Laws of the Megillah, Chapter 2: Laws of Reading the Megillah and the Joy of Purim (Auto Translated)

Lecture Notes – Rambam, Laws of Megillah, Chapter 2, Halacha 1: Reading the Megillah Out of Order

—

General Introduction: Structure of Chapter 2 and the Mitzvos of Purim

Speaker 1:

There is the Rambam, the second chapter of the Laws of Megillah. These are the laws of reading the Megillah. It will also include the laws of the festive meal and mishloach manos, but the main focus is the laws of reading the Megillah.

So look further, these laws take days, and from halacha 1 through 12 are the laws of reading the Megillah, after that come the laws of the festive meal, and within that are mishloach manos and gifts to the poor (matanos la’evyonim). What this tells us is that here we are going to explain only two things – the Megillah and the festive meal, which is part of it.

And by the way, it touches on the other two mitzvos. Everyone knows there are four mitzvos of Purim, but in truth, in the Rambam you see that there is one mitzvah – reading the Megillah.

Speaker 2:

No, there is one mitzvah. Let’s see.

Speaker 1:

No, the Rambam says one mitzvah, a rabbinic mitzvah of reading the Megillah. Along with reading the Megillah comes a festive meal.

Speaker 2:

No, along with the festive meal comes matanos la’evyonim for the people who depend on the meal, matanos la’evyonim and mishloach manos.

Speaker 1:

So all four things are done because of the Megillah, because in the Megillah it says one should read it, and in the Megillah it says one should do the other three mitzvos. No, no, I’m not saying that’s why for the Rambam one mitzvah is sufficient because he doesn’t have numbers, because for rabbinic mitzvos he doesn’t assign numbers. No, but I don’t mean that. I mean here in the Mishnah and here in the Gemara there aren’t four mitzvos of Purim – there is one mitzvah: reading the Megillah and rejoicing. And the mitzvah of rejoicing comes with bringing joy to another Jew – matanos la’evyonim and mishloach manos. That is rejoicing; it’s not an extra mitzvah in its own right (b’fnei atzmah).

The Megillah as Hallel – “Its Reading Is Its Praise”

Speaker 1:

Reading the Megillah is a concept similar to Hallel. It’s a concept like what the Gemara says: “kri’asah zu hallela” – its reading is its praise. It’s a concept of praise and thanksgiving (hallel v’hoda’ah) to the Almighty… Let’s read what it says now. Now we’re going to learn the laws of reading the Megillah.

Speaker 2:

Yes. Could be, could be not. Yes. Okay, go on.

Speaker 1:

No, but I’m thinking of comparing it to Chanukah, which has hallel and hoda’ah as two mitzvos – there is Hallel and candles (neros), and with candles comes publicizing the miracle (pirsumei nisa) and those things. Hallel is not a mitzvah specific to Chanukah; Hallel is a general mitzvah of holidays (Yom Tov)… And regarding the Megillah it says “kri’asah zu hallela,” which is why I was thinking – perhaps the Megillah is in place of Hallel, and together with all the other things it becomes meaningful.

The aspect of thanksgiving through publicizing the miracle. Rabbi Yair, in his straightforward interpretation, wanted to explain – if I remember correctly – that just as Hallel is not truly a mitzvah on its own, it’s a mitzvah of Chanukah, it’s a mitzvah for every time one is saved from death to life, and here the voice fills in, fills in Hallel. Every holiday with every holiday.

Speaker 2:

Yes, Rosh Chodesh is not like that, but the Gemara says that Rosh Chodesh is only… but every holiday has Hallel from the Torah – I don’t know when – not from the Torah, but as a full obligation from the words of tradition (divrei kabbalah). In short, Hallel is one thing. One can say it that way; one can make both answers. I don’t know if it’s entirely… Okay.

—

Halacha 1: One Who Reads the Megillah Out of Order Has Not Fulfilled His Obligation

Speaker 1:

Okay, now we’re going to learn how one reads the Megillah. Okay, “One who reads the Megillah out of order (l’mafrei’a)” – someone reads it the wrong way around – “has not fulfilled his obligation (lo yatza).”

This is the Mishnah.

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Speaker 1:

The reason is the correct plain meaning. What is the reason?

Speaker 2:

Because the whole thing is about understanding the sanctity, understanding that we’re talking about now, in our time (bizman hazeh).

Speaker 1:

Very good.

Why Would Anyone Have Wanted to Read It Out of Order?

Speaker 1:

But the Meiri, something like this is what I said – he says that some would have read the Megillah out of order altogether. First of all, I can understand his point of view, because one reads the Megillah twice – you already read it last night, it’s boring. Now he says, you know what, today we’re going to read from the back to the front, it’s more exciting. I’m a contrarian; I can see why.

Parallel to Reading Shema Out of Order

Speaker 2:

Does reading other mitzvos out of order work? “Lo yatza” – or regarding the Shema (kri’as Shema)? Where else does it say it must be in order (k’sidran)?

Speaker 1:

Regarding the Shema. The Shema states that it must be in order. I can understand that here reading out of order wouldn’t work, because the whole joy that comes is from the build-up – one is afraid and then one is saved. You read when someone resolves the story. But for example, when one reads a matter of mitzvos, especially if there is the halacha of “one does not advance or delay in the Torah” (ein makdimin v’ein m’acharin baTorah), you know, for example Torah reading. When someone reads… let’s talk more about the Shema.

What you’re saying is correct, but it’s not correct. Because they – the Mishnayos of Berachos and the Mishnayos of Megillah are siblings, you know that concept?

Speaker 2:

Yes, yes.

Speaker 1:

When someone has already established the laws of Torah reading, laws of blessings, laws of prayer, all those things. The Mishnah is almost the same. It says in the Mishnah in Berachos, Chapter 2: “If one did not make it audible to his own ears, he has fulfilled his obligation.” It also says here: “One who reads out of order has not fulfilled his obligation.” It says in the Mishnah regarding the Shema… reading the Shema out of order, one has not fulfilled his obligation – the same thing as with the Megillah. “One who reads out of order has not fulfilled his obligation.” Also the same halacha as… there it doesn’t say “in order,” but it’s the same halacha that exists here regarding the Megillah as exists regarding the Shema – that one who reads out of order has not fulfilled his obligation.

What Does “Out of Order” Mean – Verse by Verse, Not Word by Word

Speaker 2:

What is it there? They didn’t read the verses backwards, did they?

Speaker 1:

There it says that one who reads the Shema out of order has not fulfilled his obligation. So why would one need to read it backwards?

Speaker 2:

It seems that… do you know why they would read the Shema backwards?

Speaker 1:

I wanted to say, if the halacha would not have been “lo yatza,” would one have… I don’t know. Perhaps it has a connection to the mitzvah of tzitzis, that one wants to cling to matters that are above.

Speaker 2:

Ah, you see that they did read it out of order. They would take each verse… they would leave the last verse.

Speaker 1:

The Behag brings the same thing – “one who reads out of order has not fulfilled his obligation.” And the Rashba says, he brings an example: instead of saying “from the rising of the sun to its setting, praised is the Name of God” (“mimizrach shemesh ad mevo’o mehullal shem Hashem”), one says “praised is the Name of God, from the rising of the sun to its setting” (“mehullal shem Hashem mimizrach shemesh ad mevo’o”). That makes sense.

But here it says the last verse, and starting one before it – we see that one goes simply backwards. But one says each verse as it is properly written, and not that one mixed up words – that has no meaning. It says that each verse is said as a complete verse, every word, every word, every word.

It’s like, for example, one finds in a place where commentators discuss this – like one says the last verse and then says the one before it, verse by verse. I can understand why, because if every word were reversed – “emes Elokeichem Hashem ani” – you haven’t said anything, because you haven’t said the sentence correctly at all. You haven’t said a proper sentence at all. Here, you’ve said each sentence correctly on its own. The story actually doesn’t make sense in practice, because with tzitzis, for example, there is such a thing as a thread and…

But it seems, what it seems is that there was such a custom. So I look in Mishnas Yisrael, part… I think of a reason why it could have happened, because they used to read in groups – four children would read from one Megillah. So the child sitting here, which way would be easier for him to read? Perhaps it’s like “l’shem yichud Kudsha Brich Hu u’Shechintei” – it’s a concept of an incantation (lachash), people used to have such an incantation from this?

Speaker 2:

No, it could also be that this has to do with a drasha about the letters, that one goes back through the letters.

Speaker 1:

What drasha would they go back through the letters for?

Speaker 2:

For nothing! Is there such a shiur? In Boro Park?

Speaker 1:

No, here – in Lakewood is there such a shiur? In Monroe is there such a shiur? I thought I heard one.

Playing with Letters/Combinations in the Megillah – “Lo Yatza!”

Speaker 1:

In any case, it seems that there is such an approach that the order in which things are written is one order, and it’s not a matter of rearranging. So if someone says this, that “lo yatza” – the comparison to Hallel and Shema is a good comparison, because in Tehillim there are many verses that when reversed still work well in that direction. It is indeed so – “rearrange the verse and expound it” (sareis hamikra v’dorshehu) – not always is the… It’s clear, for example, there certainly is, for example… how do you play around like that? Because they are all sentences, they are all constant sentences. It’s already written, each thing as an example of how one can.

Speaker 2:

Exactly, so what we actually read, by the way, the entire Megillah out of order – the point is, one should read it in the order it is written, but essentially the idea is, sometimes perhaps the Midrash and so on are indeed perhaps reversed. One can make a drasha where one can “expound the verse and rearrange it” (d’rosh hamikra v’sorseihu). The Gemara says “expound the verse and rearrange it.” What does it say – “to read the passage out of order, one has not fulfilled his obligation”? There is a case where one says “rearrange it” – one does sometimes need to start from a different side. The reading must go in order, but aside from that, yes. I want to make a point – we are funny people, we have a certain kind of…

Playing Around with Letters/Combinations in the Megillah – “Lo Yatza!”

Speaker 2:

So can one also read “all of them out of order”?

Speaker 1:

No, of course not. On the contrary, the opposite. “All of them out of order,” he says – alongside this there is a place for “reading out of order.”

Speaker 2:

No, but I said, “all of them out of order” – I also want to learn the exact opposite of the Chassidic Torah. Because what does a Jew do? Why would a Jew want to make an alef-tav beis-shin cipher from the letters of the Megillah? A Jew comes along and says, “I want to find the Gaon Rabbi Yonasan Eibeshitz in the Megillah.” From the Land of Israel and the redemption and Iran – I have it for you, I’m going to do it through reading out of order, I’m going to play around. Lo yatza! Because now we’re talking about the story of Achashverosh and Haman – we’re not talking about your stomachache, we’re not talking about your emotional state.

Speaker 1:

We are talking about it! We are talking about it! We are talking about it! The matter of the miracle was your miracle!

Speaker 2:

If one says “one who reads out of order” more broadly, he means playing around with letter combinations. He did say that someone wants to do this because he wants the reverse of the order. For example, why did the kabbalists want to rearrange verses? Because they wanted to make it relevant, they wanted to extract something that pertains to now, to the redemption, to… So if someone wants to learn the Megillah not in order, what does he want to do? He wants to extract something from it as a reason, so he wants to talk about the redemption or about now… You’re saying he’s deviating from the plain meaning (pshat). The exact opposite of the plain meaning.

Speaker 1:

It’s not a contradiction; it’s true. Because one can say regarding both – the point is to keep one’s mind on both. We’re talking about the story of Mordechai and Esther. It has a message for us, but one must not stray from the original story. One reads the parable (mashal)! The lesson (nimshal) is very important, but yes, very good.

If a Tzaddik Says Only the Nimshal

Speaker 1:

Okay. Fine. Good. I ask a question: if someone learns… there is no mitzvah of saying Shir HaShirim, but if someone learns for the sake of the nimshal… for example, a Jew comes along, a great Torah scholar (talmid chacham), a righteous person (tzaddik), he has for you the entire nimshal of reading the Megillah – he also has not fulfilled the obligation of reading the Megillah. Right?

Speaker 2:

But how is his separate nimshal – he himself said it. What kind… did he actually say the words? You need the humility of saying the words.

Speaker 1:

No, one should know. There was once a story with… arriving in a town. He didn’t hear the Megillah. He heard for the first time the story…

Speaker 2:

Yes, no, there is a story here – the Tchernobiler Maggid wrote a commentary on Chad Gadya, but in practice he said Chad Gadya; he didn’t say only the interpretation. Well, okay. It says silver… why do angels say it as it is written? Well, Torah scholars, as it is written, a camel. And other words – I’m not in order.

Rambam, Laws of Megillah, Chapter 2, Halacha 1 (continued) – Reading the Megillah Out of Order, In Sequence, Pauses, and Interruptions

Halacha 1 (continued): One Who Read It Out of Order Has Not Fulfilled His Obligation – Why Not Backwards?

Speaker 1:

First he asks a question: if one learns, there is a mitzvah of “remember the Sabbath day” (zachor es yom haShabbos) – when one learns from the nimshal of the… For example, a Jew comes along, a great talmid chacham, a tzaddik, he has for you the entire nimshal of reading the Megillah. He hasn’t fulfilled the obligation of reading the Megillah, right? It’s not the nimshal when one reads it.

When you actually said the words – there is a concept of saying the words; one needs to know. One knows the story of the Rebbe, the Mitteler Rebbe – he once came to a town and didn’t hear the Megillah… The Mitteler Rebbe heard the story for the first time, traveled under… he heard everything from the Rebbe…

Yes, a story here – the Tchernobiler Maggid wrote a commentary on Chad Gadya. But in practice he said Chad Gadya; he didn’t say the nimshal.

Okay, it says “as they are written and in their proper time” (kichsavam u’chizmanam) – so it says in the Gemara. A camel… in other words, I’m saying, I’m still correct. What is written is not yet what the truth is. The truth can be in the idea, you know what… anyone can tell the story in reverse, right?

From a literature point of view, many books begin later, and one says “now we’re going to go thirty years earlier.” So a Jew comes along, he wants to rearrange the Megillah, he wants to tell the story. Let’s start from some event – yes, Mordechai is walking around outside the king’s palace, and now he explained it. So someone wants to reorganize the Megillah.

