Laws of the Megillah, Chapter 1, Law 1 (Auto Translated)

Laws of Megillah and Chanukah – Introduction and Law 1

The Rambam’s Introduction: Structure and Enumeration of Commandments

Speaker 1:

So we’ve been learning the Laws of Megillah and Chanukah, but essentially, you understand, when it says “Laws of Megillah and Chanukah” in the heading, you need to split it into two. There are Laws of Megillah and Laws of Chanukah. He made them under one name. It’s four chapters — he could have made two and two.

It’s only in one line, but it’s not under one name. It doesn’t mean to say “Laws of Megillah and Chanukah” as one unit, no. It means to say, you know, Laws of Megillah, and then after that there’s Chanukah. It’s a small… He made Laws of Megillah two chapters, Laws of Chanukah two chapters, separately. He just put them in one section.

Speaker 2:

No, but that is the case, because he writes here below, “yikhlelu shtei mitzvot aseh” — that both together are two positive commandments. Okay, that’s very good.

Discussion: Comparison to Laws of Eruvin – “One Commandment” versus “Two Commandments”

Speaker 1:

In matters of rabbinic origin (midivrei sofrim), by Eruvin we discussed this. It’s interesting, because by Eruvin it said “vehi mitzvah achat midivrei sofrim” — “and it is one commandment of rabbinic origin.” And they tried to understand, and the Maggid Mishneh said that essentially these are two different enactments. So what does “one commandment of rabbinic origin” mean? That both involve merging through a post (merav b’pas), that both come to introduce a novelty. And the Rambam says to understand that the essence is that everything — the main point is that the sages initiated the prohibitions: the prohibition of going out beyond the boundary (techum), which they established, which is essentially not biblical at all, and the prohibition of going out from the courtyard or from the alley. And the rabbinic commandment is that with one post, one resolves all these matters. But essentially these are a couple of different… The reason the Rambam says “one commandment” is because it’s not really relevant — what’s relevant is how many rabbinic commandments there are.

So essentially here too, he also wouldn’t have said that there are two positive commandments. So what’s the logic of saying about Chanukah and Purim that it’s one commandment? They’re two different time periods, they have no connection to each other, two different types of actions.

But one can better say my answer, that these are essentially two separate sets of laws. Just as it says “Laws of Megillah and Chanukah.” Right, they have no connection. But he said, “I am including here two commandments.”

Speaker 2:

Ah, if so, he admits that they weren’t really meant to go as two separate commandments.

Speaker 1:

No, no, my answer is that this is essentially — there are two different ways of organizing laws. Yes, you can make one volume that has two sets of laws. For example, a person says a book, it says on it “Laws of Megillah and Chanukah.” He means to say that there are… Nobody asks my question — why did he put both topics of Megillah in one volume? Because he sees in both matters… when he sees in both topics, he looks at Megillah, he looks at the topics.

The reason why he writes an enumeration of commandments at all is because his laws are organized such that each set of laws is based on a commandment, and it was difficult for him to write a set of laws. A set of laws comes with a heading, “its commandments shall come.”

Speaker 2:

No, but I’m telling you the distinction — why by Laws of Eruvin he goes… he gave a long introduction. Why here did he do something different.

Speaker 1:

No, that’s not the real reason. The real reason is because Laws of Eruvin is one set of laws. All the laws are one set of laws. Even if I learn with you — there are many Laws of Eruvin, and this is one of them. There isn’t one book called “Laws of Chanukah and Megillah.” There is one book, one volume, but there isn’t one set of laws. Just as you say, they have no connection. It’s not just casually placed together. Laws of Eruvin, let’s say it this way — Laws of Eruvin could have been called “Laws of Eruv in Courtyards, Eruv of Boundaries.” It’s not called that way, it’s called Laws of Eruvin. So it’s one commandment of eruvin. Here it could also have been called “Laws of…” I don’t know, “Laws of Minor Holidays.” I don’t know, “Laws of What’s Biblical, What’s Rabbinic.”

Discussion: What Unifies Megillah and Chanukah?

Speaker 2:

What one can actually think about is — what unifies these two commandments? What unifies these two commandments is that both involve praise and thanksgiving (shevach v’hodaah) or publicizing the miracle (pirsumei nisa). Which the Rambam himself identifies as unifying both in Sefer HaMitzvot, right?

Speaker 1:

No, but how the Rambam himself identifies them as unified — both in the beginning of Laws of Chanukah, end of Law 3? “And the reading would benefit him, and similarly women are obligated in reading the Megillah, and similarly in lighting the Chanukah candle, and all positive time-bound commandments, etc., and similarly positive commandments of rabbinic origin, such as reading the Megillah, and the Chanukah candle, and kiddush of the day, and eruv.”

Speaker 2:

No, end of Law 3, “and all positive commandments of rabbinic origin, such as reading the Megillah.”

Speaker 1:

No, that’s the twenty-eighth.

Speaker 2:

That both are forbidden in eulogies and fasting, and both have a rabbinic commandment. Not with the thirty commandments. Both have a rabbinic commandment, and both involve publicizing the miracle (pirsumei nisa).

Speaker 1:

No, he doesn’t say that though. He doesn’t explicitly state that both are commandments of rabbinic origin. Here to light Chanukah candles, and here to read the Megillah. These are the two commandments he discusses here in the introduction.

Discussion: Why Only Two Commandments? What About Sending Gifts and Gifts to the Poor?

Speaker 2:

It’s actually a bit interesting. Why is it… there’s more. There is, for example… Why doesn’t he say reading the Megillah, sending food portions (mishloach manot), gifts to the poor (matanot la’evyonim)?

Speaker 1:

No, no, there isn’t.

Speaker 2:

Perhaps he does mean both, because the Maggid Mishneh gives an answer that…

Speaker 1:

There is more than one rabbinic commandment.

But he states explicitly, “shtei mitzvot aseh” — two positive commandments. Only one commandment in practice. The other things are just ancillary. Just like anything — it practically interferes with being a commandment.

Speaker 2:

So what does he mean with the words “a commandment of rabbinic origin — reading the Megillah”? Doesn’t it mean something more?

Speaker 1:

No, it would have been… He means to say that it is only a commandment of rabbinic origin, and nothing more. But perhaps he’s building on this — he says beforehand “twenty-one conditions.” The essence of the day — what makes something a holiday, a day with the framework of the rabbis? The holiday here becomes “twenty-one conditions.” Here, the commandment is specific. Your reading and everything is a specific matter. Okay.

The Structure of the Mishneh Torah – Each Set of Laws Begins with a Commandment

Speaker 1:

And the main answer is — I think I said this regarding the Rambam — every set of laws, this is the structure of his book. The structure of his book is that everything begins with a commandment, and then the law follows. And here it begins with a rabbinic commandment, which is an exception. This is the only one — I mean, the only one besides Laws of Eruvin — this is the only set of laws that is built on rabbinic commandments. All other sets of laws, even when they involve commandments, they are not built on rabbinic commandments. They are like laws — like Laws of Neighbors, Laws of Acquisition, Laws of Partnerships, Laws of various matters.

But regarding this, in the beginning he states which commandments they are, and these are the two rabbinic commandments. But that’s all.

“From Which Enumeration” – The Rambam’s Checklist

Speaker 1:

And “from which enumeration” (me’eizeh minyan) is simply a note. It’s also not a law, it’s a note, because he made a book. Why does he write at the beginning “the laws of the commandments”? And he counts each time, “one, I have composed a commandment,” and sometimes… “Me’eizeh minyan” means that it corresponds with the enumeration that I calculated in Sefer HaMitzvot. So he points from that enumeration. This is a note for himself. I’m writing you a book, and the way I write this book is — I made a list of 613, and I’m going to mark each one. So I’m going to check each time. It’s good what you did, you need to check. “Me’eizeh minyan” means “from which enumeration,” or does it mean “enumeration”? But it means that one needs to check it. One needs to check it.

And when he goes to check — and I’m almost certain that sometimes he reached the end of some section, and he saw, and he checked the enumeration again, “Oh, I forgot something.” It was written in too quickly, and the commandment belongs in the wrong place. Because he gave it a quick push in — “Oh, I forgot the commandment of ceasing from work” — I don’t know, it’s not a good example — “I forgot the commandment of eruv.” Okay, let’s push it in here. Here he says, don’t get confused, because there are two commandments missing. No, this isn’t part of the enumeration, these are the rabbinic ones, these are extra calculations. By the way, this is the main use of the enumeration — so that one should know that one hasn’t forgotten any. But it’s also a sign that in practice, he didn’t place more value on the book covering all the laws — he didn’t first calculate all 613 commandments and then go add a few rabbinic ones at the end of the book, because he wants it to be a book of law, right. It’s an art that it should be a composition of Sefer HaMitzvot, but it should also cover all important laws and mention all important matters that appear in the Gemara. Yes, it’s interesting.

