declare it a holiday because it comes before Nicanor Day?

mourning and fasting during these days is allowed. Now, which of these days is here meant? If you say that the Mishnah refers to those people who under ordinary circumstances would have to read the Megillah on the fifteenth of Adar but, as it happens, read it on the fourteenth, the question must be asked, is it true that in this event mourning and fasting are allowed on the fourteenth? Is it not written in the Scroll of Fasts that the fourteenth and fifteenth must be celebrated as Purim days, on which mourning is forbidden—, a rule on which Raba commented, saying that their listing in the Scroll was needed only for the purpose of emphasizing that whatever was prohibited on the one day should be prohibited also on the other? If, however, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth, but for given reasons are to read it on the thirteenth, you, then, face the difficulty that the thirteenth is Nicanor Day (on which fasting is likewise forbidden); if, finally, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but, as it happens, have to read it on the twelfth, you face again the difficulty that the twelfth is Trajan's Day (on which, too, fasting is forbidden). You will therefore have to say that the Mishnah refers to those that would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but happen to be compelled to read it on the eleventh, and it is thus with reference to this day that the anonymous Mishnah teaches that mourning and fasting thereon are allowed! No, the Mishnah, no doubt, refers to those who would ordinarily have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but who by reason of circumstances are permitted to read it on the twelfth, and as to your objection that the twelfth is Trajan's Day, the festive character of that day was later abolished, as is instanced by R. Naḥman who ordered a public fast on the twelfth, and when the Rabbis objected thereto, pointing out that it was Trajan's Day, he replied that Trajan's Day had been abolished, because on that day Shemaiah and Ahijah were executed. But ought not fasting on that day be prohibited on the ground that it precedes Nicanor Day? Said R. 'Ashi, if Trajan Day itself was abolished, should we declare it a holiday because it comes before Nicanor Day?

mourning and fasting during these days is allowed. Now, which of these days is here meant? If you say that the Mishnah refers to those people who under ordinary circumstances would have to read the Megillah on the fifteenth of Adar but, as it happens, read it on the fourteenth, the question must be asked, is it true that in this event mourning and fasting are allowed on the fourteenth? Is it not written in the Scroll of Fasts that the fourteenth and fifteenth must be celebrated as Purim days, on which mourning is forbidden—, a rule on which Raba commented, saying that their listing in the Scroll was needed only for the purpose of emphasizing that whatever was prohibited on the one day should be prohibited also on the other? If, however, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth, but for given reasons are to read it on the thirteenth, you, then, face the difficulty that the thirteenth is Nicanor Day (on which fasting is likewise forbidden); if, finally, you say that the Mishnah refers to those who would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but, as it happens, have to read it on the twelfth, you face again the difficulty that the twelfth is Trajan's Day (on which, too, fasting is forbidden). You will therefore have to say that the Mishnah refers to those that would have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but happen to be compelled to read it on the eleventh, and it is thus with reference to this day that the anonymous Mishnah teaches that mourning and fasting thereon are allowed! No, the Mishnah, no doubt, refers to those who would ordinarily have to read the Megillah on the fourteenth but who by reason of circumstances are permitted to read it on the twelfth, and as to your objection that the twelfth is Trajan's Day, the festive character of that day was later abolished, as is instanced by R. Naḥman who ordered a public fast on the twelfth, and when the Rabbis objected thereto, pointing out that it was Trajan's Day, he replied that Trajan's Day had been abolished, because on that day Shemaiah and Ahijah were executed. But ought not fasting on that day be prohibited on the ground that it precedes Nicanor Day? Said R. 'Ashi, if Trajan Day itself was abolished, should we declare it a holiday because it comes before Nicanor Day?

The Megillah is read on the eleventh, the twelfth, the thirteenth, the fourteenth, and the fifteenth [of Adar], never earlier and never later. Cities which have been walled since the days of Joshua ben Nun read on the fifteenth; villages and large towns read on the fourteenth, except that villages move the reading up to the day of gathering.

Gemara. The Megillah is read on the eleventh. From where is this derived? “From where is this derived”? Surely it is as we teach further on, “The Sages made a leniency on the villages, allowing them to push the reading forward to the day of the gathering, so that they could supply food and water for their brothers in the large towns?”

Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: This [rule stated in the Mishnah] is the ruling of R. Akiva the anonymous sage who draws the distinction between “time”, “their time” and “their times”, but according to the Sages the Megillah is to be read only on the proper day.