One needs to think about this in light of the dispute among the Tannaim who say that one can fulfill the obligation with a portion of the Megillah. If one can with a portion – but if one can with a portion, why can’t one read backwards? Why is that worse? Why is it that if one reads backwards one hasn’t fulfilled the obligation?

A portion is a different matter. A portion means that the essential reading of the Megillah is only about that portion. Why is that the most important… because according to that opinion (man d’amar), that is the most important part of the Megillah. That holds up the whole thing.

Why should one say… every time one reads something, yes, we are funny – for example, it says “and you shall bind them as a sign upon your hand” (ukshartam l’os al yadecha) – does one also need to write that on the door? It doesn’t say that. Here, what are the instructions, right? There are instructions in the Megillah, the written and given ones. Okay, but what do we need to read? The essential content – it could be that the entire context is written about which they raise difficulties. You should understand the night, that it’s not possible that the instructions that say to read mean reading the entire thing from Rabbi… In halacha one does follow them, but you have a very good point, though many times in davening people, for example, “together they all gave glory and kingship” (yachad kulam hodu v’himlichu) versus “Hashem shall reign forever” (Hashem yimloch l’olam va’ed). You can’t celebrate and shout the same way at “together they all gave glory and kingship” as at “Hashem shall reign.” “Hashem shall reign” is the point here, yes? So what should have been is that all people should say “together they all gave glory and kingship” quietly, and everyone shouts “Hashem shall reign.” But in practice we see that this is not how one learns, and not how one davens, and not how one says verses. One says the entire text as it appears in the siddur. It’s not that one picks out the pieces that are… No, it’s well said. But our performance is properly in order, because the siddur was designed to be delivered with a cantor (chazan). But in the Torah, for example, according to this, for example, the one called to the Torah wouldn’t need to… like “the word of God”… it should have been in a quiet beginning… because the point builds up. But no, the halacha says the halacha… here it doesn’t say that, but the halacha says, no, one does not rearrange the verses. In other words, it is as it is written. I’m curious what you’ll make of it later.

Halacha 1 (continued): If One Read and Skipped a Verse – The Order of Going Back

Speaker 1:

Okay. “If one read and skipped a verse, and read the second verse – no. The next one after that. And then went back and read the verse he skipped. And then went back and continued from where he was. He went back and read the third verse. He has not fulfilled his obligation (lo yatza).” Why not? Because he finds himself reading a verse out of order – what he began, the verse he reads goes out of order. And he finds himself going to… the same, very good. “Similarly, one who read half should not say ‘I will read the first half, and afterward from the middle I will read the first half again.'” Why is that? Because that means all of it is out of order. “Rather, all of them – he begins from the start and proceeds in order. If one read and paused briefly and then read again, even if the pause was long enough to finish the entire thing, as long as it was in order, he has fulfilled his obligation (yatza).”

This is a proof for your approach to how they read the Megillah. “If one read and paused briefly and then read again, even if the pause was long enough to finish the entire thing, as long as it was in order, he has fulfilled his obligation.”

This is a proof for your approach to how they read the Megillah. “If one read and paused briefly and then read again, even if the pause was long enough to finish the entire thing, as long as it was in order, he has fulfilled his obligation.”

The main thing is that it should be in order. One doesn’t need to know more than that. But seemingly, we already know that an interruption of words doesn’t constitute an interruption (hefsek), we know this from the previous law (halacha). So now you can put both together, that when there is an hour with words, it also doesn’t need to be worse.

Speaker 2:

Yes, because one halacha earlier was the rule about words, because the words you said were interrupting you. Yes? So we see that words don’t kill it off. But for example, by the other halacha it says one must go back to the beginning of the prayer (chozer l’techilat ha’tefillah), yes? Let’s look into that. A person forgot to say something close by in the Shemoneh Esreh, he didn’t say the concluding blessing (siyum bracha), yes? If he already passed “Baruch Atah Hashem,” he needs to go back to the beginning of Shemoneh Esreh, yes? But here we don’t say such a halacha, yes, that one needs to go back to the beginning of the Megillah. The words you said are not a problem, because a pause (shehah) is not a problem. It’s just that there’s a mix-up in the order.

Speaker 1:

There is a law (din) that prayer must be in order (al ha’seder). Yes. I forgot it, I got mixed up, I skipped Refa’einu. Do I go back to Refa’einu? I say it again… No, but there is a case where one goes back to the beginning when one forgot the concluding blessing. Let’s see, in which case would one go back to the beginning of Shemoneh Esreh? Okay, I can just quickly mention one here. But it doesn’t mean you actually know about this? I don’t remember. But there it’s something like, because you didn’t tell me about the manner of correcting the Sages’ enactment.

Halacha 1 (continued): With interruptions one has fulfilled, backwards one has not fulfilled

Speaker 1:

The Gemara says as follows: “Sirugin yatza. S’risin lo yatza.” Sirugin means with interruptions? Well, it’s fine, but it’s pauses, and going back backwards — one has not fulfilled (lo yatza). Yes, the Gemara tells a story. How did the Rabbis mean “backwards”? Did each one say, is it true the bear Rabbi? Is it true the bear Rabbi? Or perhaps they entered backwards, backwards. It all comes together at once. What is the… backwards, backwards? It doesn’t say here that there is a distinction of an interruption through speech (hefsek b’davar)? Just as the same halacha applies to Hallel, to Megillah, to the shofar blasts (teki’ot), it’s all the same halacha.

Speaker 2:

But where does it say that if one paused long enough to finish the entire thing (im shehah k’dei ligmor et kulah), one must start over from the beginning? By the recitation of Shema (Kri’at Shema), no? Here too there is such an opinion in the Gemara, and the Rambam does not rule accordingly. The Rambam does not rule accordingly. The Rambam said as follows, the Rambam does not rule accordingly — even if one paused long enough to finish the entire thing, one has still fulfilled the obligation.

Speaker 1:

By Megillah there is no required measure (shi’ur) — even ten hours, whatever, one goes back to where one held. So what? Even if one paused long enough to finish the entire thing, and even eight hours. He doesn’t state any measure, he doesn’t state any order until the end of Purim. Yes, the entire day (kol ha’yom kulo). It doesn’t say “the entire day,” but yes, he doesn’t say any… until where — he says nothing. Yes. One has fulfilled the obligation (yotzei).

Speaker 2:

No, by prayer (tefillah) it does say that yes, if one paused long enough to finish the entire thing, one goes back to the beginning (chozer la’rosh). But prayer is different; we’ll remember to get back to prayer. Ah, I see that here there are other authorities (poskim) who say the same halacha should apply here too. Yes, yes, that is the opinion in the Gemara; the Rambam does not rule accordingly.

Discussion: Interruption between verse and verse — breathing between verses

Speaker 1:

Ah, here there is the interesting belief that one may not interrupt between one verse and the next, even for just a moment. These are interesting stringencies (chumrot) that come up. You’re not mistaken, okay, it’s not. It adds extra pressure.

But note, there is no such thing. The custom (nahagu) — however, others say differently. The Tzemach Tzedek said no, one must. The Chatam Sofer said no, one doesn’t need to. Almost all later authorities (Acharonim) said no. The Chatam Sofer has a proof — what is it? “Nehalel b’machi’ot kaf” — we praise with clapping of hands. By the way, from here we see that the measure of a hand-clap (shi’ur machi’at kaf) — this is a great proof for my… there doesn’t need to be an interruption. It only means not to make an interruption. No. It doesn’t need to be in one breath. It only means that he shouldn’t say the cantillation notes (trop). That’s what I did with the trop. One needs to go “ra-ra-ra,” and one needs to catch it. And not breathe between the words. Breathing is not the point. Breathing is not an interruption. Breathing is nothing (lav klum). It’s not a criterion in the laws of the Torah reader (ba’al korei). There is no such thing that one may not breathe between one verse and the next.

Digression: “In one breath their souls departed” — The ten sons of Haman

Speaker 2:

But that’s not the point. Yes, I’m right in the middle of Pesach mode, and it doesn’t make sense. All the mothers with the girls at once, that’s everything. This is how the Gemara understands it: “b’neshimah achat yatz’u nishmateihen” — in one breath their souls departed. It doesn’t mean one breath; it means all at once — there was one great killing.

Speaker 1:

In short, enough. In short, the Maharam, you see, the Maharam said just like us, that one can indeed sing his tune in reverse.

Speaker 2:

Like a shooting squad — usually one creates a situation where everyone is killed at once. With hanging, it’s hard to say it’s literally so, because how does one get hanged? No, I’m saying, even if one hangs each one at once, they were killed with a sword. No, I’m saying, with a bunch of soldiers you can hear that each one stands in front of him stands a soldier, and one, two, three, four, each one gets a shot. With hanging, okay, it doesn’t say. And from where do we know at all that their souls departed simultaneously (b’hadei hadadei nafka nishmataihu)? Okay, one needs to understand, this is perhaps a secret.

Speaker 1:

Okay, yes. Let’s move on.

Anyway, I mean that the point is that it’s not important. Even a breath is not worth the distinction between one mass death and two mass deaths. The same thing.

Speaker 2:

If you say that according to the truth (aliba d’emet) it is actually important. Okay, just because there is another opinion, one needs to learn it.

Speaker 1:

The distinction of one mass death, because that is the opinion. And the Gemara latches onto a thread according to the wonder, that it’s something important enough. It’s also Torah. What do you mean? You say one can dismiss it because it has no real significance? You need to show me that it has no significance, in case it’s valid. Show me that it’s “in one breath” — that one didn’t even need to think between killing one and the next.

Anyway, now we haven’t learned it yet, now we’re learning it. There’s no contradiction at all. What we learned from this is that the Ran says that one can indeed ask for a gift even if it lies at the head of a dead person — that is the Ran’s position.

Halacha 3: One who reads the Megillah by heart has not fulfilled the obligation

Speaker 1:

Another matter: “One who reads the Megillah by heart (al peh) has not fulfilled the obligation (lo yatza)” — one needs to be engaged in this matter. Don’t I have it? Engaged in this matter.

What’s wrong with reading by heart? What’s bad about reading by heart?

What’s bad about reading by heart? There is a Mishnah, all the actions — what does it have to do with it? It doesn’t say, there is a Mishnah. It says that Rabbi Meir wrote a Megillah and he meant for us. He meant for us.

Rambam, Laws of Megillah, Chapter 2 — Reading by heart, languages, and script

Halacha 2 (continued): The Holy Language and the Holy Script

Speaker 1: From the Gemara we will learn that the Rambam would have said that one can indeed be in the middle of a Philadelphia Breslover — that is the Rambam’s position already.

Another halacha was about this: “One who reads the Megillah by heart has not fulfilled his obligation (lo yatza y’dei chovato).” Not by heart. Why not by heart? What’s wrong with by heart? There is a Mishnah: one who reads by heart has not fulfilled the obligation. It says that Rabbi Meir wrote a Megillah and he read it. One doesn’t understand the story. The Gemara asks, what’s going on? The Gemara tells that there was a story that Rabbi Meir was in a place where there was no Megillah, so he wrote an entire Megillah and read it. The Gemara asks — the Gemara says that both are not permitted: one may not write, and also not read not from the text (shelo min ha’katuv), but Rabbi Meir remembered it. If so, he could have read it also not from the text, since he knew it by heart.

That is an enactment (takanah). This is also an enactment. No, that enactment is only a practical matter because it could cause a stumbling block, and he knew it. This is also practical. No, this is a law that this is how the reading of the Megillah works. Now there is a law regarding the proofreading of scrolls (hagahat sefarim) which he knew didn’t apply to him. He knew that it was only a matter of the illness of scrolls.

Languages — the Holy Language, Greek, and other languages

Okay, foreign language (le’azit). Now we’re going to learn which languages one can read it in. Foreign language: “One who heard the Megillah written in the Holy Language (lashon ha’kodesh) and in the Holy Script (k’tav ha’kodesh), even though he doesn’t know what they are saying, has fulfilled his obligation (yatza y’dei chovato).” What does “in the Holy Language and in the Holy Script” mean? Ah, written in the Holy Language, and it was in the Holy Script. No, it was the Holy Language. One can write the Holy Language in English letters, for example, and then one would not have fulfilled the obligation. The Gemara makes distinctions. Here we’re talking about the need to write it in the Holy Language and in the Holy Letters — in Jewish, in Assyrian script (otiyot Ashuriyot).

Greek — foreign Greek language is valid for everyone

And not only the Holy Language, but also in Greek. I’ve been looking for a long time for a Megillah in Greek; I would like to see one for myself. I can’t even read Greek, but I don’t need to know it. I’ll read the marriage contract (ketubah) in Greek — it’s a nice source. Perhaps I’ll write it in Hebrew; it’s interesting. And God willing (im yirtzeh Hashem), I’ll bring a Greek Megillah.

Speaker 2: Look, it says “like scribes upon the book of chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia.” Is there still something remaining — how is that? The library?

Speaker 1: A Megillah — I’ve seen that there is a Megillah in Greek. It’s not extant in written form. There are books that have attempted this. For the purpose of the matter, Rabbi Shmuel ben Chofni Gaon says that foreign Greek is valid for everyone (kasher). In the Gemara he derives it from… he has some general principle, and he further uses it. I see that he has an entire clarification here on this to investigate what the Ravach uses.

The Mishnah states “a foreigner (lo’ez) who heard it in Assyrian script (Ashurit) has fulfilled the obligation,” and Rabbi Shmuel says that foreign Greek is valid for everyone. And the Mishnah implies that a foreign language is only valid for one who understands it, and the Gemara says that Greek is valid even for one who doesn’t understand. But the Lechem Mishneh brings up that in the Laws of Tefillin, the Rambam writes that Greek is no longer found in the world. And why does he say it no longer exists? A good question. A good question. A good question.

In any case, the halacha from here would be that the Rambam states the main ruling. And the others would have said that the Rif omitted it because he held like the Rambam that Greek no longer exists in the world, but the wonder is why the Rambam does bring it here.

Discussion: Was Greece part of the 127 provinces?

Speaker 2: Was Greece (Yavan) part of the 127 provinces?

Speaker 1: If one is looking for an answer. You’ll ask, why are you troubling yourself with this? Ah, yes. No, Greece… Persia is Media. Media must be more… Media is Macedonia; it’s that region.