Discussion: The Order of the Mishneh Torah – Laws by Order, Not by Biblical/Rabbinic

Speaker 2:

Or the other way around. The other way around. You mean the reverse — that among all the laws, the 613 commandments should emerge?

Speaker 1:

He wants to say all 613 commandments. I want to say all 613 commandments, but I’m saying — he didn’t make the book so that when he finishes all 613 commandments, he then takes up the few rabbinic ones. He inserted the rabbinic ones where they belong, because all commandments go in because the book is arranged according to the order of laws.

But just to be clear, he did have — they say he had a check, right? He had a check to make sure he includes all 613 commandments. He did not have a check to make sure he includes all Mishnayot and all Gemaras. From this come many “omissions of the Rambam.” If the Rambam had had a list of every statement of the Sages and then checked, one could ask a question about the Rambam’s omission. But he doesn’t have such a question, because he didn’t have such a list. An omission can only be questioned regarding what he himself built, regarding what he himself established as the list. But furthermore, if he had remembered and something had come out clearly — but in general, he was flesh and blood, he had to calculate. Here he says, the 613 commandments are a checklist of the Rambam to make sure he writes everything.

And he is correct that we will indeed discuss here much more than 613 commandments, because he found a way to squeeze almost everything into the 613 commandments.

Law 1 – Reading the Megillah in Its Time

Speaker 1:

Okay, so. The explanation of commandment number one — there are the chapters, this is the… It’s a positive commandment of rabbinic origin. He says that these are well-known matters that are enactments of the prophets. This is the… how far it fell. Okay, reading the Megillah in its time… he writes later… ah, ah, sorry. Reading the Megillah in its time is a positive commandment of rabbinic origin.

Law 1. Reading the Megillah in its time — reading the Megillah at its proper time, and we will soon say what the time is, the days of Purim — is a positive commandment of rabbinic origin. This is not a biblical positive commandment, it’s simply a commandment of learning Torah, or matters that…

Speaker 2:

No, one moment, there is — because he’s going to see that the Chatam Sofer is… yes, because he’s going to elaborate on the times, the time for villages and the time for… Okay.

Discussion: “Well-Known Matters” – What Does This Mean?

Speaker 1:

“Vehadvarim yedu’im shetiknumun haneviyim” — “And these are well-known matters that the prophets enacted.” What does he mean by “well-known matters” (devarim yedu’im)? What is “known”? Does he mean the Gemara? No, “known” — the prophets. What is “known” about the prophets? Apparently in Megillat Esther itself.

By prophets he means simply Megillat Esther. But by prophets does he mean Mordechai and Esther, or does he mean what the Gemara says — that the Men of the Great Assembly — what does the Gemara say?

Apparently he means Mordechai and Esther, yes. Because when he says “well-known matters,” he apparently means the Megillah. He means to say that everyone knows the verse — it says in the verse that one must read the Megillah. Actually, it doesn’t say that — this is a big problem.

Speaker 2:

No, but “well-known matters” — because in the Megillah itself it says that all the Jews accepted it.

Discussion: Where Does It Say in the Megillah That One Should Read the Megillah?

Speaker 1:

Where does it say to read the Megillah in the Megillah? In reading the Megillah (mikra Megillah), one of the commandments… In the blessing. It’s printed in the Megillah — the blessing on reading the Megillah. But where does it say to read the Megillah in the Megillah? It doesn’t say. I think it does say, at the end of the Megillah, “veha’yamim ha’eileh nizkarim vena’asim” — “and these days are remembered and observed.” “Remembered” (nizkarim) means this — that one should mention them, “and observed” (vena’asim) in every generation. This is how the holy Gemara learns it. Or is that not the holy Gemara? No, that’s not the holy Gemara. That’s not the plain meaning (peshat), apparently.

But he wants to emphasize something else. When the Rambam says in Laws of Megillah, with a certain calmness, with a certain settled mind, without needing to start thinking about what’s going to be here, what’s going to be there.

Laws of Megillah and Chanukah – Continuation of Introduction: “Enactment of the Prophets” and “Well-Known Matters”

Where Does It Say in the Megillah That One Should Read the Megillah?

Speaker 1: But when he says “divrei hayamim” (chronicles), he apparently means the Megillah. And he means to say that everyone knows the verse — it says in the verse that they indeed accepted to read the Megillah. Actually, it doesn’t say that — this is a big problem.

Speaker 2: It does say “divrei hayamim” though, because in the Megillah itself it says that all the Jews accepted it. It says that one should read the Megillah, doesn’t it?

Speaker 1: In reading the Megillah (mikra Megillah), one of the commandments.

Speaker 2: In the blessing — it’s already printed in the Megillah, the blessing on reading the Megillah. But where does it say to read the Megillah in the Megillah?

Speaker 1: It doesn’t say. I think it does say, at the end of the Megillah, “veha’yamim ha’eileh nizkarim vena’asim” — “and these days are remembered and observed.” “Remembered” (nizkarim) means this — that one should mention them, “and observed” (vena’asim) in every generation. This is how the holy Gemara learns it. But that’s not the plain meaning (peshat), apparently.

Why Does the Rambam Emphasize “Enactment of the Prophets”?

A Theme in the Rambam – He Likes to Mention the Ancient Source

Speaker 1: He wants to emphasize something else. When the Rambam says, for example, that one is not exempt from the rabbinic obligation of Shabbat delight (oneg Shabbat), he says immediately, “mipi hashmua lamdu shezeh hu oneg she’amru haneviyim” — “from the oral tradition they learned that this is the delight that the prophets spoke of.” Also in Laws of Eruvin he says — what is permitted of rabbinic origin, he says immediately that this is from King Solomon.

So you see there’s a theme in this — that he likes to say that the definition of it is a commandment of rabbinic origin, but the rabbinic origin itself can be a commandment that Rav Ashi made or that Shem ben Noach made. In the essential nature there’s no difference in the definition, but it’s earlier — it’s earlier in time and in stature.

Speaker 2: What? What difference is there?

Speaker 1: What — one needs to think about it. I don’t know if there’s a practical legal difference here. But both are not biblical, it’s not even a prohibition to say that it’s biblical. It’s significant because it’s old and… Maybe it just makes it very obvious that it’s…

Interpretation: Acceptance by All of Israel Gives Authority

Speaker 2: One can also learn according to the Rambam. The Rambam says that what gives authority to the enactments of the Sages is that all of Israel (klal Yisrael) accepted them. And in this he says that the Gemara has great authority.

Speaker 1: That’s not from the Sages anyway.

Speaker 2: He says there’s no difference between the Torah… He also doesn’t say that this is what gives authority. He adds that.

Speaker 1: No, no, I said that the Gemara gives authority — which is as if it were written by the Sanhedrin — but he doesn’t say that the Jews accepted it, he doesn’t mention it with pleasure?

Speaker 2: No, I think perhaps the word he says — “ve’ein devarim yedu’im shel takanot haneviyim” — he means to say that the point is that all of Israel accepted it. Okay, you know, all of Israel accepted it — it’s already more than a derivation, not exactly a derivation.

Main Interpretation: “Prophets” Proves It’s Not Biblical

Speaker 1: He means to say — he means to emphasize that it’s a rabbinic enactment, and it’s only a rabbinic enactment. Because these are two things that are always important. On the other hand, it’s only a rabbinic enactment, but it’s a very old rabbinic enactment.

I think that “prophets” makes it more significant. No, it doesn’t make it more significant — on the contrary, perhaps it makes it clearer that it’s not biblical. Because everyone knows that a prophet is not the Torah. If it were the Sages, you might catch yourself saying…

Speaker 2: We think that the prophets are better than the Sages, but that’s not true.

Speaker 1: According to the Rambam, the prophets only make it clearer that it’s the Sages. Because when the Sages say a certain law, one might say they understand it this way in the Torah, they received it this way from the Torah. But prophets are not allowed to state laws at all. The prophets are not allowed to say at all — if you look in all of the Prophets and Writings, when the Torah can state laws.