They objected: “R. Judah said: When [does this rule apply]? When the years are reckon from it, only when the years are properly fixed and Israel reside on their own soil. But today, since we can calculate [the date, the Megillah] is to be read only on the proper day”.

We have accounted for the celebration [of Purim]; how do we know that the reading [of the Megillah must be on these days]? The verse says, “And these days should be remembered and kept” (Esther 9:28). “Remembering” is compared to “keeping.”

Now that you have said that the words “city and city, town and town” are there for a derashah, what is the purpose of the words “family and family” [in the same verse]?. Yose b. Hanina replied: This refers to the families of the priests and Levites, that they should stop their [Temple] service in order to come and hear the reading of the Megillah.

For so said R. Judah in the name of Rav: The Priests at their [Temple] service, the Levites on their platform, the Israelites at their station — all stop their service in order to hear the reading of the Megillah.

It has also been taught: Priests at their [Temple] service, Levites on their platform, Israelites at their station — all stop their service in order to come and hear the reading of the Megillah. From this the members of the house of Rabbi relied that they were to stop the study of Torah in order to come and hear the reading of the Megillah. They argued a fortiori from the case of the [Temple] service. If the Temple service, which is so important, may be abandoned, how much more the study of the Torah?

It has also been taught: Priests at their [Temple] service, Levites on their platform, Israelites at their station — all stop their service in order to come and hear the reading of the Megillah. From this the members of the house of Rabbi relied that they were to stop the study of Torah in order to come and hear the reading of the Megillah. They argued a fortiori from the case of the [Temple] service. If the Temple service, which is so important, may be abandoned, how much more the study of the Torah?

Rava said: There is no question in my mind that, as between the Temple service and the reading of the Megillah, the reading of the Megillah takes priority, for the reason given by R. Yose b. Hanina. As between the study of the Torah and the reading of the Megillah, the reading of the Megillah takes priority, since the members of the house of Rabbi based themselves [on the statement of R. Yose].

Rava said: There is no question in my mind that, as between the Temple service and the reading of the Megillah, the reading of the Megillah takes priority, for the reason given by R. Yose b. Hanina. As between the study of the Torah and the reading of the Megillah, the reading of the Megillah takes priority, since the members of the house of Rabbi based themselves [on the statement of R. Yose].

Rava said: There is no question in my mind that, as between the Temple service and the reading of the Megillah, the reading of the Megillah takes priority, for the reason given by R. Yose b. Hanina. As between the study of the Torah and the reading of the Megillah, the reading of the Megillah takes priority, since the members of the house of Rabbi based themselves [on the statement of R. Yose].

Rava said: There is no question in my mind that, as between the Temple service and the reading of the Megillah, the reading of the Megillah takes priority, for the reason given by R. Yose b. Hanina. As between the study of the Torah and the reading of the Megillah, the reading of the Megillah takes priority, since the members of the house of Rabbi based themselves [on the statement of R. Yose].

Rava asked: Is between the reading of the Megillah and [attending to] a met mitzvah, which takes precedence? Shall I say that the reading of the Megillah takes precedence in order to publicize the miracle, or does perhaps [the burying of] the met mitzvah take precedence because of the respect due to human beings? After he asked the question, he himself answered it saying, Burying] the met mitzvah takes precedence, since a Master has said: Great is the [obligation to pay due] respect to human beings, since it overrides a negative precept of the Torah.

Rava asked: Is between the reading of the Megillah and [attending to] a met mitzvah, which takes precedence? Shall I say that the reading of the Megillah takes precedence in order to publicize the miracle, or does perhaps [the burying of] the met mitzvah take precedence because of the respect due to human beings? After he asked the question, he himself answered it saying, Burying] the met mitzvah takes precedence, since a Master has said: Great is the [obligation to pay due] respect to human beings, since it overrides a negative precept of the Torah.

Joshua b. Levi also said: Women are obligated to read the Megillah, since they were also part of the same miracle. Joshua b. Levi further said: If Purim falls on Shabbat, they ask questions and they offer derashot on the subject of the day.

Joshua b. Levi further said: One must read the Megillah in the evening and repeat it in the day, as it is written, “O my God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not answer, and in the night and I have no rest” (Psalms 22:3).

They thought this means that t hey should read the Megillah at night, and teach the Mishnah [about it] in the morning. Jeremiah said to them: It has been explained to me by R. Hiyya b. Abba [that the word “repeat” here has the same meaning] as when, for instance, people say, I will go through this section and repeat it.