Speaker 2: Media is what, Ethiopia? It turns out to be Africa?

Speaker 1: Ah, Media is Media. Persia, the Iran area — that’s Media? And Media is not between India (Hodu) and Ethiopia (Kush). Greece is on the other side. Greece is not between India and Ethiopia, just to be clear. Greece is not between India and Ethiopia. Greece is in Europe. India and Ethiopia is all Asia. India, Ethiopia, yes? Here you can correct me. Greece is further away, and the kings… seemingly Achashverosh had a war, for a very long time he had a war with the kings of Greece. Years and years. Seemingly it’s hard to say exactly when, but there are stories that he wanted to go to the islands of the sea (iyei ha’yam). The islands of the sea seemingly means Japan. What are the islands of the sea? There are also literally sea islands, many such islands, but seemingly the islands of the sea is Japan. So there were periods — I don’t know when — but he fought with Japan. So it’s not entirely true that… In short, the 127 provinces do not include Japan. That is the answer to your question, simply.

The mitzvah of reading and publicizing the miracle — why does one fulfill the obligation without understanding?

And he says that when one hears in the Holy Language, and one is even an ignoramus (am ha’aretz) — he means even when one knows nothing about the Megillah, he means to say one doesn’t understand the language, but one knows the story of the Megillah, and so on. What does the Gemara say? It’s the mitzvah of reading and publicizing the miracle (mitzvas kri’ah u’pirsumei nisa). It doesn’t concern me about the individual who doesn’t understand — the main thing is that it should be said publicly (b’rabim).

Speaker 2: No, but that’s what I’m asking — does he need to know the story of the Megillah?

Speaker 1: So, he indeed doesn’t understand, but he knows the story of the Megillah, or even if we take someone who knows nothing at all?

Speaker 2: Because it’s French to him. Fine, but he knows what’s being read now, he knows the miracle — something happened there. I’m talking about someone who doesn’t know at all what’s being done now. He became Jewish fifteen minutes ago, he wants to become Jewish, but he doesn’t know what the story is yet. Has he already fulfilled the obligation? What’s the problem?

Speaker 1: There’s no problem. He has already fulfilled the obligation. What’s the problem?

Speaker 2: That’s what he says?

Speaker 1: He says that the Kurds are descendants of Media. I don’t know.

Speaker 2: Kurds?

Speaker 1: The guys who are fighting with Assad, and the internal war. That’s what Wikipedia says; I don’t know.

Speaker 2: In short, Media is in Iran — it’s the same region.

Speaker 1: I see the Magen Avraham in the Mishnah Berurah has a discussion about this being… Let’s go to the next halacha — written in Aramaic translation (targum). Okay, everything is valid written in Aramaic translation. Yes, yes, we’re in the next halacha.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Halacha 4: Aramaic translation and other languages — only for one who understands

Speaker 1: So everything we’ve discussed until now — that it was written in the Holy Language or in Greek — one has fulfilled the obligation. And one needs to read it in that language. What if it was written in another language? Aramaic translation (targum), meaning Aramaic, or another language from the languages of the nations? Did you know that Aramaic is from the languages of the nations? Then, “one has not fulfilled the obligation of reading unless he recognizes that language, and it must be written in the script of that language.” You understand? That means, if it was written in another language, one fulfills the obligation, but only if one understands it. Even in the Holy Language — interestingly — even in the Holy Language one doesn’t need to understand.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Commentators: Maggid Mishneh, Rashba, Ramban

Speaker 1: So I see there is a discussion among the commentators, because the Rambam says that once one knows the gentile language, that’s sufficient. But he brings from a Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud) that only when one doesn’t understand the Holy Language can one also fulfill the obligation with a gentile language, but if one also knows the Holy Language… Who says this? It’s the Maggid Mishneh who brings it from a Yerushalmi. I had thought that the commentators discuss this, but there is someone who discusses it — the Rashba. Why? Because it says “anyone who doesn’t recognize it has not fulfilled the obligation.” An interesting Rashba. The Rashba brings from the Ramban that if one doesn’t know the Holy Language — he’s talking about Assyrian script (Ashurit) now — if one knows Assyrian, one must read in Assyrian. Interesting. It’s indeed interesting.

Speaker 2: It’s not clear. Does he accept the distinction?

The meaning of the Mishnah and the Rambam’s language

Speaker 1: It’s an interesting thing. First of all, because this is a better approach. First of all, this is not… this is… He says as follows. In short, the Rambam says: if it was written in Aramaic translation or another language, then one only fulfills the obligation when it’s… This is the meaning of the Mishnah: “One who read it in Aramaic translation or in any language has not fulfilled the obligation, but one may read it to foreign speakers (lo’azot) in their foreign language (b’la’az).” It comes out that you have not fulfilled the obligation — the one who can, the one who is not a foreigner, the one who doesn’t understand — essentially one needs to understand it, but the foreign speakers are indeed permitted in their foreign language. That is the meaning of the Mishnah, and that is how the Rambam rules it. But it must be written in the script of that language.

Discussion: “Only one who recognizes that language” — two readings

But one can perhaps — when the Rambam says “only one who recognizes that language (ela ha’makir otah lashon bilvad),” does he mean when one only knows that language, or only the person who knows the language? One can learn it both ways. He should have said… I don’t know. One can, but let’s not… “Ela ha’makir” — no, because he needs to be one who recognizes it. He means to say that only those people who know it. But the Rambam says more than that — he says it must be written in that script. The Rambam says it must be specifically written in that script.

I wanted the one who knows the Yerushalmi. Okay, you know what? I had such a thought about the Yerushalmi.

You see, just like the Lechem Mishneh, those who say this way — yes, it’s not a distinguished language, it’s so repulsive, so to speak. But one who knows the language, he fulfills his obligation. Because that’s not the definition — the holy tongue. Because what matters here applies to the person, not to the holy tongue. One doesn’t need to know the holy tongue to fulfill one’s obligation. Other languages one needs to know in order to fulfill one’s obligation, and this is even when it’s written in that language. If it’s not written in that language, then what? What’s the problem? That it’s by heart.

The Reason for “Written in the Script of That Language” – Reading by Heart

Speaker 2: Interesting, you’re saying he’s reading by heart. I’m reading even in the holy tongue, I translate in my head into Aramaic, and I read it from my head, not from the text. Someone could argue and say that it’s by heart. What’s the connection here?

Speaker 1: Interesting, yes. Right? But what the Rambam says, that comes from the Gemara, that the writing must be in order (kesivah k’seder), that’s stated in the Gemara, yes. One can say that one can say that this is the reasoning of the Gemara, right? Yes. It’s reasonable that one can. Yes. One always can.

“Since the Reader Did Not Fulfill His Obligation, the Listener Does Not Fulfill It Through Him”

Okay, very good. The meaning of “since this reader did not fulfill his obligation”… Avram, out of order and not in Hebrew script. He means here that not only does the reader not fulfill his obligation, but the listener also does not fulfill his obligation. If one read it in Aramaic to an Aramaic speaker, he did not fulfill his obligation. Ah, interesting. Someone has a Megillah in front of him, and he reads it in Yiddish or whatever, he doesn’t fulfill his obligation. Because he’s reading it by heart. Interesting. What one can say is that he’s not literally reading by heart — he has it in front of him when he reads — but in practice he’s reading by heart, because he’s using words that aren’t written there. Since the reader himself did not fulfill his obligation, the listener does not fulfill it through him. Interesting, very good.

So also, one needs to see why he doesn’t fulfill his obligation. As it were, the listener — he needs to hear as if from the written text. Right? For the listener, he effectively remains… yes. Something like that is the point.

The Reasoning Behind “Greek Is Valid for Everyone”

What is the reasoning that Greek is valid for everyone? Interesting. This is the implication. This is indeed the position of the Rishonim that Greek is the “refuse of holiness” — it’s an extraordinary thing, truly holy. Greek is a holy language. Why is it as important as “both scripts and in Hebrew writing”?

This is an interesting matter. Fine, regarding the holy tongue you say that if it’s not written in the holy tongue, if it doesn’t mean the holy tongue…

Rambam, Laws of Megillah, Chapter 2, Halacha 2 (Continued) – Greek, Intent, Dozing, and Errors in Reading

Greek – Why Is It “No Longer Extant”?

Speaker 1: But what does it matter to me if someone writes French with English letters? Would it be any less French?

This is what the Rambam says — how does the script of a scribe create a language? Can one derive the script of another language? Certainly.

Look, the Kesef Mishneh — you’re learning into a different Rambam and you want to understand it.

Speaker 2: No, but do you have another way to learn the words “how does the script create a language”?

Speaker 1: Yes, but to derive the holy tongue, not to derive that he writes in… if one writes in… the plan is that let’s go into the detailed analysis.

Speaker 2: Ah, you mean to say the point is because he doesn’t bring with him a script.

Speaker 1: No — if one writes English in Hebrew letters, would one not fulfill the obligation? That’s what the Rambam is discussing. You understand?

Speaker 2: I hear.

Why Did the Rambam Say That Greek Is No Longer Extant?

Speaker 2: By the way, why did the Rambam say that Greek is no longer extant? Where did he get that from?

Speaker 1: What do you mean Greek is no longer extant? Everyone brings it from the tefillin. Greek in Egypt.

One needs to know what the Rambam means. It could be he meant to say that it no longer has the distinction — it’s just another nation. It no longer has the importance that Chazal attributed to it — something about “the beauty of Yefes” (yifiyuso shel Yefes) had to do with the reality that many wise men were Greeks, and so on.

One needs to know what the Rambam means by “the reader is not read in the world.” One shouldn’t think it merely means the language no longer exists, but rather that its distinction has departed.

But those are ours — this is my little Yossele, that one belongs to someone else — it’s not relevant. Today they no longer exist; we run the world now. That’s what the Rambam says; you can understand it a bit.

One needs to look — what does it say there in the Laws of Tefillin?

Speaker 2: Yes, but what does he cover before and after that?

Speaker 1: “So that Greek would not be read in the world, for it became corrupted and lost.” That’s the word — because it’s no longer the pure language. As if there was a Greek that Chazal loved very much, but today it’s already a mixture.

It’s not a question, because languages get mixed together. If you say Greek is better than Arabic, but today there’s 5% Arabic and 3% Chinese. In all languages today, a language that develops over many years has many words that aren’t from that language. What about those words? Those words are already flawed, because those words aren’t the “beauty of Yefes” that Chazal loved.

That’s what the Rambam says — “it became corrupted.” They actually had the Megillah in Greek — the Septuagint (Targum HaShivim). It’s not relevant because not all Greeks know it. We know it — the person who studies knows it. It’s not that whoever can study knows it; one needs to know the sugya.

This is what one can connect — Chanukah with Purim.

Speaker 2: I can simply say that the Rambam didn’t know — in which region did they not speak Greek? There are thousands of people in Greece who speak Greek. What do you mean they don’t speak it?

Speaker 1: Corrupted.

The Distinction Between Tefillin and Megillah Regarding “Corrupted”

Speaker 2: I’m saying, regarding tefillin it’s a bit easier to understand than here, because let’s say someone writes “Shema Yisrael Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad” in Greek, and there’s a corruption there — he’s tampering with the unity of faith, he’s tampering with “And you shall love Hashem your God.” Here he’s just telling the story.

Speaker 1: I mean, one can hear the distinction regarding the Rambam.

Speaker 2: Ah, that could also be.

Speaker 1: The Rambam says it became corrupted — I can’t trust a person to go write in his tefillin precisely the intent of the Torah with the holy words “And you shall love Hashem.” We’re talking here about fundamentals of faith. Regarding the Megillah, he says there, one can translate it nicely.

Halacha 2 (Continued): One Who Reads the Megillah Without Intent Does Not Fulfill His Obligation

“To Inform” – Rashi and Ramban

Speaker 1: He brings that Rashi learns “to inform” — he brings from Rashi that one will ask, a Jew will ask what the meaning is, and he brings that the Ramban cites in the name of Rashi that he says differently — he says that a non-Jew doesn’t know the meaning.

Speaker 2: Ah, that’s the one who says “even though he doesn’t know what they are saying”?

Speaker 1: Yes.

Discussion: “Intent” – Understanding the Words or Intent to Fulfill?

Speaker 2: Because I wanted to ask the question from next — about one who reads without intent. “Without intent” doesn’t mean understanding the words, but rather intent to perform the mitzvah, right?

Speaker 1: Yes, he makes it clear.

Speaker 2: Ah, okay.

Speaker 1: Yes, that’s the Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah.

Speaker 2: Okay, let’s continue.

The Rambam’s Language: “How So?”

Speaker 1: Okay, “One who reads the Megillah without intent does not fulfill his obligation. How so?” This explains what “without intent” means.

Speaker 2: You’re saying this isn’t about the unity of God and remembering the splitting of the sea?

Speaker 1: He doesn’t know the words. “How so? Whether to read, or to expound, or to proofread.” He had no intent at all to perform a reading, but rather to do something else — to proofread. “If he directed his heart to fulfill the obligation of its reading, he fulfilled it. And if he did not direct his heart, he did not fulfill it.”

Speaker 2: Correct.

One Who Reads While Dozing

Speaker 1: Here he goes, “One who reads while dozing — since he did not fall into deep sleep, he fulfilled his obligation.” There he reads the words because he’s speaking from within sleep.

It’s a bit interesting. This isn’t a big stretch that one needs to read the Megillah from the written text.

Speaker 2: Ah, that’s how he goes.

The Ramban’s Proof from Dozing – Intoxication and Prayer

Speaker 1: I found that the Ramban says this.

Speaker 2: The Ramban on the words “since he did not fall into deep sleep”?

Speaker 1: Not exactly, but the Ramban in Tractate Berachos, I believe, discusses whether one can pray when intoxicated. He says that he holds that regarding prayer there’s a good question — it’s doubtful whether one fulfilled the obligation — but regarding other blessings or other mitzvos there’s no problem. Only for prayer does one need to be in a special state of standing before the King.

He brings a proof from the Mishnah in Megillah — it states in Megillah that one who dozes fulfills his obligation — so we see that one doesn’t need to be in a state of standing before the King.

I see from this that the Ramban understood that he means he’s intoxicated. What does intoxication have to do with this? Dozing is not standing before the King. What is this?