When the Sages — if they hadn’t said where they derive it from, one could have thought it’s from the Sages. But once you know it’s from the Torah (d’Oraisa), you yourself derive it from something. But once you know that the Sages take it from the Megillah, and the Megillah is after all the words of the Prophets (divrei ha-nevi’im).

If it’s solely from the Megillah, exactly, it must be that it’s a rabbinic enactment (takanas chachamim). Because anything — just to be clear — anything that you find in the Prophets (Nevi’im) must be a rabbinic enactment, otherwise he would have been a false prophet (navi sheker). It can’t even be the plain meaning (pshat) of the verse, because a prophet has no right to say pshat in a verse — only in the capacity of a sage (chacham), but not in the capacity of a prophet. A sage can say pshat in a verse, but not a prophet.

Speaker 2: Seemingly, the introduction of who is a prophet is itself from the words of the Scribes (divrei sofrim).

Speaker 1: Yes, the Sages enacted that Esther should be read as prophecy. So seemingly, I’m thinking now that what he means when he emphasizes that it’s from the Prophets, he simply means there that it’s not from the Torah (d’Oraisa).

And just as he said in the Sefer HaMitzvos, remember? By Chanukah, right? He said, can it be that Moses said there would be the story of the Greeks? That means, since we know the story — it’s even written in the Chumash — we know, it clearly states that it happened in the time of Mordechai and Esther, it didn’t happen in the time of Moses our teacher. So it’s clear that this is an enactment of the Prophets (takanas nevi’im) and not a law from Moses our teacher.

Speaker 2: Right. Makes sense?

Speaker 1: Yes.

Another Possibility: The Rambam’s Method – Torah SheBiksav First

Speaker 1: Right. It could also be — this is one thing I was thinking — but I believe that what you said is the true plain meaning. But another thing could be that we learned in the Rambam’s introduction that the Rambam designed it so that one should learn the Written Torah (Torah SheBiksav) first and then the book [Mishneh Torah], correct?

Speaker 2: Right.

Speaker 1: So what does a person know before he learns Rambam? He knows all the verses. So it’s clear that you mean he has already read it in the Megillah. The problem with this is only that it doesn’t say in the Megillah to read the Megillah. If it had said that, it would have worked out.

Speaker 2: It does say “to remember them” (l’zochram). “L’zochram” can mean…

Speaker 1: Yes, even that. “L’zochram” can mean through sending food portions (mishloach manos) and gifts to the poor (matanos la’evyonim), but…

Speaker 2: Like “remember Amalek” (zecher Amalek).

Speaker 1: No, like simply… no, like simply “remembrance” (zecher) — to make Purim. Like simply, the plain meaning of the text (peshitus ha-mikra) — the main thing isn’t the reading, the main thing is the feast (seudah), the joy (simchah).

The Interpretation of Rav Rabinowitz: “Takanas Nevi’im” Refers to the Sanctity of the Megillah

Speaker 2: There’s a distinction between the expression “takanas nevi’im” (enactment of the Prophets) and “mitzvos nevi’im” (commandment of the Prophets). He doesn’t want to say the term “mitzvos nevi’im.” He doesn’t say “mitzvos nevi’im” for a feast or such a thing. He even has a name for that — “mitzvos chachamim,” “command of the Sages” (tzivui chachamim).

Speaker 1: Yes, “the commandments of Esther and Mordechai and their court” — literally those words.

Speaker 2: I mean that no. Rav Rabinowitz wants to argue that “takanas nevi’im” means the enactment of the sanctity of the Megillah (kedushas ha-Megillah), the enactment of Megillas Esther — not the enactment of reading it.

Speaker 1: Ah, that the Prophets prepared the Megillah, and the Sages made it into a positive commandment (mitzvas aseh).

Speaker 2: Yes. That’s what he wants to argue. You need to understand a bit, because the few times when there’s a very ancient source — as if, what happened from when Solomon agreed to it until the Sages enacted it? Was it already a rabbinic commandment (mitzvah mi-divrei sofrim), or was it before the Gemara? For example, in Beltza where it mentions Solomon, or here? The verse we find in divrei sofrim — was it not yet a positive rabbinic commandment (mitzvas aseh mi-divrei sofrim)? The Prophets said it, but the Sages hadn’t yet established the framework. Sofrim means the Gemara.

What Does “Divrei Sofrim” Mean?

Speaker 1: No, it’s simple — sofrim means anyone other than Moses our teacher. Anyone other than the Prophets, it means. What’s the problem? It’s interesting, the Gemara…

Speaker 2: I wanted to say that divrei sofrim means the sages of the Mishnah and Gemara, and many times he says that it’s indeed from the sofrim, but it’s even before King Solomon, like the law of the Divine Name.

Speaker 1: No, no, no, I told you, I’m arguing today exactly the opposite — that the reason they bring the Prophets is to prove that it’s rabbinic (mi-d’rabbanan), not to prove that it’s early. A thing that, by the way, I want to convince you — a thing that is older is more important. Things that are newer were still… there is such a thing as “the law follows the later authorities” (halachah k’basra’i).

Speaker 2: But what’s the point? Alright, alright. Sofrim — the Gemara calls them those who are busy learning the thirteen hermeneutical principles through which the Torah is expounded (yud-gimmel midos she-ha-Torah nidreshes ba-hen), and counting the words of the Torah. The Gemara calls it one thing, and what we today call it is something else. I agree that sofrim, the term sofrim is indeed… “Sofrim uproots something from the Torah” (sofrim oker shel Torah). That’s a derasha. Sofrim means scribes. Scribes of what? Scribes of the Mishnah, seemingly, no? Of the Torah?

Speaker 1: “Divrei sofrim” — it’s not the Torah itself, the Torah itself. Divrei sofrim means Ezra the Scribe (Ezra HaSofer), or Jews who wrote the Torah. The term sofrim comes from Ezra the Scribe, and what you mean — why they were called sofrim is “because they would count all the letters in the Torah” (she-hayu sofrim es kol ha-osiyos she-ba-Torah). The Gemara in Kiddushin gives this derasha that this is why they’re called sofrim, about this, because it’s a Midrash, not the simple meaning. The simple meaning is something different — I don’t know what.

Speaker 2: It’s a different type of sofer. Sofer means to write, and sofer means to count. Is it the same root? Could be. Sefer — both have the root sefer? Okay. But it’s a Midrash; I don’t believe it’s the simple meaning. But when the Rambam says divrei sofrim, that’s in the Gemara. When the Rambam says divrei sofrim, he certainly just means Sages, rabbinic (mi-d’rabbanan). And Prophets are not better — Prophets are only worse. Prophets only have… I mean, Prophets don’t do anything — they neither add nor subtract.

Speaker 1: In other words, did the Prophets make an innovation? God forbid, they didn’t make the innovation, the enactment. Megillas Esther was made by Mordechai and Esther — they wrote it as Prophets, but the commandment they cannot make — only the Sages can.

What Does “Devarim Yedu’im” Mean?

Speaker 2: Perhaps — I’m thinking of something else — what the Rambam, perhaps what lies here as an innovation in the wording, because what is more “knowledge”? There’s a problem in calling something a positive commandment (mitzvas aseh) — how can he say the term mitzvas aseh about something that is “well-known matters” (devarim yedu’im)? Say it! Because everyone knows that it originates from the period of the Prophets, can one now make commandments?

Speaker 1: One needs to write notes; one needs to check where else he uses the expression “devarim yedu’im,” because the “yedu’im” is like the questioner challenging the world — who is known to whom?

Speaker 2: The expression is in the introduction. So I remember it’s an expression in the introduction. It’s written in the Ohr HaChaim that the “devarim yedu’im” hints at something that says “established for all generations” (kevi’ah l’doros). “Kevi’ah l’doros” means it was made known to the generations that it’s forever, when the Prophets made it known.

Speaker 1: “Kevi’ah l’doros” is said about whom? About the Men of the Great Assembly (Anshei Knesses HaGedolah) — that Esther and Mordechai “established it for all generations,” right? “Kevi’ah l’doros” — that’s how it says — they asked the Sages “establish it for all generations.” Ah, one needs to look up that statement of the Sages (ma’amar Chazal). What is the ma’amar Chazal? Esther said “establish it for all generations” — there you indeed have a conversation between Prophets and Scribes, as if the Prophets — that is, Mordechai and Esther — say “establish it for all generations.”