It has also been stated: R. Helbo said in the name of Ulla of Biri: One must read the Megillah in the evening and repeat it in the day, as it says, “To the end that my glory may sing praise to you and not be silent. O Lord, my God, I will give thanks to thee forever” (Psalms 30:13).

But at any rate all agree that the Megillah is not to be read on Shabbat. What is the reason? Rabbah said: All are obligated to read the Megillah, but not all are competent to read it, and there is therefore a decree [not to read on Shabbat] lest one take the scroll in his hand and go to an expert to learn and [in doing so] carry it four cubits in a public domain.

But at any rate all agree that the Megillah is not to be read on Shabbat. What is the reason? Rabbah said: All are obligated to read the Megillah, but not all are competent to read it, and there is therefore a decree [not to read on Shabbat] lest one take the scroll in his hand and go to an expert to learn and [in doing so] carry it four cubits in a public domain.

Joseph said: Because the poor are anxiously awaiting the reading of the Megillah. It has also been taught in a baraita: Although they said that villages push the reading forward to the day of gathering, contributions are collected and distributed on the same day.

“Although they said”! On the contrary, it is because they said! Rather: Read therefore: Since they said that villages push the reading forward to the day of gathering, contributions are collected and distributed on the same day, because the poor are waiting anxiously for the reading of the Megillah, but

Rav said: The Megillah, in its proper time, can be read even by an individual; Rav Asi said: But [when read] not in its proper time, it should be read only in a company of ten. Such a case actually occurred and Rav gave consideration to the opinion of R. Asi

But did Rav actually say this? Did not R. Judah the son of R. Shmuel b. Shilat say in the name of Rav: If Purim falls on Shabbat, Friday is the proper time? Friday is the proper time! Surely Shabbat is the proper time! What Rav must have meant is this: The alternative time is like the proper time. Just as at the proper time [the Megillah may be read] by an individual, so at the alternative time [it may be read] by an individual.

No. For the reading of the Megillah Rav requires ten. What then did he mean by saying “Friday is the proper time”? His was rejecting the opinion of Rabbi, who said that since the towns had to shift their time they should shift to the day of gathering. Therefore Rav teaches us that Friday is the proper day [to which they should shift].

Although they said that they should be moved up but not postponed, it is permissible to mourn, to fast, and to distribute gifts to the poor [on these earlier days]. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? In a place where people gather on Mondays and Thursdays, but in places where people do not gather on Mondays and Thursdays, the Megillah is read only on its proper day.

But was he certain that Tiberias was walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun. But didn’t Hezekiah read the Megillah in Tiberias both on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth, being uncertain whether it had been walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun or not? Hezekiah was in doubt, but Rabbi was certain.

With regard to the houses of a walled town he was not in doubt; where he was in doubt was with regard to reading the Megillah. [He asked]: What constitutes the difference between villages (perazim) and walled towns which are mentioned in connection with the reading of the Megillah? Is it that the former are exposed and the latter are not exposed, [in which case] Tiberias [belongs to the former] being also exposed, or is it that the latter are protected and the former are not protected, [in which case] Tiberias [belongs to the latter], being protected? That was why he was in doubt.

With regard to the houses of a walled town he was not in doubt; where he was in doubt was with regard to reading the Megillah. [He asked]: What constitutes the difference between villages (perazim) and walled towns which are mentioned in connection with the reading of the Megillah? Is it that the former are exposed and the latter are not exposed, [in which case] Tiberias [belongs to the former] being also exposed, or is it that the latter are protected and the former are not protected, [in which case] Tiberias [belongs to the latter], being protected? That was why he was in doubt.

Assi read the Megillah in Huzal on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth, being in doubt whether it had been walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun or not. There are those who say R. Assi said: Huzal of the house of Benjamin was walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun.

If they read the Megillah during the first Adar and the year was intercalated (a month was added), it is read again in the second Adar. There is no difference between the first Adar and the second Adar except the reading of the Megillah and the giving of gifts to the poor.

If they read the Megillah during the first Adar and the year was intercalated (a month was added), it is read again in the second Adar. There is no difference between the first Adar and the second Adar except the reading of the Megillah and the giving of gifts to the poor.

Whom does the Mishnah follow? Neither the First Tanna nor R. Eliezer son of R. Yose nor R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, as it has been taught: If they read the Megillah in the first Adar and the year was then intercalated they read in the second Adar, since all the mitzvot which are to be performed in the second Adar are performed in the first, except the reading of the Megillah.