This isn’t a Megillas Esther — this is a scroll of hidden things (Megillah of hesterim). There’s nothing revealed here. A mitzvah boy, one prepares, all the sefarim. What’s the look of a great bar mitzvah boy.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Speaker 1: Further. Let’s, let’s, ah, I agree — a great young man, a mitzvah is a mitzvah.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Discussion: Intoxication, Clarity of Mind, and Precision in Reading

Speaker 1: You’re saying the Ramban learns from here, and we’re talking here about someone who was reading while drinking. I learn that the Ramban… if the Ramban learns from here that one was drinking during the year, I learn that the Ramban, I learn that the Ramban…

Speaker 2: But what else do you find here regarding laws of intoxication? For example, a Kohen, or a halachic authority (moreh hora’ah). Those are things where one needs clarity of mind (yishuv hada’as). A Kohen stands before the King, and why here doesn’t one need clarity of mind? Because… Megillah, mind…

Speaker 1: No, but for example, if one skips words. Doesn’t one say that when one is in deep sleep one is worried about skipping words? Why shouldn’t one say that? As if, one can talk about intoxication — one needs to be precise in the reading.

Speaker 2: Ah, I see that the Pri Chadash says “but one must be precise in its reading.” The Torah with Torah.

Speaker 1: It’s very funny. I see that the Pri Chadash says “but one must be precise in its reading.”

So, the idea is what it says… okay, I’ll play back the two recordings you sent me.

The idea that’s stated here — if one skips a verse, that’s different from someone who is precise. After one knows it, one needs to know it this way. One reads based on someone who is precise in reading. Someone who doesn’t know it has no connection at all. He needs to have precision.

The first halacha ends, “anyone who doesn’t have the mental capacity to be careful.” The halacha says, it needs to be… why should there be a leniency? We’re talking about someone who fell into deep sleep, we’re talking about someone who fell into deep sleep.

Speaker 2: Right.

Speaker 1: So, I think that here, in the beginning we’re not talking about an omission, about skipping a word. In halacha 1, we’re talking about skipping an entire verse.

Speaker 2: “Read it backwards” or…

Speaker 1: No, but also there’s something — if he skipped a verse, how should he go back? So, a verse is already more than… as if, we’ll see that in the later halachos we’re talking about less than a verse, or that this is a different distinction.

Speaker 2: Ah, we’ll see.

Speaker 1: Yes, we’re not up to there yet.

Speaker 2: Ah, yes, we were talking about… ah, we were talking about reading backwards. “One who reads it backwards” (korei osah l’mafrei’a).

Speaker 1: Ah, no, but “he skipped a verse that he forgot.”

Speaker 2: Ah, it doesn’t say there that he needs to do it at all. It just says that he did it because he’s a fool. He made it worse.

Speaker 1: Indeed, he made it worse.

Speaker 2: Very good. Because otherwise it couldn’t have been “not in the proper manner.”

Speaker 1: Okay.

Halacha 6: One Who Writes It – Reading from the Written Text

Speaker 2: Wait, it says there… what does it say there? In a text, while he reads the… an entire Megillah. When is he writing? The reading is the copying.

Discussion: What Does “Reading” Mean for a Scribe?

Speaker 1: Here too one sees very clearly that “reading” doesn’t mean saying with one’s mouth — “reading” means reading with one’s eyes.

Speaker 2: Because what is the comparison? He says something with his words? Obviously with his mouth, obviously.

Speaker 1: Just the opposite, just the opposite. While he is copying from it — “copying from it” means what he says back is called…

Speaker 2: Ah, “copying” means he’s copying over, he’s copying in writing. So, and while he does this, does he say the words?

Speaker 1: Yes, is it certainly so? I’m saying it’s not called proofreading (hagahah) or I don’t know what — examination (iyun) — not “reading” (kri’ah).

“But if he intended to fulfill his obligation through this reading that he writes, he did not fulfill it, for one only fulfills his obligation through its reading — at the time that he reads what is written during the time of reading.” Meaning, he reads the word while he writes it. Meaning, he looks at the scroll that he’s in the middle of writing.

Speaker 2: He’s not saying that reading specifically requires looking at the scroll while… the scroll needs to be written — one needs to read it from a written scroll. Correct?

Speaker 1: Yes, good, yes. If he reads it — reading from the scroll that he’s writing — then he didn’t do it properly. He should have written verse by verse and read, and he’s reading there from half a Megillah. You understand?

Speaker 2: Yes.

Halacha 7: One Who Reads the Megillah and Errs in Reading – Imprecise Reading

Speaker 1: Okay, “One who reads the Megillah and errs in reading… an imprecise reading — he fulfilled his obligation.” That they would stand in groups in its reading.

Let’s now see the definition of what the measure is. He brings the Mishnah: “The Tannaim who were described in groups — one said ‘Yudim’ and one said ‘Yudim,’ and neither retracted…”

Speaker 2: Ah, here he’s talking about a much smaller error — he didn’t go and skip an entire…

Speaker 1: Okay, it’s a case of kri v’lo kesiv (read but not written) — it’s written in the verse “akudim” with two yuds, but when reading, one reads “yudim.”

Lecture Notes – Rambam, Laws of Megillah, Chapter 2, Halachos 2-3 (Continued) – Errors in Reading (Dikduk), Standing/Sitting, Two Reading Together, a Minor

Halacha 2 (Continued): “One Need Not Be Precise in Its Reading” – What Is the Measure of an Error?

Speaker 1: This means to say the definition of what the measure is — the Mishnah Berurah brings: “But if he erred, one need not be precise, and if he erred he fulfilled his obligation — for example, if he said ‘Yehudim’ instead of ‘Yehudim,’ and a child of five did not go back.” I’m talking about a much smaller error — it’s not skipping an entire… It’s a reading of the Megillah — it says in the verse “once Yehudim” with two yuds, which you want to read as “Yehudim.” There was someone who says “Yehudim” — hello? What are you doing, righteous one?

It’s very interesting, because it says like this: if one read an imprecise reading, he did not fulfill his obligation. He brings the Rashba — a type of… the Rashba, hello? — that this is specifically when it doesn’t change the meaning. Hello? “Yehudim” versus “Yehudim” — yes, it’s already hard to say it’s not corrupted. But simply, the Rashba came up with this, and others disagree with it. The Rambam himself doesn’t say this, but…

Why the Rashba’s Position Is Understandable – Analysis of the Language “One Need Not Be Precise in Its Reading”

Speaker 2: No, but I can understand where the Rashba is coming from, because the language “one need not be precise” — simply, even ideally (l’chatchilah) one need not be precise, and if he erred he fulfilled his obligation. “In its reading” — what does it say in the… No, the language of the Rishonim was like this — the language of the Rishonim was “one need not be precise in its reading.” So “in its reading” — I can hear that it’s very different to say versus to say… “One need not be precise in its reading” means ideally, one doesn’t need to be precise. I can hear how the Rashba says there’s a distinction between “Yehudim” and “Yehudim.” But “one need not be precise in its reading” — you can’t just say that someone who doesn’t know how to speak can read the Megillah. About that we say “one need not be precise” — regarding the ideal standard.

I can understand, because if the words “one need not be precise” is a language of ideal standard apparently, I can see someone whom it would bother — I can see how the Rashba is bothered: what does it mean ideally one need not be precise at all? Ah, one need not be precise between “Yehudim” and “Yehudim,” but to just say “one need not be precise” — one can skip verses, one can make a mockery?

You see the Hagahos Maimoniyos also says, regarding “one need not be precise” — but that’s what the Rishonim say: “one need not be precise, and if he erred he fulfilled his obligation.”

Speaker 1: And I don’t know Hebrew — I only speak Yiddish. I only speak Yiddish; I don’t speak Hebrew.

In Practice – The Rashba Is a Stringency

Speaker 2: But in practice, the Torah says this — as mentioned, as the commentators say — that the position of the Rashba is a stringency. So apparently, according to the straightforward reading of the Rambam, and how the Torah simply states in the basic halacha, it’s not like the Rashba.

Digression: “HaMotzi” vs. “HaMotzi” – Dikduk Distinctions in Blessings

Speaker 2: I think I saw someone say this — if one says “HaMotzi,” it means something different than “HaMotzi,” because some grammarian said so. Be real. It’s true, perhaps the grammar, but that doesn’t mean that now…

A Question: If “One Need Not Be Precise” in the Holy Tongue, Why Must One Be Precise in “Any Language”?

Speaker 2: But I also have another observation, because no one would think that when one writes it in any language, one would need to be a professor of English. So why, when we write it in the holy tongue, does everyone now need to be a Rabbi Dunash ben Labrat to be able to read? Why isn’t this a contradiction? What’s more important — because it’s the holy tongue, fine… The later authorities came…

Digression: The Later Authorities Against the Reformers – Prayer in Any Language

Speaker 2: True story, the later authorities (acharonim) — there is nowadays the issue of prayer in any language. There was a time when all the reformers said that one should write prayers in any language. The acharonim came and were precise: we don’t know the grammar, we don’t know the language clearly, we don’t know the grammar of that language, and we don’t know. It’s the same problem — in my opinion, it’s a similar problem.

Connection to “Greek Became Corrupted”

Speaker 2: Perhaps it’s similar to what the Rambam says about Greek becoming corrupted (Yevanit nishtabsha), that we don’t know how to say things in the proper, beautiful way. But he’s only talking there about Greek — he’s talking about the special quality of Greek, that it’s a special language, even if one doesn’t understand it. But he doesn’t say that one needs to be precise about grammar — how is that relevant? What do the grammatical details have to do with it? What does he mean? One can only be precise about the concept. If someone wants to explain it this way, to be stringent this way, then logically the law should be that one is not fulfilled through any language. That can’t be.

I’m saying, we literally have the Greek from the days of the Sages (Chazal), and there are differences. The Sages themselves already had to deal with this when there was the incident with the Megillah, because it could be that it says differently in the Septuagint (Targum HaShiv’im), because it was Alexander the Great — how is he not called Alexander… and what he takes, Alexander Yannai, with the seventy elders. There’s no such thing as a translation that’s one hundred percent identical to the source. That’s indeed what it means — that the point is not the words, but the… but the… that one should understand the fundamentals. But that is seemingly the simple meaning of the words in the Rambam.

Proof from “Not Everyone Is Expert in Its Reading”

Speaker 2: But I do have a proof, somewhat different, from this — because the Rambam did say yesterday “because not everyone is expert in its reading” (l’fi she’ein hakol beki’in bikri’atah). It appears that there is some element of expertise in this. If “not everyone is expert in its reading” is taken to an extreme, it doesn’t fit with the law that says reading requires expertise. Are you still following? Again. From what we learned yesterday regarding Shabbat, it does say “because not everyone is expert in its reading.” You see that reading is something that involves expertise — not everyone is an ignoramus (am ha’aretz).

Speaker 1: Exactly, because one must remember, there used to be no set text for readers (tikkun korim). An ignoramus literally doesn’t know — not just a little, he doesn’t even know the basics — he reads like that rabbi you told me about yesterday, “vayevk shvorim shvorim” — you don’t see any Hebrew at all. That person can’t even read Hebrew — even that rabbi knows Hebrew.

Discussion: What Does “Expert in Its Reading” Mean?

Speaker 2: In short, practically speaking, now why are you so upset at someone who says you don’t see anymore — you’re only picking out the raisins on something you don’t like? No, no, I mean to say that “not everyone is expert” means he literally doesn’t know Hebrew. That’s what was learned in cheder, that’s how it was in the chevra. An expert (baki) means someone who knows Hebrew. That rabbi does know Hebrew — he’s not an ignoramus — he doesn’t know it with precise grammar, but he knows how to read the words. Someone who doesn’t know the words at all — a Megillah doesn’t have cantillation marks (trop), it doesn’t have vowel points (nekudot).

Speaker 1: I understood that this means not everyone knows Hebrew well enough and knows the basics well enough. Or does it mean that? What is the expertise relevant there? One could perhaps say that there he doesn’t say that otherwise one is not fulfilled, rather he goes because it’s “an enactment beyond the letter of the law” (takanta lifnim mishurat hadin), because Jews are accustomed to being stringent. It literally means that there’s an obligation on everyone, including ignoramuses, and they all want to hear the Megillah, and they can’t all read. Therefore they said that the experts should read it for them. I think it’s simple — it’s not a pilpul.

Also, there’s a bit of the idea that the villagers (bnei kefarim) need to come… ah, now so that there should be quorums (minyanim). No, if it’s something that someone is truly precise about — I mean truly precise — then every individual can have it. Okay, now let’s move on.

Halacha 3: Reading Standing or Sitting – Standing and Sitting During Megillah Reading

Speaker 1: How does one read? “If one read it standing or sitting, one has fulfilled the obligation.” He read it standing — he doesn’t say how it should be done ideally (l’chatchila). In short, basically what needs to be said is this: one can read in any position — there’s no difference. Just like with the reading of Shema as well — you say that many laws here are very much repeated. If one read it standing or sitting, one has fulfilled the obligation. Even if one read it in a congregation sitting, one has fulfilled the obligation ideally, because of the honor of the congregation. Now, for an individual there isn’t even an ideal requirement — you can comfortably read while sitting.

So seemingly, in practice, when I read it over for my wife, where there’s no issue of honor of the congregation for women, right? I can sit.

Halacha 3 (Continued): Two Reading Together

Speaker 1: “If two read it, even if one reads and the other listens from the reader” — the law of “two voices cannot be heard simultaneously” (trei kalei la mishtam’ei) doesn’t apply here. Why? Because it is beloved (chaviva) — that’s not a reason? “It is beloved and everyone pays attention.”

What Does “Beloved” Mean? – Two Interpretations

Why is it beloved? Because it has the melody, the particular melody of Megillat Esther? I’m saying, if the word “beloved” means it’s an important act, I don’t know if that’s enough, because regardless one exerts oneself. Or perhaps he says “beloved” means the Megillah has a certain vibe — the dai dai dai — people get drawn in from a Torah perspective. So I can understand why people connect to it. If you just read the words plainly, ten people saying the same words at once isn’t beautiful. But once it has a rhythm, it has a whole… that’s what it means “they pay attention” — so one hears the words.