Speaker 2: But the Rambam doesn’t say it that way. The Rambam says “takanas nevi’im” — that’s a difficulty on the Rambam. I don’t know — the Rambam says here a position, as if “takanas nevi’im” means that Mordechai and Esther are the ones who enacted it, but “devarim yedu’im” means that the Scribes established it along with other enactments, but it wasn’t said that way for three.

Speaker 1: I don’t know, it doesn’t say that way. “Devarim yedu’im” means to say — means to say, what does it mean — that everyone knows. That’s what it means. One didn’t know this from the enactment. I know, you’re already saying two ways how one can say it this way, but setting that aside, one can say anything.

The Statement of the Sages: “Esther Sent to the Sages: Establish It for All Generations”

Speaker 1: Let’s think. “Esther sent to the Sages: establish it for all generations. They sent back to her: are you stirring up hatred against us among the nations? She sent back to them: I am already written in the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia” (shalchah lahem Esther la-chachamim kevi’ah l’doros, shalchu lah klum at me’oreres aleinu sin’ah bein ha-umos, shalchah lahem k’var kesuvah ani al divrei malchei Madai u-Faras). She sent to them… yes, another statement — that’s one place. “Esther sent to the Sages: establish it for all generations. They sent back to her: ‘Have I not written to you threefold’ (shalishim) — threefold and not fourfold” (shalchah lahem halo kasavti lecha shalishim, shalishim v’lo revi’im). What does that mean? What does that mean?

Continuation of the Introduction to the Laws of Megillah and Chanukah: Discussion of the Gemara Megillah 7a, “Devarim Yedu’im,” and the Rambam’s Position on Rabbinic Law

The Gemara Megillah 7a – “Write Me for All Generations” and the Two Opinions

Speaker 1: They sent back to her: I am already written in the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia. They sent back to her: what about there? What about there? Ah, another statement — that’s one place. They sent back to her: and you shall do for them thus for all generations. They sent back to her: “Have I not written to you threefold and not fourfold.” What does that mean? They sent back to her: “Have I not written to you threefold and not fourfold.” What do these words mean?

It’s an interesting thing. You know, let’s go look at the Gemara in Megillah 7a in the Gemara. Now, tell me what you remember from the Gemara. The first opinion in the Gemara — Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi — says that Esther requested “write me for all generations” (kisvu’ni l’doros). The Sages said a practical thing: “jealousy among scribes increases wisdom” (kin’as sofrim tarbeh chochmah) — that it’s not a practical matter. They sent back to her — again a practical answer — that it’s already written anyway in the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia.

But the second opinion in the Gemara — Rabbi Chanina the son of Rabbi Yochanan — Rashi explains it thus: that Esther said “write me for all generations,” and they sent back to her: “Have I not written to you threefold and not fourfold.” They bring a verse in Proverbs — “I have written to you threefold” (kasavti lecha shalishim) — and Rashi explains that we already fulfill three times the commandment of erasing Amalek; it’s already written three times in the Torah. There’s no such thing that when one reads the Torah and learns, one doesn’t fulfill it with that. One doesn’t fulfill it. One only… it’s only — it says, ah, only three times, “threefold and not more,” and one leaves it.

What is the Gemara discussing? Is the verse in Proverbs talking about this, about threefold? No. What is the Midrash talking about, Rebbe? About Megillas Esther? No. Esther sent to them “write me for all generations”… “write me,” right? What does “write me” mean? Ah, “write me” meant… “write me” means that one should read the Megillah every year. Does “write me” mean that the Megillah should be written? Or that…

Speaker 2: Okay.

Speaker 1: It’s written in the Torah “Write this as a remembrance in a book” (ksov zos zikaron ba-sefer)? “Write this” — what is written… oh! And in Deuteronomy, remember… “Write this as a remembrance in a book.” Just as earlier, another “write this”… and Deuteronomy — Moses wrote, a Mishneh Torah. Remembrance is… And regarding “book” — and what is written — in the Megillah. So the second opinion in the Gemara views the essence of Megillas Esther as the erasure of Amalek that’s contained within it? Along with two other stories! Look — Rav Rabinowitz brings all these Gemaras that discuss the text! It’s not clear to me whether there are disputes about the text! The point was to incorporate into all the texts — yes, from a thematic perspective. Second, it reminds — who feels who is strong. Nu, so what was the Megillah then?

Speaker 2: Nu, what is it? Yes. That’s right. Does the Gemara help us with anything?

Speaker 1: Seemingly, the discussion means to say “knowledge” — everyone knows that there was a story. Nu, later. It must therefore be later — that it’s not from the Torah (d’Oraisa). Seemingly, I would have understood it that way. I can say “knowledge” based on what’s in the Gemara, but then what is “knowledge”?

“Devarim Yedu’im” – What Does the Rambam Mean by This Expression?

Speaker 1: I wanted to do a search and see where else the expression “devarim yedu’im” appears — perhaps one becomes wiser from that. Perhaps “devarim yedu’im” here means that in the Megillah itself it states that it reached all the lands and everywhere, and Jews rejoiced?

Speaker 2: No, no, correct. “Devarim yedu’im” means… let’s see the main answers. “Devarim yedu’im” means everyone knows that there is such an expression. True. That’s what it means. It doesn’t mean all the other Torah insights, new Torah insights, but it’s not what it means, in my humble opinion (l’fi aniyus da’ati).

Okay. The “devarim yedu’im” — this is the only time it appears.

I mean, there is one more time the Rambam uses the expression “devarim yedu’im” in a context that makes sense — in the Laws of Hiring, regarding gifts, it states that hiring is a matter of a complete gift, and “devarim yedu’im she-lo shalach zeh ela” etc., because he’s going to send it back. Devarim yedu’im means he wants to say “common knowledge.”

Speaker 1: There it’s more like what the Gemara would call “anan sahadei” (we are witnesses — it’s self-evident).

Speaker 2: No, I would say it in English as “common knowledge.” You know what “common knowledge” is? Everyone knows. In Yiddish one says “it’s well-known” (s’iz bakant), and in the Holy Tongue (lashon ha-kodesh) one says “devarim yedu’im.”

“And It Spread Throughout All of Israel, Such as the Reading of the Megillah” – The Rambam in the Introduction to Mishneh Torah

Speaker 1: I want to understand again — when Mordechai and Esther wrote the Megillah, with that alone did they make the enactment of the Prophets (takanos nevi’im), or was there still another step missing?

Speaker 2: The Rambam doesn’t say that here. That’s what you need to be precise about in the Gemara there. He doesn’t give the history; he only wants to emphasize here that it’s rabbinic (d’rabbanan). He doesn’t say. It’s interesting, because just as you ask.

And in general, who are the Prophets who enacted it? I don’t believe one can be precise about it. You mean Mordechai and Esther?

Speaker 1: In the introduction to Mishneh Torah he says — he says there “and it spread throughout all of Israel, such as the reading of the Megillah” (u-fashtu b’chol Yisrael k’gon mikra Megillah).

Speaker 2: “And there are other commandments that were enacted after them by Prophets and courts, and they spread throughout all of Israel, such as the reading of the Megillah” (v’yesh mitzvos acheros she-tiknu achareihem nevi’im u-veis din, u-fashtu b’chol Yisrael k’gon mikra Megillah). It’s similar to “devarim yedu’im.”

Speaker 1: No, no, let’s leave it. “Devarim yedu’im” doesn’t mean that — please, please, one needs to be able to read a sentence. It’s a nice derasha, but it’s not the plain meaning. Devarim yedu’im means everyone knows that there is such a thing. And how does he know? Perhaps he knows because we already learned it in the introduction. I don’t believe that’s what he means.

The Gemara’s Discussion – Proof That Reading the Megillah Is Not from the Torah

Speaker 2: It’s interesting. The Gemara and also the Yerushalmi found — the Sages had a problem: they came to innovate a new commandment. They said — they found — or as the Gemara says “to establish a holiday for the kingdom” (likvo’a yom tov l’malchus), and in the Yerushalmi they said — the Gemara asks, “ah, it’s written in a book.”

It’s interesting, because it’s somewhat similar to what the Rambam says. The essential commandment is that one must thank the Almighty for miracles. The Rambam never says this. He says — I don’t know if there is such a thing — is there this statement in Mishneh Torah? He says “in order to mention His praise, in order to make known His mighty deeds” (kedei l’hazkir shivcho, kedei l’hodia es gevurosav). He says it very beautifully, but he doesn’t say that this is a Torah-level commandment (mitzvah mi-d’Oraisa). He doesn’t say it’s a mitzvah mi-d’Oraisa, but one sees the concept in the Torah that when a miracle happens, one gives thanks.