Whom does the Mishnah follow? Neither the First Tanna nor R. Eliezer son of R. Yose nor R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, as it has been taught: If they read the Megillah in the first Adar and the year was then intercalated they read in the second Adar, since all the mitzvot which are to be performed in the second Adar are performed in the first, except the reading of the Megillah.

Does not R. Shimon b. Gamaliel here say the same thing as the First Tanna? R. Papa said: They differ on the question of the special portions: the First Tanna holds that these should ab initio be read in the second [Adar], but if they have been read in the first, it is sufficient, except for the reading of the Megillah, which even though it has been read in the first [Adar], must be read again in the second. R. Eliezer son of R. Yose

on the other hand held that even the Megillah may be read ab initio in the first [Adar]; And R. Shimon b. Gamaliel held that even the special portions, if they have been read in the first [Adar], must be read again in the second.

Which authority then [does our Mishnah follow]? If [you say] the First Tanna, there is the difficulty of gifts. If [you say] R. Eliezer son of R. Yose, there is the difficulty of the reading of the Megillah also. If [you say] R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, there is the difficulty of the series of special portions.

In fact it is the First Tanna: He mentioned the reading of the Megillah, but the same is true for the gifts of the poor, since one depends on the other.

Or if you want, I can say that in fact it is R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, and there is an omission in our Mishnah and this is what it means: There is no difference between the fourteenth of the first Adar and the fourteenth of the second Adar except for reading the Megillah and gifts to the poor. From which we infer that in regard to mourning and fasting they are the same, but it doesn’t mention the special portions.

“the second” and also to write “in every year.” For if I had to base the rule on “every year,” I would have said the difficulty from above: therefore it is written “second.” And if I had been told only “second,” I might say that the Megillah is properly to be read both in the first and in the second. Therefore it says, in every year.

[And they refused] until they found a verse written in the Torah, “Write this a memorial in a book” (Exodus 17:14) [which they expounded as follows]: “Write this,” what is written here and in Deuteronomy; “For a memorial,” what is written in the Prophets; “In a book,” what is written in the Megillah.

This is like the following tannaim. “Write this” what is written here. For a memorial” what is written in Deuteronomy. “In a book,” what is written in the Prophet, the words of R. Joshua. R. Elazar HaModai says: “Write this,” what is written here and in Deuteronomy; for a memorial,” what is written in the Prophets; “In a book,” what is written in the Megillah.

Rather there is no contradiction; the one statement [in the baraita] refers to the Megillah, the other to the other books [of the Scripture]. What is the reason in the case of the Megillah? — Because it is written in regard to it, “According to their writing and according to their language” (Esther 1:20). What case of Aramaic being written in Hebrew is possible here?

Rather there is no contradiction; the one statement [in the baraita] refers to the Megillah, the other to the other books [of the Scripture]. What is the reason in the case of the Megillah? — Because it is written in regard to it, “According to their writing and according to their language” (Esther 1:20). What case of Aramaic being written in Hebrew is possible here?

“And it shall be to the Lord for a name”: this is the reading of the Megillah; “and for an everlasting sign which shall not be cut off” (Isaiah 54:13: these are the days of Purim.

Our Rabbis taught: “Forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses prophesied to Israel, and they neither took away from nor added anything to what is written in the Torah save only the reading of the Megillah.”

R. Nahman said: The reading of the Megillah is equivalent to Hallel. Rava said: There is a good reason in that case [of the Exodus from Egypt] because it says [in the Hallel], “Praise you O servants of the Lord,” and not servants of Pharaoh. But can we say in this case, “Praise you, servants of the Lord” and not servants of Ahashverosh? We are still servants of Ahashverosh.

“Words of peace and truth”: R. Tanhum said: [or, according to some, R. Assi]: This shows that the Megillah must be written on ruled lines, like the true essence of the Torah.

May we return to you Chapter “The Megillah is Read”

If one reads the Megillah out of order, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If he reads it by heart, if he reads it in a translation [targum], or in any other language, he has not fulfilled his obligation. But they may read it to those who do not understand Hebrew in a language other than Hebrew. One who doesn't understand Hebrew who heard it in Assyrian [Hebrew], has fulfilled his obligation.

Let them then say, The halakhah follows Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel? — Had they said, The halakhah follows Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel, I would have said that this is the case with other books of the Scriptures but not with the Megillah, in which it is written, “According to their writing.” Therefore it teaches us [that this is not so].