Speaker 2: No, I’m saying about other things that are read flat… nothing is read completely flat — I’m talking about what is respected. The Jews who read Megillat Ruth don’t read it flat at all.

Digression: Special Megillah Melody

Speaker 1: Okay, okay, I’m just saying there’s a difference between the upper cantillation (ta’am elyon) and the lower cantillation (ta’am hatachton) — there’s a certain excitement that exists in the reading of the Megillah. Whatever, the special melody that exists in tradition for the Megillah, which doesn’t exist the whole year for Torah reading.

“Beloved” as the Reason Why the Megillah Will Never Be Abolished

Speaker 2: But it’s not quite right that that’s the meaning. Rather, what does “it is beloved” mean? I want to say it’s like “the words of the Scribes are beloved more than the wine of Torah” (chavivin divrei sofrim yoter miyeinah shel Torah) — that the public loves it. All of Israel set their eyes on it. That’s very cute — that’s an exception. Meaning, two voices cannot be heard simultaneously — two voices cannot be heard simultaneously. You put on the shofar hat — ah, it’s difficult, it’s difficult with a Megillah, because you’re adding a complication. Interesting. Well, it’s okay, it’s simple as that. It could be that this is the reason why it will never be abolished — because the public loves it. You can’t abolish something the public loves.

Halacha 3 (Continued): An Adult Reading with a Minor

Speaker 1: One reader in the congregation, and a Megillah written among the Writings. In other words, the whole year the public agrees that one person reads. But we see here another thing — that when the Rambam speaks, he speaks about Chassidim, because Litvaks are still sinners, and I don’t know what, no Megillah. Okay.

One reader in the congregation. “An adult may read with a minor, even in a congregation.” This means a minor can also read the Megillah, but together with an adult. No, it doesn’t say together with an adult. Earlier it was about a minor being able to fulfill the obligation for others. An adult reads with a minor — what does it say in the Megillah? The adult reads first. What is the… let’s see what the concept is.

Source – Yerushalmi/Tosefta

The Yerushalmi says in the Tosefta, in the Yerushalmi it says, “There is no distinction between a large congregation and a small congregation.”

Question from the Lechem Mishneh – Concern That One Hears the Minor

Ah, the Lechem Mishneh says: you’re saying now that there’s a bunch of people, and the listening fulfills the obligation through one of them — you hear me? — then I should be worried that I’ll end up hearing the child, that the fulfillment will be specifically through the child, and the child cannot fulfill the obligation for others. I should be concerned about that. The fact that you say the attention goes to one doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll pick up one of them all and follow his reading, rather… I don’t know. It’s a bit interesting what this “attention” means.

Halachic Background – A Minor Cannot Fulfill the Obligation for Others

And the Mishnah states that the explanation is that we learned about a minor — a minor is not obligated in Megillah, therefore he cannot fulfill the obligation for others. Rabbi Yehudah said that one can, but the Mishnah — the Sages say no.

Resolution – What Does “Attention” Mean Regarding Megillah

But it could be that perhaps… but how did the Rambam derive that an adult reads with a minor? This is a Yerushalmi or Tosefta that says a good thing — that I don’t need to worry that the listeners will hear from the minor and therefore not fulfill their obligation, because the minor reads together with the adult. Aha. So seemingly the point is that there is awareness of intent — what you said about awareness of intent — because it is beloved, it doesn’t mean that Meir’l will just pick up on one person and follow along with him, because that one who hasn’t even gotten up yet will follow along with the minor. Awareness of intent means he follows along with the Megillah.

Rambam, Laws of Megillah Chapter 2 – Written Among the Writings, Writing the Megillah (Ink, Parchment, Scoring), “Like the Truth of the Torah”

Halacha 3 (Continued): Minor with Adult – Why Is There No Concern?

Speaker 1: But it should teach us that perhaps… but how the Rambam derived this — that all of them — it’s an adult and a minor.

It’s a Yerushalmi or a Tosefta, but he says a good thing — that I don’t need to worry that the listeners will hear from the minor and therefore not fulfill their obligation, because the minor reads together with the adult.

So seemingly the point is that yes, there is awareness — what was said there about awareness — because it is beloved, it doesn’t mean that automatically he’ll pick up on one person and follow along with him, because there perhaps he might pick up on the minor.

Yes, awareness means yes, so he picks up on the adult — just as you say, it’s not a problem.

But perhaps specifically the minor has a different voice — he’ll catch the minor’s voice…

He doesn’t need to be concerned about that combination — it’s not two equally good rabbis, and I don’t know…

Ah, may my ancestors have the capacity to understand what the adults are.

And also, why should one want all the boys to read along? You understand? The father reads, reads the Megillah, all the boys want to read along — why does he stand like that?

Speaker 2: I hear. All the Writings among the Writings.

Halacha 3 (Continued): Written Among the Writings – Megillah in a Tanach

Speaker 1: It’s already a Megillah — Writings among the Writings.

Ah, but it’s one large book that has several scrolls bound into it.

For example, he says, it’s not an expert in reading.

Speaker 2: Yes, all the Writings.

Speaker 1: Yes.

Speaker 2: Regarding reading, one does not fulfill the obligation.

Speaker 1: Around any…

Around any, I mean…

It should be reviewed over the rest, so as not to confuse.

But the congregation — no.

But for an individual — yes.

Speaker 2: But an individual — yes.

Speaker 1: What is the law?

That one has a stringency from the Sages that should…

What is such a thing — should one clarify it?

And what is the distinction between an individual and the congregation?

The individual is not as important.

All that, after the fact.

I’m connecting this with you.

Here, skip the congregation of descendants, for me and until I read — and they tell you, don’t worry — the Rambam, in a congregation it’s not valid.

Speaker 2: Ahh.

Speaker 1: But in a congregation, what is the explanation?

There needs to be a situation.

First the signs, marking the tanna, or inserting disqualifications until…

Speaker 2: Who?

Speaker 1: I see up to this page.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: They established that it’s a law for the ideal (l’chatchila). It’s a law for the ideal, yes.

Test.

Megillat Esther Is Not Part of the Torah – Proof from “Written Among the Writings”

Why would one read it? No, I’m just saying. There’s an interesting thing here. From here we see that Megillat Esther is not… this is a proof for what we want to arrive at — that it’s not a part of the Torah, but rather it’s a thing unto itself. We’re not even worried that someone will treat it as part of the Torah. Someone might say, where is the holiest Megillah? Is it one of the set of Tanach? No, it’s not a set of Tanach. One cannot write it with the Tanach — agreed. But it’s something else entirely. One even needs to make a distinction (heker) — if one wants, one can make a slightly larger marking, some kind of distinction.

What is the concept? I just told you. The distinction is so that one should know that it’s not a part of the Torah — that is the Rambam’s approach. One must remember that a Megillah, unlike what other people might think, is not a part of the Torah. Later he will say that one needs a safeguard upon a safeguard (seyag l’seyag), so that one should remember. This is how he derives everything from the Tanach, except for the safeguard. This is how there will be a distinction that it’s not a part of the Tanach — because it wasn’t burned, because it wasn’t hidden away (ganuz).

Halacha 9: Writing the Megillah – Ink, Parchment, Scoring

Ink and Parchment

There’s an interesting thing — there’s an interesting thing — that it says that Rabbi Yehudah… this is what the Tchortkov Rebbe of blessed memory teaches… Hello? Wait, let me ask you. Okay, it may not be written among the Writings, yes? It’s not read from there. Now we’re going to learn how one must write the Megillah. It’s already a bit too late now to write a Megillah, so… okay. “One does not write the Megillah”… from which Amora did you repeat that he gave a scribe without a Megillah? So you see, it’s not so terrible.

“One does not write the Megillah except with ink and on parchment (g’vil).” Oh, it must be on parchment, yes? It must be on parchment — the processed hides are for the parchment of the… of the… So, and if one did not write it with ink but with weaker substances, like gallnut extract (aftza) and vitriol (kalkantus), it is also valid. But one should not use a type like red dye (sikra).

I mean, the point is that it doesn’t hold strongly enough, etc.

Scoring – “Like the Torah Itself”

Seemingly, seemingly that is the reason. “And it requires scoring (sirtut) like the Torah itself.”

What is scoring? The lines.

Like the Torah itself — therefore what? What doesn’t one need? The Writings don’t need it. But this does need it, just like the Torah itself. No, I’m asking what is the meaning of the phrase “like the Torah itself” (k’Torah atzmah)? It appears to be so there.

It’s a phrase from the Gemara: “It requires scoring like the truth of the Torah” (tzricha sirtut k’amitah shel Torah). Tefillin and mezuzah also require scoring. And… I don’t know, I have no idea. It’s a phrase from the Gemara: “It requires scoring like the truth of the Torah.” “Like the Torah itself” — the Rambam translated…

Speaker 2: Do you want the Shulchan Aruch? I’ll bring it for you.

Speaker 1: No, I want to note here the Rambam’s translation. “The truth of the Torah” (amitah shel Torah) he translates as “like the Torah itself” (k’Torah atzmah).

Speaker 2: Ah.

Speaker 1: As if the inner essence (pnimiyut) of the Torah would be the…

No, the Torah itself. “Atzmah” means like the essence, the core.

The core of the Torah, yes.

As if in many places it’s allegorical, but the essence of the Torah is the intention itself, according to the Rambam?

No, “atzmah” is just a reference — it means the thing itself. But “amitah” — the Rambam uses the word “amitah” for the word “essence” (mahut) sometimes, and… the essence of the Torah, as if the core.

“Amitah” is not the essence, but the truth.

Or it’s “true,” the real existence of it. That’s just to delve into that topic. But what does it mean here “like the Torah itself”? It means the Torah itself.

No, I’m saying, therefore what? That the Writings don’t need it?

I don’t know. Here it means only the Torah, and the Writings don’t need scoring? I have no idea.

He wants to say some law about what Megillat Esther is… it’s not a law about the Torah. It says that one should do it. The Writings — there are those who do so, but in halacha it says this way. I don’t know what “like the truth of the Torah” means. Do you want to see what the Rav says? Do you want to see what he says about “like the Torah itself”? He says: “like a Torah scroll itself” (k’sefer Torah atzmo). There are other interpretations that say it means a scroll, a mezuzah. No one here discusses the meaning. “The Torah itself” — I have no idea what that means. Tefillin, mezuzah.

Discussion: What Does “The Truth of the Torah” Mean?

Speaker 1: “The truth of the Torah” — what does the Gemara say? One needs to look further in the Gemara. Perhaps there is someone who explains the meaning of “the truth of the Torah.” What does “the truth of the Torah” mean? It should derive from the verse “it shall be inscribed in truth.” Okay, very nice. But what does it mean?

By the way, it says in the Megillah… ah, in the Laws of Tefillin it says, it is a law given to Moses at Sinai (halacha l’Moshe miSinai) that one who writes a Torah scroll must always score it. But tefillin and mezuzah don’t require scoring, since they are beautiful and covered. They’re covered anyway — one doesn’t read them anyway. It appears that scoring has to do with reading.

“The Torah itself” means like the Torah. Immediately to write scrolls — it is written by Shlomo — even a Torah scroll, it is forbidden to write even one letter not from a written text. It appears that scoring here seems to not be a hidden explanation — I know it makes the writing nicer — rather, it assists the reader, the writer, so that it should be in a visible format.

I’ll tell you the explanation. The Beis Avraham says this in the laws of tefillin, why it doesn’t need it. He says that something which one doesn’t read, but rather holds it as a segulah, as an amulet, as a sign on your hand, doesn’t need it. But on the other hand, when one reads it, sirtut is so that one should see the clear lines, it should help.

Divrei shalom ve’emes means that these are words that have an important message for the public, it brings peace and truth. You know in shalom ve’emes, you know in words what is important. I hear. Shalom ve’emes means the importance of a person.

I think that this is the translation of the words “the truth of Torah” (amitah shel Torah). Just as Torah is truth, it is indeed relevant for people, and on the other hand what is ruled, people need to read it, they need to know how to conduct themselves, they need to know how to conduct themselves in the world, how to make a mark on the world.

Speaker 2: No, no, Torah doesn’t need to be repeated. I don’t know what the translation is. I know that the Gemara says that the Torah is indeed the explanation of the Rabbis, the other Rishonim. But Mishneh Torah means like a mezuzah, that it contains the essential matters that God said.

Speaker 1: Ah, that’s the question. One doesn’t put you either, and it does need to be certified.

But what does “ke’amitah shel Torah” mean for a good year? Can you tell me the Hebrew translation?

He who says so, you hear? Doesn’t know. Torah must have a truth, and our truth is here in a Torah gathering, a Torah gathering, and the certificate is to me like the order of birds and noodles. That is our truth. Anyone can do that, there’s nothing to it, in the certificate, but you don’t know what “ke’amitah shel Torah” means here. We don’t know what it says here. You say, look in the Orach Erech Emes, how does he say it?

Perhaps one needs to say “ke’amkutah shel Torah” (like the depth of Torah), because the certificate is a bit, it makes a… it makes a… ah, ah, ah. It makes a depth. Because you said a good reasoning, perhaps the Gemara means to expound. But depth, the certificate has nothing to do with the word depth. I don’t know, I wanted to clarify something…

But it could be like a drash. Perhaps the Gemara expounds, one doesn’t need a depth, it’s a truth. It’s like a… a truth of proof. That’s the explanation.

It’s not “no” — with which Torah does the word “no” come? Which is a bit awkward. Whoever adds, diminishes (kol hamosif gore’a).

Do you know the nice thing about why it’s called “ke’amitah shel Torah”? “Ke’amitah shel Torah” means “to exclude Torah — no” (l’afukei Torah lo). “Ke’amitah shel Torah.” Do you know the joke about why they call it a “glezel” and not a “gloz”? Because one loves it so much. Ah. The Chernobyler said this about a little glass.

Siyum – Sefer Ha’Aruch

In short, the story is, let’s see if we can find such a tractate. What is the Sefer Ha’Aruch? Where do Jews find a normal Sefer Ha’Aruch? Yes, true, yes. I don’t understand what’s going on here. And the Sefer Ha’Aruch is an interesting sefer.