The Rambam’s Position: Chanukah and Megillah Are Rabbinic – Not from the Torah

“To Strengthen the Torah” Not “To Add to the Torah”

Speaker 2: The Rambam says — know this — from the Laws of Kilayim. I know you like to say this, and your holy Rebbe said this many times, but I just want to try to understand the Rambam. It never means this thing in the Rambam. He says why the Sages made these enactments — for a reason. He doesn’t say that it’s from the Torah (d’Oraisa). What is the reason? The reason is to strengthen the Torah. I’ve already told you several times — the Rambam is always about strengthening the Torah.

What is it that he concludes with? Because he says “every commandment that the words of the Scribes add” (kol mitzvah u-mitzvah she-mosifin divrei sofrim) — what is that? “In order to strengthen the Torah” (kedei l’chazeik es ha-Torah). One also needs to strengthen the Torah that says one should thank the Almighty for miracles. Very well, but not “to add to the Torah” (v’lo l’hosif al ha-Torah). No — not because the Torah wants it to be added. By the way, the Rambam never says “to add to the Torah.” What does the Rambam say? “To bless, to praise, to make known His mighty deeds” (l’vareich, l’hallel, l’hodia es gevurosav). What the Rabbis said is the reason. He’s very upset about this, and because of this he is… and the Sages add nothing at all.

Against the Position That “It’s from the Torah Because There’s a Source in the Torah”

Speaker 2: Now, the fact that there’s a source in the Torah for the idea — that neither raises nor lowers anything. On the contrary, if the Rambam brings it, it’s only to say that the Sages add nothing at all — not even a rationale. And for this reason, he becomes very passionate when he says what the Sages enacted, and he says that the Sages took the idea from the Torah.

Speaker 1: No! No! Please! You’re saying the opposite! Because what you’re saying is that it’s from the Torah (d’Oraisa)!

Speaker 2: No! If the Rambam brings it, it’s only to say that the Sages add nothing at all — not even a rationale.

Continuation of the Introduction to the Laws of Megillah and Chanukah: The Rambam’s Position on “Mitzvah” and “Rabbinic,” and the Gemara Megillah 14

The Rambam’s Foundation: “Mitzvah” Means a Law, Not an Idea

Speaker 1:

His problem isn’t finding where there is indeed a source. His problem is, he has a problem for some reason with saying things that are rabbinic (de-rabbanan) and are biblical (de-oraita). He is very upset about this. And because of that he is… and the Sages don’t add anything at all.

Now, the fact that there is a source in the Torah for the idea — that doesn’t make a difference either way. On the contrary, if the Rambam brings it, it’s only to say that the Sages don’t add anything, not even content. You understand?

That’s why it really bothers him when he says what the Sages enacted, and he says that the Sages took the idea… No, no, no! Please don’t! You’re doing the opposite! Because you’re saying there’s a concept from the Torah (de-oraita), and the Sages could have… you’re saying there’s a concept from the Torah, you’re not saying it’s rabbinic (de-rabbanan).

But rabbinic authority can’t make things out of thin air. No, no, no. They also go and take Torah themes. They go take something legitimate, latch onto it, and they attach it to it. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. You’ve said it many times. It’s wrong.

Why is it wrong? Because the fact that they take things from the Torah is only to inform — when he says this, it’s only to say that they don’t say new things, not to establish the obligation. You want it as a diminishment, listen for a second, as a diminishment and not as an enhancement. Always as a diminishment. They don’t have the right. Therefore, when they do want to make an enactment, they also can’t… No, no, no, no.

Speaker 2:

Let’s take a line and go through it.

Speaker 1:

Okay, okay, okay. Now do me a favor and hear me out for a second. You need to understand an important thing, okay? I’ve already said it many times, maybe not, I don’t know.

The Rambam understands the same thing that I’m saying in my recent shiurim about the word “mitzvah” and regarding character traits (middot). Okay? When the Rambam learns and says the word “mitzvah,” he doesn’t mean ideas. Because for the Rambam, mitzvot don’t mean ideas. Ideas existed before the Torah, before the giving of the Torah (Matan Torah), before the Tablets (Luchot). The ideas have nothing to do with what the Torah introduced.

The Torah is a book of… the Torah in the sense of laws, okay? Speaking in plain Yiddish, okay? Laws. What does a law mean? Not an idea, not a concept that it’s good to do something. Those things always existed, they can always exist. That is indeed the essence, certainly, but that’s not the meaning of the word “mitzvah,” the meaning of the word “Torah” in the sense of the 613 commandments (taryag mitzvot).

The meaning of the word “mitzvah” is a law. And what does a law mean? Not that there’s an idea of a certain concept of thanking God. That’s not the thing. That can’t be a law. A law means what one should do. The mitzvah that on the 13th, 14th, 15th one should read the Megillah — that is one hundred percent from the words of the Scribes (mi-divrei sofrim). Why? We’re talking now about the law, the thing that one does.

Of the thing that one does, the thing that you encounter, the thing that it says that on Passover (Pesach) one should eat matzah — that is biblical (de-oraita). Why? Same idea. Both need a practical component. I don’t care about the ideas, I care now about the thing that one does. Very well.

And there are people who will make a mistake, they’ll say no, the Sages merely say what is biblical about making Purim. And the rabbis will say no, it’s not biblical. Why? Because this was made later. One is the same idea, let it be so. That is the same idea, it only diminishes and doesn’t add. It can indeed appear that way.

Because we know that the Sages don’t have the right to obligate all of Israel (Klal Yisrael). Therefore, one must say that from this there is a proof that the Sages look differently, or at what already stands in the Torah, or what the prophets (nevi’im) said. But that they should want to do something similar to what’s in the Torah? Yes, not necessarily. They don’t obligate us. No. Because tefillin is not similar. No. I just want to say that there isn’t even a new idea in this. But in practice there can be something new — it’s just that there’s no new idea. In practice there is a new action.

The Gemara Megillah 14a – “Forty-eight prophets… they did not diminish nor add, except for the reading of the Megillah”

Speaker 1:

Now, let’s think. All these Gemaras that you brought here — there’s a Gemara in the Bavli, in the Yerushalmi, in Midrashim, I don’t know what — that discuss the question of how Esther was allowed to establish a mitzvah. It’s not clear that they all follow the approach of the Rambam (shitat ha-Rambam). There’s a portion where the implication is yes, and the language… The Gemara asks about the legitimacy — you already know something about the Rambam, because the Gemara asks how one sees in the verses that one can later add.

All those Gemaras and the Midrash that say it’s biblical (de-oraita) — that’s a difficulty (kushya) on the Rambam. It doesn’t have to be a difficulty; it’s not clear that all those sources truly align with the Rambam. Because the Rambam would say, what do you mean, the Sages can make things? If the Sages can’t make things, can the Sages make whatever they want? In the Gemara it appears yes. There’s a distinction whether it’s prophets, or the prophets have a source…

And the intention for all generations — that the Sages can only make something temporarily and not for all generations. That’s the meaning of “kav’um le-dorot” — they established it for all generations. That the Sages can indeed make things for all generations — the rabbinic mitzvot (mitzvot de-rabbanan) are indeed for all generations. The Gemara discusses whether one should make the enactment. That’s not a difficult thing. There was a deliberation about whether to make the enactment. Not a principled question, but a local question.

Speaker 2:

You mean to say, right, it’s a question whether to make the enactment. But the other Gemaras do discuss it. The Gemara says that they asked a sage’s question (she’elat chakham) about all the mitzvot. In the Yerushalmi, not in the Bavli. In the Bavli… But the Bavli does say something very similar to you. The Bavli is indeed the thing. From where do we know that one must mention the obliteration of Amalek (mechiyat Amalek) three times?

Speaker 1:

Well, wait, wait. There are a few other Gemaras, my friend. Three pieces of Bavli, or four, and one Yerushalmi. One needs to learn all of them exactly. They’re not all saying the same thing. He only brings one of them. But then there is the Gemara in Megillah on the page that you brought.

Speaker 2:

Yes. And… and… it requires further study (tzarich iyun).

Speaker 1:

You should know, the Gemara that says… that connects it to the mitzvah of obliterating Amalek, wanted to learn that the entire reading of the Megillah (kriat ha-Megillah) is an offshoot of the mitzvah of obliterating Amalek.