Ravina raised a difficulty: And do we know the meaning of ha-ahashteranim bene ha-ramakhim (Esther 8:10)? Rather we perform the mitzvah of reading the Megillah and proclaiming the miracle. So too they perform the mitzvah of reading the Megillah and proclaiming the miracle.

Ravina raised a difficulty: And do we know the meaning of ha-ahashteranim bene ha-ramakhim (Esther 8:10)? Rather we perform the mitzvah of reading the Megillah and proclaiming the miracle. So too they perform the mitzvah of reading the Megillah and proclaiming the miracle.

Our Rabbis taught: If the reader omitted one verse, he must not say, I will finish reading it [the Megillah] and I will then read that verse, but he must read [again] from that verse. If he enters the synagogue and finds that the congregation has read half, he must not say, I will read half with the congregation and then I will read the other half, but he must read it from the beginning to the end.

Rather a Megillah lies before him and he reads from it, verse by verse, and then writes. Shall we then say that this supports Rabbah b. Bar Hanah, for Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: It is forbidden to write one letter [of the Megillah], not from another written copy? Perhaps [the Mishnah speaks of a case] where he just happened [to have a copy before him].

Rather a Megillah lies before him and he reads from it, verse by verse, and then writes. Shall we then say that this supports Rabbah b. Bar Hanah, for Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: It is forbidden to write one letter [of the Megillah], not from another written copy? Perhaps [the Mishnah speaks of a case] where he just happened [to have a copy before him].

The text [above states]: Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan, It is forbidden to write one letter except from a copy. They objected: R. Shimon b. Elazar It happened that R. Meir went to intercalate the year in Assia, and there was no Megillah there and he wrote one out by heart.

From where does a man read the Megillah and thereby fulfil his obligation? Rabbi Meir says: all of it. Rabbi Judah says: from “There was a Jew” (Esther 2:5). Rabbi Yose says: from “After these things” (3:1).

From where does he read the Megillah etc. It has been taught: R. Shimon b. Yohai says: From “On that night” (Esther 6:1).

R. Yohanan said: All these rabbis derived their rule from the same verse: “Then Esther the queen and Mordecai the Jew wrote all the acts of power” (9:29). He who says the whole Megillah, this refers to the power of Ahashverosh;

Hama b. Guria said in the name of Rav: The Megillah is called “book” and it is also called “letter.” It is called “book” to show that if it is stitched with threads of flax, it is invalid; and it is called “letter” to show that if it is stitched with three threads of sinew, it is valid. R. Nahman said: This is only on condition that they are evenly spaced.

R. Judah said in the name of Shmuel: If one reads from a Megillah written among the rest of the Writings, he has not fulfilled his obligation. Rava said: This is the case only if it is not a little shorter or longer than the rest, but if it is a little shorter or longer than the rest, there is no problem with it.

Levi b. Samuel was reading before R. Judah in a Megillah

which was written among the Writings. He said to him: Behold they have said: ‘If one reads from a Megillah written among the Writings, he has not fulfilled his obligation.

R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: One who reads the Megillah written among the rest of the Writings, he has not fulfilled his obligation; and he at once protested against this remark: [This was stated in reference to reading]: In a congregation.

R. Hiyya b. Abba also said in the name of R. Yohanan: What is the meaning of what is written, And on them was written according to all the words which the Lord spoke with you in the Mount” (Deuteronomy 9:10)? It teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed Moses the minute details of the Torah, and the minute details of the Scribes, and the innovations which would be introduced by the Scribes; and what are these? The reading of the Megillah.

All are valid to read the Megillah except a deaf person, an imbecile and a minor. Rabbi Judah validates a minor.

But perhaps the whole [of the Mishnah] is R. Judah, and he teaches of two kinds of minors, and the Mishnah is lacking and it should teach this: All are qualified to read the Megillah, except a deaf man, an imbecile and a minor. What is this speaking of? Of a minor who is not old enough to be educated in the mitzvot. But a minor who is old enough to be educated in the mitzvot may read even ab initio, since R. Judah declares a minor qualified!

R. Judah declares a minor qualified. It has been taught: R. Judah said: When I was a young boy, I read it [the Megillah] in front of R. Tarfon and the elders in Lod. They said to him: Proof cannot be brought from the testimony of a minor.

Mishnah: They do not read the Megillah, nor circumcise, nor go to the mikveh, nor sprinkling [purificatory waters], and similarly a woman keeping day for day should not take a ritual bath until the sun has risen. But if any of these things is done after dawn, it is valid.