Shiur Summary – Rambam Hilchos Megillah, Chapter 2 (continued) – “Ke’amitah shel Torah,” Sirtut, Roshem Nikar, Reading from the Written Text

Halachah 4 (continued): “Ke’amitah shel Torah” – What does “emes” mean?

And the story is, let me see, perhaps I can find such a source. What is the Sefer Ha’Aruch? How can I find his normal Sefer Ha’Aruch? Yes, true. The Sefer Ha’Aruch is an interesting sefer. A bachur wrote it, no? A bachur. Rabbi Eliyahu Bachur, no? True. Let me see. True, you hear? True, hold on a moment. I want to see what he says here, he translates the word “emes.” “All with emes, for all Rabbi Ashriber.” Amtah shel Torah. And he brings, the explanation is like a mezuzah. He says that the meaning is that it means mezuzah. Okay, that’s the explanation that amtah shel Torah means mezuzah, just like the Tosafos that Rav Acha said, that it means the essence of the Torah, because there it says “all that is above in the heavens, etc.”

In any case, this doesn’t readily solve my problem. This isn’t such a thing, because in tefillin the same thing is written. It’s only some law in kedushah that a mezuzah has a different kedushah than tefillin, why it does or doesn’t need sirtut. It has nothing to do with what’s written, because in both the same parshiyos are written. But in a mezuzah it contains the essence of the Torah? I don’t understand. It can’t be.

The Meiri – “The body of the Torah itself, even though it is primarily the words of women”

“This teaches that it requires sirtut like the truth of Torah, Rabbi Tanchum.” Do you know Rabbi Tanchum from the semichut, the one from Chanukah? Yes, the same one. He would have been luckier on Chanukah, they make more derashos about Rabbi Tanchum. Let’s see, ke’amitah shel Torah, like a sefer Torah itself. The Tosafos Ri”d says emes, mezuzah. Let’s know. The Meiri says: the body of the Torah itself, even though it is primarily the words of women. That’s the Meiri? So what? Even though it is primarily the words of women. Yes, most of it was written by Esther. One must give it importance and it was given sirtut just as the rest of the Torah was written by men.

But the Meiri continues further: “And this is what they said in the Yerushalmi, ‘Tehillim and the evening of Moshe and Elazar and the princes and the hinds, the early prophets revealed, and even so the Megillah alone was given to Moshe at Sinai in the Torah, and so is the custom to do for it here as well, that we were commanded in it by Moshe and Elazar and the princes.'” Who says this? The Meiri says further from a Yerushalmi. There on that page of Gemara? The Meiri. You look in Al HaTorah, he references it in Beis HaBechirah of the Meiri.

The Ritva – Rabbeinu Tam’s approach regarding sirtut in a sefer Torah

From here one learns the entire question of whether a sefer Torah requires sirtut. That’s the strange thing. Look in the Ritva on the spot, he says, from here Rabbeinu Tam derives that Rabbeinu Tam explained “from what is written ‘it is a mitzvah from the Torah,’ but a sefer Torah does not require sirtut except at the beginning of the pages and at the end of the pages.” It doesn’t mean from here one derives it, it has something to do with the verses of shirah. It’s a different question whether one needs lines on all sides or only on two sides and the like.

Yes, yes, here he brings it. “And for the purpose of separating the cantillation marks, black as a raven according to the lines.” What is this “black as a raven”? “This is the ruling, black as a raven according to the lines.” And what is “piled up like pottery shards”? I don’t know. “Know, that we say a Megillah requires sirtut.”

The Main Chiddush – “Emes” means “the thing itself” (not “truth”)

Oy, oy, oy. There is emes, and there is emes. Emes is emes, but Torah is emes. In short, I don’t have the energy. In short, one must admit, you know the matter of sirtut better. There is someone who says one should call it “essentials of the sefer.” Yes, “essentials of the sefer” he calls it. This is not the word from me, from “amulets of Torah” at all.

Rabbeinu Tam says the explanation. And ah, he says regarding the Megillah. “And this is what they said, Tehillim and the evening of Moshe and Elazar and the princes and the hinds.” What? So there is a Yerushalmi? Where is the Yerushalmi? I need to find the Yerushalmi.

I told you the Yerushalmi, Talmud of the West, 392, “before Moshe and before Elazar”? Of course not. “Moshe and Elazar and the princes of the congregation”? 393, so where is it? The whole page doesn’t make any sense. I need to figure this out. There’s no Yerushalmi. Where is it? Here, here, here, here.

For example, “because of the power of the enemy, a decree of our Rabbis.” “He called the matters from the responsa of the Geonim.” Ah, this is the juicy page with very many well-known interesting things on the same daf of Megillah. “The body of Torah,” do you hear the wondrous word? It says, “Moshe and Elazar and the princes of the congregation.” The language of the Ran: “It doesn’t seem correct to me, for it is written ‘before Elazar and before the entire congregation,’ ‘before Elazar the Kohen.'” One sees that women can indeed. Well, the Be’er Pla.

I have an error that the Mahari simply assumes that this is the matter because Esther writes it. Like because Esther writes it. But the Mahari also explains it like the Rema with… “the body of Torah,” right? “Gufah” is another word that means like “itself,” right? The Torah itself. “Emes” means the thing itself. “Emes” doesn’t mean the truth, it means the thing itself. As if the Megillah, which is not Torah — they said “this verse was said with divine inspiration” — but the Torah itself is the Five Books of the Torah, the original Torah. This is a good source that the word “emes” means unique in the world, that the Rambam says so. Yes, “God is true” (Elokim emes) means that the Almighty is the thing itself, not that other things are falsehood. Do you understand what I’m saying? Right. That is the Rambam’s interpretation.

Okay, so here it would mean “entirely true,” not something allegorical or something else, but it is the truth itself, it is the Torah itself. “The Megillah alone, this is alone the Oral Torah, because it is not Torah itself, when you see it in a Torah.” So you need to connect it to your entire discussion between the Rambam and the Gemaras that are concerned about making Purim into a Torah unto itself. Bring it together. Ah, “amulet of Torah,” it says a great thing. It has more importance than other… What is this, a part of the sugya? That it has more importance than the others like Kesuvim, that’s not the question.

Why when one does and must do when there is a mitzvah? Why is it only then when there is an obligation? Why is that a good question?

Rav Tzadok HaKohen and Nesivos Shalom regarding sirtut

Let’s go further. I’ll pause for a minute. We saw what he brings here from Rav Tzadok on the requirement of sirtut, the mitzvah of Torah. Ahhhh… There is no revelation, it’s a concealment, but it does need sirtut. Why? Because there is no revelation in the Megillah, meaning the revelation of words of wisdom, this is the secret of Torah from the foundation of the father, the Megillah from the foundation of the father enters the feminine, and they are nullified from it, and it suffices to judge the wise ones of names. In short, it’s above my pay grade as they say. And also in Nesivos Shalom he has a Torah about the requirement of sirtut.

In short, so nobody talks here about — I thought a bit about what I saw in… nobody, I can’t say nobody, but there is a distinction in what I saw earlier, but I don’t remember what he says practically. No halachah. Okay, let’s go further.

Sefer Torah itself – does it need sirtut?

Okay, the sefer Torah is not a mitzvah of Torah practically. There are those who say it’s a mitzvah of Torah, but not a mitzvah of Torah. A sefer Torah itself. I don’t know. The simple understanding of Chazal, a chiddush. The Gemara doesn’t say any law. Practically, the Tosafos Ri”d says “like the parchments of Torah.” There is a different version. A different version. There is a different version in the Gemara. The Beis Shlomo Ve’emes says it’s everything.

Right, right. What is the matter? A mitzvah is the root of… a Kohen on top is the… one matter is that it needs to be work done for its sake (lishmah). Okay, just a chiddush. One doesn’t need work done for its sake. It’s also relevant in the tremendous discussion, we don’t have the energy now.

Halachah 9 (continued): Disqualifications in writing the Megillah

The Rambam’s language: “If it was needed for a poor person or for one of his household members, or if he wrote a get for a woman, a heretic — it is disqualified.”

Three ways how it can become disqualified. Paper, meaning not parchment or gvil. Or not processed. Or a non-Jew, or a heretic. Who is a heretic, I don’t know. Then it is disqualified.

Halachah 10: Roshem Nikar – Letters that are not complete

The Rambam’s language: “So, what about if he had letters with the nonsense if they are readable? Yes. So, if there is a recognizable trace, even if most of the letter remains…”

As long as one can still see a trace of the letters, even if they’re faded and covered over. Of each letter. But of each letter there must be a trace. As if each letter can be half. Or like, half of… apparently, because letters aren’t missing. No, no, one must protect. Letters can be missing. But how does it fit with all the other things? They, good.

The foundation – “One who reads by heart does not fulfill the obligation” means only when it’s completely missing

Here we see that what it says “one who reads by heart does not fulfill the obligation” means only — it means only a recognizable trace. A recognizable trace is sufficient. Because there is no law that one must read from writing. The law is only from a weight. Okay. You hear, with the scribe’s letters of the verses and the horn of the uprooted — it stands explicitly. Ah, one meter. Always a recognizable trace, they can even be most of the threads. If there is a recognizable trace, there must be a majority of peace. And then there must be a majority of peace, and if not, it’s fine. If the scribe degraded it entirely, and besides that, now learn the basic test, he doesn’t need to, he has converted.

The scribe forgot letters – reading by heart

The scribe forgot. He forgot to write the verses, it’s very clear, reading by heart. Ah, he read it. It comes here, the Torah must read the whole thing, it doesn’t say in the reading. Interestingly, because the Torah reads itself now, the pieces he reads not from a seat previously stood, that it’s a problem. If smaller pieces, it’s not a problem. Only if it’s a… one already needs to read from a Megillah, but every word of reading they said, no, that’s not written anymore.

Digression: Practical advice about reading the Megillah – “Don’t look too carefully”

Ah, making points of interest, he mentioned yesterday, some Jew, he was with a chacham in a Satmar community, I knew him, in short. So a student writes, what he told him about how to check the reader — he was told, one must check the reader, but not too carefully. Because if one looks too carefully, one doesn’t read from the written text, one reads by heart many times. Because your head already moves faster than your eyes.

What will I bring out? Right, I don’t agree with that person. It doesn’t seem right to me, it doesn’t seem right to me, one must be able to do it so well, it doesn’t seem right to me. No, that doesn’t seem the opposite to me, that means furthermore that it reads to me from writing. You can finish the verse even if you’re not looking at that moment into the sefer. I’ll be ready with proofs.

Proof from the Rambam regarding “reading in order”

I saw earlier by the… I had another proof for this a minute ago. I was standing earlier… Ah, from the Rambam that we discussed about someone who reads in order, and he reads it, he must remember from where he’s reading now, and he intends to fulfill the obligation when he reads then, but the way to call out is also.

Shiur Summary – Rambam Hilchos Megillah, Chapter 2 (continued) – The Ten Sons of Haman, Spread Out Like a Letter, Final Blessing, Prohibition of Eulogies and Fasting, Villagers

Halachah 12: The Ten Sons of Haman in One Breath

Speaker 1: I saw earlier by the… I had another proof for this a minute ago, we were standing earlier… Ah, for the Rambam, when he discussed someone who writes, ah, and he reads it, he must remember from where he’s reading now, he should catch me to fulfill the obligation when he reads then, but a way to call it out he also tells us. But how does one know when he reads then? And there where he places the dagesh, but it doesn’t have truth, because it’s hard to say, an old order cannot say from him how he calls out, it’s a thing that goes quickly. Ah, assembly. It stands for each one, for people who are their lurking, because it stands on the other side of the page, and perhaps one sees the words go who is disturbed that you can’t turn which know the other side, okay. No nonsense, it’s the speaking. You can read a whole page formally, the world through him can one afterward a good speaking. Just like those kingdoms, he says like rap rap rap rap boom boom boom, because he remembered that he was missing some drops, he added the boom boom boom boom, because it had already ended, like rap rap rap rap rap boom boom boom, because something was missing to send. Okay, further.

He must be able with bites, that I can do. Okay, another thing. Okay, okay, it requires a crown, Shaul had all his skin one Megillah. And to read the glory of these garments. Like a sefer Torah… another halachah that is like a sefer Torah? Yom Tov resolution in garments, it seems. But with the canopy. Yom Tov everything for adornments all skin, like a sefer. These are sewing, it will rule prayers in silver the majority, rules son of distress, rules son of distress, cushions, silver the rabbi from above and a letter. A discourse. These are a thing, here it waits the whole thing. Here is enough three three three three, you have a thing for me. Anyway… interesting.

Um, I want to know another halachah. The halachah that we had earlier, that if it is written among the Kesuvim, for example the Torah — when someone makes a sefer Torah, but not only Torah, and he puts into it also Nevi’im and Kesuvim. Would there be a problem that it must be deficient or extra, so one should see that it’s different, so one should see that it’s Torah? It would go like this, a large parchment, one can make the thing like this. Right, practically it’s hard to say such a thing. I understand that a Megillah one can hear practically that a person would make such a sefer, just like one makes Five Megillos booklets. Okay?

Speaker 2: “And some have the custom” — very good.

Speaker 1: “The reader must read the ten sons of Haman and ‘ten’ in one breath, in order to inform everyone that they were all killed at once.”

Discussion: “In order to inform everyone” – Interpretation of the words

Speaker 2: What did the words “in order to inform everyone” add?

Speaker 1: It means to say that it’s a notification, just as the Rambam did by… It means to say that it’s a notification, a simple notification, and it means to say that this is how one learns well but the words.

Speaker 2: How does one learn the words well though? It’s not clear — how does he know this?

Speaker 1: No, what I mean to say is that with this, it’s like an interpretation of the words.

Speaker 2: No, what I mean to say is that reading it all at once is a way of explaining the verse.

Speaker 1: But what he’s saying is that with this one knows that they were received with a single acceptance — that’s the Rambam.

Speaker 2: You’re saying the other things.

Halacha 12 (continued): Unfolds Like a Letter and Rolls It Back Up and Recites the Blessing

Speaker 1: “And the custom of all Israel is that the one who reads the Megillah reads and unfolds it like a letter, and when he finishes he rolls it all back up and recites the blessing.”

And he recites the after-blessing.

Discussion: Why Does He Say “and recites the blessing”?