Speaker 2:

What is the mitzvah of obliterating Amalek?

Speaker 1:

Obliterating Amalek.

Speaker 2:

What is the mitzvah? The Gemara said that?

Speaker 1:

“Remember” (Zachor).

Speaker 2:

No, I was thinking of the Gemara. The Gemara learned from the Chumash.

Speaker 1:

Okay, in short, it’s convenient. It’s not the exact language. I don’t know. There are a few Gemaras that need to be gone through. I just want to learn. One would need to become clear. I see one, two, several other sources about the question of how they were able to make a mitzvah of Purim. Let’s see. Does it bother you?

Speaker 2:

No, on the contrary. Megillah 14?

Speaker 1:

Ah, first of all Megillah 14. Yes.

Speaker 2:

“Rabbanan u-shmonah nevi’im…” (The Rabbis and forty-eight prophets…)

Speaker 1:

What does Megillah 14 say? He brings a proof.

Discussion: The Gemara Megillah 14 – “They did not diminish nor add, except for the reading of the Megillah”

Speaker 1:

“They shall not desire silver, and gold they shall not want.” It appears that this also bothered that baraita. There were so many prophets, and none of them thought to add onto something that’s written in the Torah — even a little bit is forbidden. He doesn’t say that the Rambam had a halachic statement about what it says “do not add” (lo tosif), but it bothers him. There he says a voluntary offering (nedavah). A Gemara doesn’t say those words, okay. But he says, I’m speaking, you see, the rabbis, eighty prophets, one can’t add anything at all.

The Gemara says it in Megillah page 14, yes, that’s what I’m talking about. The Gemara says, “Mai darush?” — what did they expound? What is the meaning? The Gemara says, this is how he expounded, that the rabbis are eighty prophets, no less and no more. Well, and how is the reading of the Megillah (mikra Megillah) seen as “more”? The rabbis aren’t “more,” rather they made an enactment.

One minute, one minute, one minute. The baraita in the Gemara there says, no less and no more, except — there is an exception — except for the reading of the Megillah. The Gemara asks, why indeed? One minute, the simple reading of the Gemara, Rabbi Chaim, Rabbi Yonah, are saying a… The baraita itself appears to say that the reading of the Megillah they did indeed add. Exactly, they added one thing — the reading of the Megillah they added.

What about eruvin or I don’t know what, the Gemara doesn’t know. The Gemara doesn’t say, for everything that one may not add or anything — it only says that they did add. The established halachah was that one doesn’t add. You see, a little bit, I mean purely, I don’t know, I don’t know what you want to say. Here it says that they did indeed add, right?

Speaker 2:

Right.

Speaker 1:

And in general, there is a Gemara, I’m telling you, there is a Gemara, right? “No less and no more, except for the reading of the Megillah.” Correct?

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Speaker 1:

So the baraita implies, it says, look in Rashi, yes? “And on the holiday of Chanukah,” look in the rulings of the prophets in the Mordechai. He tells you, here Rashi says that Chaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi — and he doesn’t say that Mordechai was a prophet. Interesting. Rashi here, on the… which Megillah? Rashi, Megillah 14 page a. It was interesting. That the Gemara itself needs to be compared to the Gemara on page 4, where very similar things are already stated. Also the Sages make arguments there.

Speaker 2:

One minute, you’re going fast, you’re going fast, you’re going very fast. Here we’re talking, here is a baraita, the Gemara quotes a baraita, right? “Tanu Rabbanan” (Our Rabbis taught). And the Gemara afterward says something different from the baraita, right? The Amoraim — the baraita is presumably Tannaim, yes? The Amoraim come and they say, what is this kind of exposition? What did they expound from this? Why did they expound it? What does it say in the Mishnah?

Speaker 1:

Fine, everyone agrees, it’s interesting, because after the Amoraim it’s not “they did not diminish nor add,” except for the reading of the Megillah, because the reading of the Megillah is also not an addition — it’s just learned into the Torah. And it appears that all those other things they could do, like they added another ten thousand things, only they found a hint (remez) in the Torah, just as they did regarding Megillat Esther, but it doesn’t appear that way in the baraita.

Speaker 2:

Yes, and what does it say there? “Mai darush” (What did they expound)?

Speaker 1:

“Mai darush” — how did they expound that what? That the reading of the Megillah is different from all other mitzvot from which they refrained from making into mitzvot. Yes? How did it occur to them that the reading of the Megillah they are permitted to make? They surely had the knowledge; they had indeed refrained.

“If so, Hallel too — let us say it” – Why don’t we say Hallel on Purim?

Speaker 1:

And that is indeed the… I don’t understand. Well, I mean, here it answers you, asks you, in short, Reish Lakish said, Rabbi Chiya bar Avin said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha, that they made a kal va-chomer (a fortiori argument): “If from slavery to freedom we say song (shirah), from death to life — how much more so?” That is their exposition.

The Gemara asks, “If so, Hallel too — let us say it!” Because just as from slavery to freedom one says Hallel, one doesn’t just say generic song, one says Hallel. Perhaps the Gemara meant, not “also let us say,” but why… They ask, why did they make a Megillah? Then one should make Hallel, just like all instances of slavery to freedom. Why doesn’t one say Hallel instead of the Megillah? Yes? And here it says “also let us say” — why doesn’t one also say it? Because the language “also” (nami) means also Hallel, not that… Because seemingly the difficulty should have been: for all instances of slavery to freedom one said Hallel, so one should say Hallel.

So there are three answers in the Gemara for why one doesn’t say Hallel. One answer was, because one doesn’t say Hallel for a miracle that occurred outside the Land of Israel. That’s a lengthy matter; one needs to understand the Gemara.

Continuation of the Introduction to the Laws of Megillah and Chanukah: Discussion of the Gemara Megillah 14a – Why don’t we say Hallel on Purim, and the Gemara Megillah 7a – “One does not diminish nor add”

The Gemara Megillah 14a – Why no Hallel on Purim?

The Structure of the Difficulty

Speaker 1: Why doesn’t one say Hallel? Instead of the Megillah, yes. Why does one only say the Megillah? Why doesn’t one say Hallel? In the language, “only the Megillah” means that Hallel, not that… Because seemingly the difficulty should have been: for all instances of slavery to freedom one should have been obligated to say Hallel. Why doesn’t one say Hallel? If every time they didn’t have the freedom… Hallel one doesn’t say, one’s own Megillah one reads, but not Hallel.

The First Answer – One does not say Hallel for a miracle outside the Land of Israel

Speaker 1: And what about the Exodus from Egypt, which was also a miracle outside the Land of Israel? “Until Israel entered the Land, all lands were fit for saying song.” Ah, it means that until we entered the Land of Israel, one could say Hallel even in Egypt or wherever. But… exactly.

Rav Nachman’s Answer – “Its reading is itself the praise (Hallel)”

Speaker 1: Rav Nachman’s answer is, “Its reading — that is its Hallel.” That is the Hallel. The reading of the Megillah is a type of Hallel.

Rava’s Answer – “We are still servants of Achashverosh”

Speaker 1: Um, Rava gave a different answer. He said one cannot say Hallel on this because “we are still servants of Achashverosh.” He downplayed it.

A Sharp Difficulty on Rava from “Slavery to Freedom”

Speaker 1: There is a difficulty — seemingly according to Rava, one could ask: we come back to the question of Mordechai, because you still can’t say it because of “from slavery to freedom,” because we didn’t fully come out from slavery to freedom, because that’s the very reason you say one doesn’t say Hallel.

Again, I’m asking whether Rava negates the thing that says they derived it from “slavery to freedom”? You could say that yes, Rava seemingly negates the entire premise, because once he says that we didn’t fully come out of slavery, and we are still servants of Achashverosh, and one doesn’t say Hallel — why should one say the reading of the Megillah either? There’s no permission now for the reading of the Megillah.

A Possible Answer – A Distinction Between “Hallel” and “Thanksgiving” (Hoda’ah)

Speaker 1: I don’t have an answer, I don’t know. Perhaps he’s saying that the term Hallel doesn’t quite fit. One must thank God because one did after all come out from slavery to freedom, but the term Hallel one cannot use, because in a certain respect one is still a servant of Achashverosh. Because the term Hallel — “servants of God” (avdei Hashem)… very well. “Praise, O servants of God” (Hallelu avdei Hashem) already implies “and not servants of Pharaoh,” but exactly — that language cannot be said about this particular miracle, because we are not “and not servants of Achashverosh.”