Speaker 2: What’s coming in here… why does he say “and recites the blessing”? That’s interesting to me.

Speaker 1: Ah, perhaps because he said earlier… one should recite the blessing after…

Speaker 2: No, because in the first chapter it says… he says “harav es riveinu” (Who fights our battles).

Speaker 1: No, no, he says “baruch” (blessed), “yevarech” (he shall bless). As its plain meaning — that all of Israel has the custom to recite a blessing.

Speaker 2: You get it? “Reads and unfolds like a letter.” There are two customs here — what should we not add anything, right?

Speaker 1: No, not two, just one custom. The custom is that…

Speaker 2: No, I’m talking about the customs that the Rambam stated, that one recites the blessing afterward.

Speaker 1: Wait, wait, wait, let’s talk about what one does.

Speaker 2: No, no, there’s another custom — I’ll explain it to you. Here there’s a custom of how does one read the Megillah? One opens up the whole thing, one doesn’t fold it. One doesn’t do as it says here.

Speaker 1: No, there’s a custom that the Rambam… I have the whole thing — most Sephardim do this. They lay it down on a long, long table, and the reader walks along. The reader runs around.

Speaker 2: No, what was difficult for me is that they hang the Megillah around and around on the walls of the synagogue, and the reader runs around.

Speaker 1: That’s not expensive. I’ve seen — you go into a synagogue, they fold it around, they go like this. But he reads it from one end. That’s “like a letter.” You understand?

Digression: David Solomon and History Lectures

And there’s a picture of — I guess — and he’ll be closer, he’ll paint out ancient years. Next, when you go set up each one, everyone will have their place. He’ll set up a column here, a column there.

I don’t know, there’s a David Solomon — I don’t know if you’ve heard him — he gives shiurim on Jewish history. He gives very beautiful shiurim. He comes into a place, a place full of people for a lecture, he writes on the walls all around the hall, because he wants to make — many times his history lessons are like two thousand years of Jewish history — he wants to give you from the slaves. And he writes on the walls all around, and it’s part of the attraction in the yeshiva, because he keeps running around, it’s a large hall, and it also gives a certain picture — you know that the slaves are from here to here, and here is such a long period. He runs around like that and writes on the walls. So, whatever, back to the topic.

Return to the Matter of Unfolding Like a Letter

Speaker 1: Yes, so I was with the Megillot — now what already?

Speaker 2: Well, that’s it. You don’t know when — you take another, another rolling. One day.

Speaker 1: Okay, further. Two days and a night, which are fifty-two.

Speaker 2: Yes?

Speaker 1: By us the custom is not to do the “unfold like a letter” anyway, but I want to understand the… “He rolls it all back up and recites the blessing.”

Discussion: Why One Rolls It Back Before the Blessing

Back to the matter. He wants to say here that one should not recite the blessing before one has finished rolling it back. That’s the important thing here.

Speaker 2: Why?

Speaker 1: What’s the concept here?

Speaker 2: He says that this is the custom of all Israel.

Speaker 1: No, but the “custom of all Israel” doesn’t apply to “and recites the blessing,” because he said earlier that not all of Israel even has the custom of reciting the blessing afterward. The “custom of all Israel” applies to the unfolding like a letter. But there’s something here — a concept that one should recite the blessing after one has rolled it back. Why?

Speaker 2: You can read a letter, you understand? You read a letter, and then you put it back in an envelope.

Speaker 1: Yes, there has to be something more.

Speaker 2: To know that it’s not part of the Megillah.

Speaker 1: There doesn’t have to be something more. Why afterward? I don’t know — I’m telling you what it says.

Speaker 2: Oh, there was a different textual version — one doesn’t need to unfold the whole thing, you already know what. There’s no difference for me from what I’m thinking.

Speaker 1: The Maharal specifically in the commandment. There’s no name of “specifically in the commandment” mentioned here by the way — I think the practical difference is also not elegant. Still, these things are somewhat not… And before the rolling, and the blessing — this is indeed what one does at the Torah reading. It says in the Gemara, as you say, “shelo yomru berachos kesuvos baTorah” — so that they shouldn’t say the blessings are written in the Torah.

Explanation: So They Shouldn’t Say the Blessings Are Written in the Torah

Speaker 2: Ah, very good.

Speaker 1: No, I’m looking at this now further, because he references Hilchos Sefer Torah of the Rambam, chapter 10, Hilchos Tefillah. There were those who did conduct themselves to write the blessings of the Megillah. You know, right? Again, specifically with the Megillah there were plain Megillot that one could buy. “He rolls up the scroll and recites the blessing ‘Who gave us the Torah of truth.'” Very good. It’s the Rambam who says one shouldn’t recite the second blessing while the scroll is open.

Speaker 2: Right, that can be. But there’s another thing, which is that it’s possible that in a Megillah they would indeed write the blessings. There were Megillot with blessings. There’s no prohibition to write the blessings in the Megillah.

Additional Explanation: Honor of the Megillah

Speaker 1: I can understand — I don’t know why — but it’s not respectful to the Megillah, because if you’ve just read the entire Megillah, yes, what are you saying now? “Harav es riveinu”? What are you doing now? Are you making a summary? You’re bringing out the important points of the Megillah? It’s not respectful for… You’re making it like, okay, the first verse is — nobody knows exactly what he’s saying. Now I say, anyway, what matters is that the Almighty “rav es riveinu vedan es dineinu” (fought our battles and judged our judgment). It’s not respectful to the Megillah that you’ve just finished reading.

And perhaps that’s the reason for the honor, because the Rambam says here… okay, I don’t know. I don’t know.

Discussion: Custom of All Israel — What Does It Refer To?

Speaker 2: One can also say that one can imply that indeed the custom of all Israel is to recite the blessing. By the way, in the Gemara it doesn’t say to recite the blessing.

Speaker 1: No, no, but he said earlier clearly that not. It’s from the times of the Gemara.

Speaker 2: The Gemara says so.

Speaker 1: Yes, of course, from the Mishnah. But from the times of the Mishnah until today, the custom of all Israel has changed. Do you know a Jew who doesn’t recite the blessing? I don’t know any Jew who doesn’t recite the blessing. Perhaps that is the custom of all Israel.

Additional Explanation: Burden on the Congregation (Tircha D’Tzibbura)

Speaker 2: Perhaps there’s another idea — that otherwise one won’t roll back the entire Megillah. As soon as they’ve finished, one can go home — are you going to hold up the congregation now? The one who doesn’t have the custom would say it’s a burden on the congregation (tircha d’tzibbura), because once you’ve finished reading the Megillah you can go home. But once there’s this halacha — you need to roll back the entire Megillah anyway — and the Rambam says further that one shouldn’t recite the blessing until one has finished rolling it back, it’s going to take time anyway.

Speaker 1: Well, well. Torah insights. Very good.

Halacha 13: Prohibition of Eulogies and Fasting — the 14th and 15th

Speaker 1: Thirteen. These two days, the 14th and 15th, which are the two primary times of reading, are prohibited for eulogies and fasting everywhere.

The residents of walled cities who don’t observe the 15th in practice, the residents of towns who don’t observe the 15th in practice — both days are prohibited for eulogies and fasting.

Stop, stop. This is forbidden for everyone. The fact that you live in Jerusalem doesn’t mean you can come on the 14th with a “hat.” Prohibited for eulogies and fasting. “Hat” stands for… “hat” equals eulogies (hesped) and fasting (ta’anis). Okay. An acronym. Eulogies and fasting — the acronym is “hat.”

Umm… further… a leap year is not a problem. Seemingly, seemingly it would… yes, a leap year is what I discussed yesterday — a great unity of all Jews, because all Jews read the Megillah on the same day. Very good.

The residents of walled cities, the residents of towns — both days are prohibited for eulogies and fasting, whether the first or the second.

Villagers — Permitted Eulogies and Fasting on Their Reading Day

Villagers who advanced their reading to Monday or Thursday of the days before Purim are permitted eulogies and fasting on their day of reading.

Aha, interesting. It’s not a day of joy. Prohibited for eulogies and fasting, and these two days, but they read on them. Very interesting regarding… it fits with what we learned yesterday — that for the villagers it’s not their Purim. The walled cities have their Purim on a different day. For the villagers, only the mitzvah of reading the Megillah is on a different day. Purim itself remains Purim. But it doesn’t fit with my Torah insight that it all goes together. Okay.

Look, the villagers — you know, they barely know how to read at all, let alone to read in advance — that’s already a secret beyond the mitzvos of the Torah.

Okay.

Halacha 14 (approximately): Mitzvah for Villagers and Town Residents — Joy, Feasting, and Sending Portions

Speaker 1: Mitzvah 12 for villagers and town residents. Says the holy Rambam, the mitzvah is for villagers and town residents on the fourteenth, and for residents of walled cities on the fifteenth. And what is the mitzvah? Why does he start now with such freshness? He already said this, but he wants to wrap it up here. To be a day of joy and feasting and sending portions.

Lecture Notes — Rambam Hilchos Megillah, Chapter 2 (continued) — Halachos 14-16: Joy and Feasting, Work on Purim, Gifts to the Poor, Sending Portions

—

Halacha 14: Mitzvos of the Day — Joy, Feasting, and Sending Portions

Okay.

The mitzvah of the fourteenth day for villagers and town residents — this is the holy Rambam — the mitzvah is for villagers and town residents, and the fifteenth for residents of walled cities. And what is the mitzvah? He starts now with such freshness. He already said this, but he wants to wrap it up. To be a day of joy and feasting and sending portions.

Yes, even for the villagers who don’t read today — today is still the day of feasting and joy. Joy and feasting — not the way we say it. The 14th. It’s very fitting that it’s halacha 14, because he wants to say now that the mitzvah of the 14th day is even for villagers, even if they advanced their reading — the 14th remains the day of joy and all other mitzvos. Yes, it’s a continuation of what he just said. And town residents, and the fifteenth for residents of walled cities. And what is the day? A day of joy and feasting. In the Megillah it says “feasting and joy,” no? There are other Rambams that use the expression “joy and feasting.”

Okay, good question. Ah, there’s a Tosafos Yom Tov that discussed “joy and feasting.” It was written “feasting and joy” — a different expression, “feasting and joy.” Sending portions to friends and gifts to the poor.

Insight: “Joy and Feasting” vs. “Feasting and Joy” — The Order of Expression in the Rambam

Very good. “Feasting and joy” — it was said that the feasting brings joy, right? You drink and that’s how you’re joyful. The Rambam perhaps held that joy brings feasting, huh? No, because the Rambam held that joy doesn’t mean the excitement after drinking. That is some kind of drunkenness, it’s some other kind of thing, it’s some kind of frivolity, it’s a looseness — which is also important on Purim. But the essential joy — the Rambam’s is a much more balanced, calm joy.

Whatever it is, yes, it’s a general observation, general. Very good. And sending portions to friends and gifts to the poor. Very good.

It was said that we’ll perhaps ask about it further. Very good.

Reading the Megillah — you say a Torah insight — can we repeat the Torah insight? No.

—

Halacha 14 (continued): Work on Purim — “He Will Not See a Sign of Blessing”

And one is permitted to do work. Can we add rhymes? A little glass. And one is permitted to do work, although it is not fitting to do work on it. He says — we discussed earlier that the permission for fasting is a permission, but doing work — one doesn’t see… So far: The Sages said, anyone who does work on the day of Purim…

Discussion: What Does “He Will Not See a Sign of Blessing” Mean?

It’s interesting — all the commentators say that he won’t see a sign of blessing, but I mean, when the Gemara says regarding someone who does work on Chol HaMoed (the intermediate days of a festival), does it mean only from what he did now, or from… do you remember the Gemara has such a question? Like, someone who does work — does it mean from what he’s doing now approximately, or does it mean in general — that he’ll die poor? Permitted work. So one needs to know here too whether it means…

You’re not capable. This is a very smart thing from the Sages. They say: I know, you have a tough business, you need to close the deal. But let’s be real — when will the deal go better? All the Jews are dancing in shul, and you’re making business deals now.

Another thing — what do they say about someone whose job is providing food… The whole answer for the villagers is because they’re busy providing food. No, I’m telling you — you see that this is taken into account; food providers have an important position. Work here doesn’t mean the baker — it could mean just some other work. Someone whose job is… I mean, there are halachos where a distinction is made, no? Someone who does work — they probably don’t mean the Jew who cooks fish for the town. That’s not labor here, because he’s part of the joy of the holiday. Right, not labor. He means going to work. No, it means work. No, doing work means the work, yes. Someone who does work doesn’t mean to say that there’s such a stringency of not doing work like, for example, [Shabbos] work.

You’re not allowed to drive when you’re drunk, and on Purim everyone is presumed drunk. But the thing itself — men don’t work on Purim. Women don’t know this. Women don’t conduct themselves this way. Yes, there’s a whole interesting thing — “their festive days” cause loss. No blessing. However, from here we learn that the whole year one does have a blessing from work. On Purim one has no sign of blessing. One can learn from the negative the positive (michlal lav hen). The whole year when a Jew works, he does have a sign of blessing.

Insight: “He Will Not See a Sign of Blessing” — He Will Never Enjoy

No, I said something different. The Jew has no sign of blessing — why? Because in the whole city he travels, they still see how he works. That’s how it goes through an entire life.

He’ll never enjoy. He won’t enjoy the sign of the blessing. He’ll keep making more and more money, but he’ll never enjoy it. Because if he doesn’t enjoy Purim, what will he enjoy? When he makes a wedding, he’ll also be busy carrying thank-you notes from the wedding. Okay. Yes? Not a bad interpretation. It’s a fact — it’s not like a general rule. Yes? Someone is such a type of person who never sees a sign of blessing — he’s perpetually stressed. Purim is also pressure for him. Okay.

Question: Fundraisers on Purim

One needs to know — fundraisers whose work is fundraising — it becomes a big question. Because on Purim they’re still busy with their work and their labor, and it includes a lot of people. No? He explains why many of them never see a sign of blessing.

Source: She’iltos of Rav Achai and Hagahos Maimuniyos

The concept of “he won’t see a sign of blessing” is from the She’iltos. The Gemara says there that Rav Litaya asked, or Rav — what he shows him. The She’iltos says that whoever transgresses receives the curse that Rav swore: “regarding throwing, pulling, and the ten lashes.” And there the Gemara says it was in a certain place where it was forbidden. It’s interesting. Yes, but since the Rambam says “the Sages said” in general, the Hagahos Maimuniyos adds that in that Gemara they’re only speaking about someone who deviates from the local custom.

Although one should know that the Rambam may have learned differently, the not seeing a sign of blessing is not exclusively from the She’iltos. Rav Achai learned it that way, or however the Hagahos Maimuniyos brings further.

Ah, they say that quarrels continue — it says that the custom is not to do the… What? Reading of the marriage contract tablets is here. I don’t know — let’s move on.

—

Villagers — Advancing Gifts to the Poor vs. Feasting and Joy

We already learned about villagers. Villagers who advanced their reading on Monday or Thursday — if they distributed gifts to the poor on their day of reading, they fulfilled their obligation; if not, they did not fulfill it. But feasting and joy — if they advanced it, they did not fulfill it. Feasting and joy cannot be advanced — only at the proper time.

Right, I can understand very well, because gifts to the poor — at most he gave a Jew charity on the wrong day, not such a falsehood. And the Sephardic siddur that we wrote above — but what he says, that this is the custom of all Israel, comes from the halachos of Rav Hai Gaon, which he cites.

Okay. Very good. Next halacha. The Sephardic siddur that we wrote above — but feasting and joy are never practiced if a distinguished person is not obligated in it. What the meaning of this is, I don’t know. In any case, it must be during the day.

—

Halacha 15: The Purim Feast – How This Obligation of a Meal Works

Okay. “How is this obligation of a meal fulfilled? One should eat meat and prepare a fine meal according to what one can afford.” “Fine” is not an adjective; “fine” means according to what one can afford — what it means is beautiful and nice. What does beautiful and nice mean? A rich person according to his wealth, and a poor person according to his poverty. Yes, there’s no fixed measure. Ah, very good. “And one should drink wine until one becomes intoxicated and falls asleep in one’s drunkenness.” And then he may read the Megillah, just as we learned earlier that one may.

—

Halacha 16: Sending Portions (Mishloach Manos)

“And similarly, a person is obligated to send two portions of meat, or two types of cooked food, or two types of food to his friend, as it says, ‘and sending portions, each man to his fellow’ — two portions to one person. And whoever increases in sending to friends, this is praiseworthy. And if one doesn’t have [enough], one exchanges with one’s friend — this one sends his meal to that one, and that one sends his meal to this one — in order to fulfill ‘and sending portions, each man to his fellow.'” Very good. That means mishloach — there’s a hidden condition here that I give it to you on the condition that you give to me. That’s the Gemara; the case is the halacha in the Gemara, but it’s exchanging the act. One needs to understand what’s working here.

—

Halacha 16 (continued): Gifts to the Poor (Matanos La’evyonim)

Okay. “And similarly, one is obligated to distribute to the poor on the day of Purim.” What does one distribute? “No fewer than two poor people, giving each one a gift — either money, or types of cooked food, or types of food — because it says ‘and gifts to the poor’ — two gifts to two poor people.”

He says, once you need to have Mussaf Purim, because the “whoever extends his hand, we give to him” was Mussaf Purim.

Lecture Summary – Rambam, Laws of Megillah, Chapter 2 (continued) – Gifts to the Poor (continued), One Does Not Redirect Purim Money, Joy of the Poor, “Destined to Be Nullified,” Ra’avad, Sending Portions

—

Halacha 16 (continued): Gifts to the Poor – “We Are Not Exacting with Purim Money”

Rambam’s language: “No fewer than two poor people, and one gives each one a gift — either money, or types of cooked food, or types of food — as it says ‘gifts to the poor,’ two gifts to two poor people. And we are not exacting with Purim money; rather, whoever extends his hand to take, we give to him.”

This rhymes with the “we are not exacting” regarding “Yehudim,” “Yehudiyim.” You understand? A Jew, one Jew, a Jew with two Jews — it’s all the same Jew; he’s asking for money. A non-Jew comes along pretending to be a Jew, but we’re not exacting — “whoever extends his hand to take, we give to him.”

Yes, the world talks about fundraising reasons, and they have a funny mistake. They think it’s an obligation that for everyone who asks, one must give. It doesn’t mean it’s a leniency. It means, the “gifts to the poor” — ah, one fulfills the obligation with this. One doesn’t wait until one is sure he’s a mehudar (exemplary) pauper. Whoever extends his hand, whoever comes… but one has fulfilled the obligation. Roughly what the world understands — that on Purim one should be generous-hearted, and one doesn’t bother people to ask “who are you?” So, blessed be God that the… But the whole year too, because the Gemara says that “unworthy poor people” exist for a reason — to give a person a certain shelter. Billy, it’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

Discussion: A Non-Jew Who Asks – “We Sustain the Poor of the Nations Along with the Poor of Israel”

No, because I just had this — I saw on some large group someone posted, “be aware” that he saw in such-and-such a parking lot someone going around asking for money, and he became aware that it was a non-Jew. I don’t understand! Yankl, don’t learn rulings, a halacha — it says everywhere, “we sustain the poor of the nations along with the poor of Israel,” and it says “whoever extends his hand” — just stop with this craziness! It’s terrible that a non-Jew received a couple of dollars. It’s also no fantasy of people that one receives thousands there; it’s three hundred dollars from a city that he doesn’t need it, well.

“Purim Money” – A Separate Category

Okay, further. “And we are not exacting with Purim money; rather, whoever extends his hand to take, we give to him.” The term “Purim money” is a bit interesting, no? It’s not the laws of charity; it’s “Purim money.” It comes in addition to other charity. One needs to use it for Purim. It’s Purim money. This money is something more joyful; this money doesn’t take itself so seriously. Purim money.

I understand that essentially “sending portions and gifts to the poor” is a… sending portions is for your friend, but sending portions are things… no, it’s one… How can you actually look at it as a basic Torah concept, just as the Torah says, for example, Shabbos. Shabbos doesn’t only mean you should rest from labor, but your servants and everyone should now benefit. Purim comes, a beautiful day, a day of joy, so there’s also an expansion of mitzvos.

There’s a certain atmosphere of Purim. The atmosphere includes that one should read the Megillah, one speaks about the miracle, and there should be an expansiveness — one should distribute charity, one should share food, drink.

“And One Does Not Redirect Purim Money to Other Charity”

“And one does not redirect Purim money to other charity” — for this reason today, because… why? Again, “and one does not redirect Purim money to other charity.” What’s the concept? Seemingly, the opposite! If it’s other charity, I should be more stringent, so why isn’t it just “we elevate in holiness”? He says no, as if because this is the very virtue. So that’s the point, as it were.

I’ll say again: you could think the opposite — redirect it to other charity which is even better, because the whole year we are indeed more exacting, so when the money goes away on a more serious day, it will better reach a poor person. They say no — the part of today’s day is that it should be designated for Purim.

And I can understand the heart and mind of this person, because once you tell him “Purim money,” he’s now received a burst and he says, “I actually want, in honor of this, to give on a green Tuesday with settled deliberation.” Okay.

—

Halacha 17: “For There Is No Greater and More Splendid Joy Than to Gladden the Hearts of the Poor, Orphans, Widows, and Converts”

Gifts to the poor — this is the important Rambam. Gifts to the poor. I mean, people think that “there is no” means, as if there’s no name of joy, one can’t write… “For there is no greater and more splendid joy than to gladden the hearts of the poor, orphans, widows, and converts.”

What does it say before and after this? Doesn’t it say that this is the task of the Almighty? This is the verse in “For thus says the High and Lofty One who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with the contrite and humble of spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble and to revive the heart of the crushed.” How do I dwell? Where one resembles the Divine Presence. What is the language of “destined”? That one day we will see it clearly. Why specifically? It’s not exactly the plain meaning of the verse, but the Kabbalistic tradition, as the Rama MiPano and others taught, is that the Almighty dwells with the “reviving the spirit of the humble and reviving the heart of the crushed.”

Not a Law of Sending Portions – A Law of the Feast

So we know that this is not a law regarding sending portions; rather, it’s as the Rambam says, “every Yom Tov, when you eat and drink, you are obligated to feed the convert, the orphan, and the widow.” It’s a law regarding a feast. It’s a law that when you make a great feast, you celebrate a Shabbos… okay, for Shabbos one needs to know if it’s the same category — but you celebrate a great feast, one cannot make it for oneself alone. “There is no joy except the joy of one’s community.”

But why does he say here “great and splendid joy”? I have a connection between the joy of one’s community and the joy of Yom Tov. But here he doesn’t say the reverse — that if not, it’s a flawed thing. One needs to know: this is so regarding Yom Tov, it’s even stricter than regarding…

—

Halacha 18: “All the Books of the Prophets and Writings Are Destined to Be Nullified in the Messianic Era, Except for Megillas Esther”

“All the books of the Prophets and Writings are destined to be nullified in the Messianic era, except for Megillas Esther.” Except. This is a halacha. I think this has to do with “reviving the spirit of the humble.” Because all the Prophets and Writings… but Megillas Esther, which helps broken Jews — this is the thing that remains forever, because this is the Almighty, who is forever.

“And the fundamental halachos of the Oral Torah — they are hinted at in the Mishneh Torah, and the halachos of the Oral Torah are never nullified.” Another thing he says — the second thing he means: “Even though all remembrance of troubles will be nullified” — what happens with all the other mitzvos that are more allusively mentioned in the Prophets and Writings?

Discussion: What About Mitzvos in the Writings?

There are no other mitzvos from the Prophets.

Mitzvos from “If you turn back your foot from the Shabbos” — I know, many mitzvos that have…

But why is that weaker than halacha of the Oral Torah?

There’s only one mitzvah in all of Writings.

Which mitzvah?

Megillas Esther.

But what about the mitzvos in Writings that the Rambam has already enumerated?

“Remember your Creator” — there isn’t.

There isn’t, there’s no mitzvah that anyone would count.

There’s precisely a mitzvah written there, but there isn’t — but it will certainly appear in Tractate Shabbos.

Ah, so the mitzvah from it doesn’t depend on the verses?

Not at all.

Even the mitzvah of Esther — perhaps one can’t say that — but the story is illuminated there, because one needs to have the story.

Interesting.

Purim – Remembrance of Troubles or Remembrance of Salvation?

“Moreover, all remembrance of troubles will be nullified, as it says, ‘For the former troubles are forgotten and they are hidden from My eyes.'”

What’s the connection of this verse?

It’s like “They will no longer say, ‘As the Lord lives [who brought up Israel from Egypt].'”

Ah, Isaiah, yes.

They will forget all troubles.

“And the days of Purim will not be nullified, as it says, ‘And these days of Purim shall not pass from among the Jews, and their memory shall not cease from their descendants.'”

What is the meaning of this Midrash?

It’s saying that Purim is a remembrance of troubles?

Purim is more — part of it is the remembrance of troubles, but most of it is the remembrance of salvation.

The “and so-and-so, our enemies sought to destroy us.”

Purim is different from all other holidays, in that practically nothing actually happened to the Jews.

And on Pesach they suffered greatly, but not enough that they would actually perish.

Purim is different.

The least — Purim mentions the least of the troubles, yes.

Chanukah — the Beis HaMikdash was already destroyed, and they caused much destruction.

Trouble — I mean the entire exile, the entire being in exile.

—

Ra’avad’s Critique – “This Is a Foolish Statement”

The Ra’avad comes in with a strong expression: “This is a foolish statement.”

A very classic, beautiful way of the author’s way of the Smachtos. Yes, he means that. This is a… the source is the Rambam. The Rambam is a good source. Yes, it’s a clear Mishnah he brings, that the Gemara switches the section here.

Practical Difference for Sending Portions – “Destined to Be Nullified”

This is what Rashi says: one year he ate at his place on Purim, and the next year the other one came to eat at his place on Purim. But this doesn’t fit with the Rambam’s halacha. One cannot fulfill the mitzvah of sending portions [this way]. But later, until one [fulfills it]. Yes, in this the Rambam says the approach of “I send to him and he sends to me.” When? Each one fulfilled the obligation only one year. One cannot fulfill one year for the next year. Because I eat now so that I can give you back next year.

And on this they say — ah, this can only be done if it’s not destined to be nullified. Because if it’s destined to be nullified, one cannot now fulfill the mitzvah of sending portions with the thought that next year I’ll give to you. Because perhaps it will be nullified next year — a holiday won’t return, the oath — but we know that it won’t be nullified, so one can even with one year [rely] on the next.

Pesach Versus Purim – “Whoever Is Hungry, Let Him Come and Eat”

On Pesach one cannot, because one cannot on any Pesach either. I don’t know. Yes, on Pesach we say clearly, “Whoever is hungry, let him come and eat,” but only this year — however, “Next year in the Land of Israel.” One doesn’t have any… Ah, here the Torah speaks — Purim. One doesn’t need to pray every year. On Pesach one doesn’t need to invite guests every year. On Pesach one needs to freshly let in every year — you hear? On Pesach one needs to let in guests the whole time. Why? Next year? Next year we’ll already be going.

But Purim? This year I’m a needy person, this year I’m not going to share, this year I want to eat at my friend’s. With that I fulfill the mitzvah. If it…

And even from the side of the recipient, it shouldn’t be lost.

In contrast to Pesach — if I don’t share this year, next year I’ll be in the Land of Israel.

Purim Versus Pesach: Letting In Guests – The Distinction Between One-Time and Ongoing Responsibility

On Purim One Doesn’t Need to Invite Every Year – On Pesach One Needs to Freshly Let In Every Year

On Purim one doesn’t need to invite every year… On Pesach one doesn’t need to invite guests every year. On Pesach one needs to freshly let in every year… you hear? On Pesach one needs to let in guests the whole time. Because what about next year? Next year I won’t be here.

But Purim — this year I’m a needy person, this year I’m not going to share, this year I’m going to eat at my friend’s, and with that I fulfill the mitzvah. If a Jew is one year on Purim on the receiving side, it shouldn’t be lost, because Purim doesn’t go further.

The Deeper Distinction: Fluid Situation on Pesach Versus One-Time Fulfillment on Purim

In contrast to Pesach — if I don’t share this year, next year I’ll be a poor person; there will no longer be any poor people.