A Difficulty on This Distinction – Passover

Speaker 2: Yes, well, that doesn’t work. First of all, how can one indeed say it on Passover? If we are servants of Achashverosh, then Passover also has the problem that we are servants of Achashverosh.

Speaker 1: It’s one thing he’s talking about — he’s talking about the redemption (geulah). The redemption from Egypt — one ceased being servants of Pharaoh, so one said Hallel. In contrast, with the Jews, with that case it didn’t occur to them to say the Megillah, because they remained servants of Achashverosh.

Speaker 2: That’s answered. What can one say? They are, thank God, they are not servants of Haman. Achashverosh is a good king.

Speaker 1: “Servants of God” means conversely, just as “and not servants to servants” — there is such a concept, yes? “For the children of Israel are servants to Me, and not servants to servants.” That means that there cannot be a Jewish servant. But that’s a different matter.

Therefore, regarding Achashverosh one cannot say it, because they are still both.

The Central Question: What does “we are still servants of Achashverosh” do to the law of reading the Megillah?

Speaker 1: One needs to understand, yes, what’s the issue? Why is Hallel? Why is the Megillah yes? Is this something about the law that Hallel cannot be said, or does it weaken the entire law of “from slavery to freedom”?

Transition to the Gemara Megillah 7a

Speaker 1: Okay, in short, that’s one Gemara, okay? There are more Gemaras, right? What are the other Gemaras? More Gemaras, that is… Later the Gemara says that Esther was one of the prophetesses. Right, that’s the connection, because we earlier enumerated that there are seven prophetesses, so now we say who the seven prophetesses are.

Okay, now let’s go to Megillah page 4, right? Okay, 4 or 7 apparently. 7. That’s one Gemara, the “Tanu Rabbanan.” Okay, one needs to look and know whether this is a baraita that came from somewhere known.

Speaker 2: Why isn’t there a good commentary on this Gemara or that one?

Speaker 1: Hello? You just spoke lashon hara (slander) about ten thousand commentators. I forgive you. You got off easy with the commentators. You have Tosafot, you have a…

Let’s go back to the Gemara Megillah 14 page a. This is what the commentators say on the Gemara. We’re discussing why one doesn’t say Hallel.

The Gemara Megillah 7a – “One does not diminish nor add”

The Words of the Gemara – The Baraita

Speaker 1: Okay, so regarding this “mai darshu” (what did they expound?), there are commentators who deal with the question of what the meaning of this is. So let’s first learn it, because he brings the contradiction from the earlier source, from the other Gemara. Let’s learn the earlier one.

So in short, as a practical matter (halacha l’ma’aseh), here in the Gemara there is apparently a… in my opinion there is a contradiction. The Baraisa said what? That “one may not diminish from nor add to the reading of the Megillah” (lo yifchos v’lo yosif al mikra Megillah). But the Gemara expounded that there is a derivation from “from servitude to freedom” (me’avdus l’cheirus), and from that it entered into the topic of whether one says Hallel ideally (l’chatchila), okay? Which is apparently a side topic, because Hallel — the laws of Hallel.

An Explicit Contradiction to the Rambam

Speaker 1: Okay. Alright. And now there is another Gemara in… okay, this is one Gemara, a very interesting Gemara, because here there is an explicit Baraisa that is brought here which says what? That the prophets (nevi’im) did indeed add the reading of the Megillah. Literally a direct challenge to the Rambam. The Rambam says that the prophets didn’t add anything at all, not even the reading of the Megillah.

A Possible Answer for the Rambam

Speaker 2: No, one can answer this. The Rambam holds that apparently nothing was added, rather it is like a Torah-level obligation (d’Oraisa) that one derives from a kal v’chomer (a fortiori argument).

Speaker 1: But he asks a good question. What is the kal v’chomer? That they found additional miracles among all the prophets between…

Speaker 2: No, on the contrary, one can learn further with this answer. Indeed, this is the position of “one may not diminish from nor add.” He means to say that they only found a kal v’chomer.

Speaker 1: After the answer of the Gemara, he says…

The Answer of the Gemara – “Mai Darshu? Mah me’avdus l’chaim amrinan shira”

Speaker 1: But it’s interesting, by the way. What you said is an interesting point. After the Tosafos of the Gemara, what is the significance of freedom? What does it mean? Besides the reading of the Megillah? That they didn’t have any other… that this is the only kal v’chomer they made? And besides that they didn’t add anything at all, couldn’t even add? And he says that this is the proof — this is what all of Chazal (the Sages) do, this is what is done all the time. Perhaps the prophets don’t do it, but the Sofrim (scribes) do it, and this is one of the things that the prophets do. A good question.

A Note About “Gedola Hasaras HaTabaas” – The Context of the Baraisa

Speaker 1: By the way, there is another note from the Gemara. The Gemara deals with — look into the Gemara earlier — there is the very well-known Midrash of Rabbi Abba bar Kahana: “Greater was the removal of the ring than the forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses who prophesied to Israel, for they did not return them to good, but the removal of the ring returned them to good.” The entire Gemara is essentially a Midrash on the verse “And the king removed his ring” (vayasar hamelech es tabato). And he says that the removal of the ring was better than the forty-eight prophets. And together with this, the Gemara brings the Tanu Rabbanan (the Rabbis taught) of “one may not diminish from nor add to what is written in the Torah.” Somewhat of a contradiction afterward. It’s just the first few, because forty-eight was only until forty-six, because there were only Mordechai, Esther, Chaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

“One May Not Diminish From Nor Add” – What Does It Mean?

The Piskei Tosafos’s Novel Interpretation – “Mikra Megillah” Means the Reading, Not the Mitzvah

Speaker 1: There are the Tosafos who discuss — not the Tosafos, the Piskei discuss — they argue that the “one may not diminish from nor add” — one also needs to know what the “one may not diminish from nor add” means. Does it mean the Megillah? Perhaps when it says “mikra Megillah” it doesn’t mean the mitzvah of reading the Megillah, perhaps it means the Megillah itself. Just, funny, we’ll lead my whole explanation to things. I don’t know.

Very funny, as the Piskei says, “one should add many books, the language of Sura, like not ‘you shall not add to read.'” During the reading of the Megillah they established an obligation to read. What is the whole idea of what one reads? What makes the Megillah different? Aha, ordinary prophets always said prophecies about miracles that happened and such things, but they never said that one should read it publicly. They also added enactments, like Jeremiah’s and the like, but they didn’t make things… He learns that he’s talking about the… The “one may not diminish from nor add” is not that they didn’t make any mitzvos, they didn’t make any Torahs. Here there is a mitzvah of Torah reading (krias haTorah). Reading — what does one read? One reads the Chumash (Five Books of Moses). No, one also reads Megillas Esther. That is apparently the meaning.

The Connection to the Rambam’s Position on Megillas Esther

Speaker 1: This is very strongly connected to what we learned on the other end. He says that the reading that the Torah requires also has a problem for this reason?

Speaker 2: Yes. It’s not a positive Torah commandment (mitzvas aseh d’Oraisa). It’s only a custom (minhag).

Speaker 1: But the mitzvah of reading, that’s the problem. Not the reading itself, the mitzvah of reading.

Speaker 2: It’s not at the level, it’s not attached to the Torah.

Speaker 1: They understood that reading the Megillah is akin to Torah reading (krias haTorah). One shouldn’t go read prophets; one reads it for oneself.

Speaker 2: That’s how they understood it.

Speaker 1: The Piskei’s ruling fits with the Rambam who says at the end that all prophetic books will be nullified except for the Megillah, because this was made as a piece of Chumash, so to speak. The Megillah is a piece of Chumash.

Chanukah didn’t bother them, because one lights candles. But the essence of what makes one read it the way one reads the Torah is because the Megillah is a piece of Chumash. Do you understand what I’m saying?

Discussion: Two Ways of Understanding Mikra Megillah – Torah Reading or Hallel?

The First Approach – The Megillah Is Akin to Torah Reading

Speaker 1: And the answer to this is “mah me’avdus l’chaim amrinan shira” (just as from servitude to life we say song). He says that it’s indeed not a Chumash, rather it’s song (shira). He changes what the Megillah is. The Megillah is not Torah reading, rather the Megillah is a type of Megillah reading.

Speaker 2: No, no, no, you’re confusing two sugyos. You’re mixing up two sugyos. The true plain meaning in that sugya…

Speaker 1: No, the Gemara answers this “mai darshu?” — Rabbi Chiya bar Avin said…

Speaker 2: Right, but…

Speaker 1: Rabbi Chiya bar Avin said, “mah me’avdus l’chaim amrinan shira” (just as from servitude to life we say song). The Gemara asks this. So the meaning is that it’s not Torah reading, it’s only Megillah reading, or what?

Speaker 2: I don’t know, it’s indeed funny.

The Second Approach – The Megillah Is Akin to Hallel/Song

Speaker 1: As if, who is the audience — to whom does one read the Megillah? To the audience, to the congregation. One gives thanks. That was the question. Does one read the Megillah like a jest, where one informs the audience of the story, or does one do it like a righteous person who tells the story before the Almighty, and one jumps, one dances, one says, one thanks the Almighty.

The question in the Gemara was that it’s a Torah reading. The answer is that it’s a type of Hallel.

Speaker 2: Look at what you’re saying — it’s not a question. The Gemara doesn’t state a question. The Gemara asks “mai darshu?” I don’t know what this means.

Speaker 1: “Mai darshu?” means how did they expound, how did they find an answer to this, so to speak.

Speaker 2: He says there with Reb Shiele Schmelker the question of whether one needs to look into the Megillah. He says it’s a dispute whether one fulfills one’s obligation, whether one believes it was actually added at all, okay?

Gemara Megillah 7a – Shmuel bar Yehuda and “Expansion”

Speaker 1: But we’ll look at that further. I know he says it should be one of the earlier pages. Yes, it should be daf 7, amud aleph (page 7a). Shmuel bar Yehuda said. Yes, this is a later Amora. Shmuel bar Yehuda says as follows. Ah, ah, there is — the Gemara discusses what “established” means. Someone wanted to expound “ashrenu” to mean that one reads until the first ones. The Gemara says that Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Yosi, who holds that one reads until the first, what does he do with “ashrenu”? The Gemara says he applies it according to Rabbi Shmuel b’Rabbi Yehuda. Here Rabbi Shmuel b’Rabbi Yehuda speaks with differences of opinion like on the sixth, which must include. It’s very interesting — here he speaks about the beginning of the expansion of the… yes? It’s the beginning of expansion. Do you understand what I mean?

Continuation of the Introduction to the Laws of Megillah and Chanukah: Rabbi Shmuel bar Yehuda – “Initially They Established It in Shushan and Ultimately in the Entire World” and Esther’s Dialogue with the Sages

Rabbi Shmuel bar Yehuda – “Initially They Established It in Shushan and Ultimately in the Entire World”

Someone wanted to expound “b’shanim” (in years) to mean that one reads in the second Adar. So the Gemara says that Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Yosi, who holds that one reads in the first Adar, what does he do with “b’shanim”? Yes?

The Gemara says, “he applies it according to Rabbi Shmuel bar Yehuda.” Here is Rabbi Shmuel bar Yehuda. “Initially they established it in Shushan, and ultimately they established it in the entire world” (techila kav’uha b’Shushan ul’vasof kav’uha b’chol ha’olam kulo).

It’s very interesting — you’re talking about a process of expansion of the… yes? It’s a process of expansion. Do you understand what I mean?

Again, what do you say? The Gemara on Megillah daf 7, amud aleph. Another Gemara you need to see, whether it fits with the Gemara on daf 14. Daf 14 is a part of the Aggadah of what the Gemara expounds, what the Gemara expounds, what the Gemara expounds — well, the entire Megillah.

Here we speak earlier, when it’s a continuation of the Mishnah about the first Adar and the second Adar. The Gemara says that the Sages expounded “b’shanim” that one must read in the second Adar. The Gemara asks: Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Yosi, who holds that one reads in the first Adar, what does he do with “b’shanim”?

He learns it like Rabbi Shmuel bar Yehuda. Rabbi Shmuel bar Yehuda said that “initially they established it in Shushan, and ultimately they established it in the entire world.” He brings a series of verses there. Whoever will learn the verses there in the Megillah can apparently see that there are two establishments — one for Shushan and one for the entire world.

“Esther Sent to the Sages: Establish Me for All Generations”

Okay. After that, there is another piece from Rabbi Shmuel bar Yehuda. Rabbi Shmuel bar Yehuda said, yes? What does Rabbi Shmuel bar Yehuda say? “Esther sent to the Sages: Establish me for all generations” (shalcha lahem Esther l’chachamim, kiv’uni l’doros).

What does “kiv’uni” mean? Set me as permanent? What does “kiv’uni” mean? Does it mean the reading of the Megillah? Or does it mean make me into a prophet? I don’t know. “Establish me for all generations.”

Rashi says, “kiv’uni l’Yom Tov v’l’kriah” — establish me as a holiday and for reading. The language of “kiv’uni” — set me as permanent — I want to have a holiday in my name. Esther — Esther is the Megillah, Esther is the holiday, Esther is Purim. I want to be famous. I want to be famous, make me famous. How? Make me a holiday.

It’s called Megillas Esther — it’s not a joke. It’s a title that the Sages gave her. Just as we call it Sefer Shmuel and Sefer Melachim. You see that it’s truly similar.

Rashi says yes, for a holiday and for reading, for a holiday, for a holiday, for a holiday. Why does he think it means “request me”? Which way is “me” a language of “me.” There is a Gemara later that states it was brought out for them as a name, she brings the Megillah close. I remember, there’s a Midrash that it becomes a name. The point means a holiday, famous, right, right, making an Esther celebration. Okay, to make it short, Rashi explains the word “kiv’uni” — why is it “me”? In any case, the word is… to make Purim. Yes?

The Response of the Sages: “Jealousy Among the Nations”

Okay, the Gemara says. She sent to them — the Sages responded that it’s not permitted, there’s nothing that can be done, because there will be fear of jealousy among the nations of the world. Ah, that was the Satmar position. Yes, we are now in exile (galus), one cannot make a true celebration, and not rejoice in mentioning their downfall.

Okay, Rashi says. But let’s not go into halachic matters. They didn’t answer that one may not because of… Look, all forty-eight prophets — we didn’t add anything, and suddenly you’re going to add? Umm… She sent to them: it is already written.

Either way, this is all a Midrash, this Shmuel bar Yehuda — it seems to me. It fits well with the precise reading of the verses. But he first answered, “it is already written” (k’var k’suvun) in the chronicles (divrei hayamim), meaning one doesn’t need to fear the nations. Very textual — he reads into it, he learned what the verse comes to teach, “it is already written.”

The verse means to say: no, one doesn’t need to fear. It’s too bad. The first one is the most pro-Zionist argument. He came and said that Satmar says before the State: Why are you making yourselves fight with the Arabs? It makes you closer to a complaint. They say yes, yes, yes. And most say that with Satmar saying that since they aren’t — will it help? It’s written anyway on the other side. So, at least, one shouldn’t be a loser.

Discussion: What Does “For All Generations” Mean and Why Is It a Problem?

But I think something else. The word is perhaps here, but the word “l’doros” (for all generations). It told him about the old suspicion at the time of the excitement. But it could be that it will sometimes matter to a Jew. It says that it’s already dead once when the book. It’s going to be remembered from the book of Chronicles (Divrei HaYamim) — that is the word “l’doros.”

Indeed a good question. That generation itself had no problem, because Achashverosh — what does jealousy mean, it was already settled? The whole thing was already no jealousy at all. If anything, there was jealousy because they killed 18,000 people in Shushan. Not because they’re going to read it — someone is going to give mishloach manos (sending of food portions).

No, you’re saying you can’t create with this approach. One may not speak about it.

No, about this I think — perhaps this is indeed the main point in this way, about “l’doros.” Right now indeed, we are not Achashverosh’s servants, and they arranged much more for us — the Jews are now on top. But when you say one should do it for all generations, it could cause problems down the road.

Esther’s Answer: “It Is Already Written in the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia”

And to this you say that the nations already know anyway from the books that were made during the days of Purim. This is also not really an answer, because yes, what do the Sages say? The Sages say one should fear the nations — then it’s not a real answer.

What does Esther answer? She answers logically that a non-Jew knows that there won’t be antisemitism because something else is already written. No, he’ll find an excuse anyway.

What she says is something different. She says it’s going to happen anyway. No, what she says is that it’s going to happen anyway, so therefore what’s better? If the nations are going to hate us anyway, at least let them hate us because we win, not because we lose.

But perhaps the point is something else. They’re going to hate the Jews because they imagine stories that the nations will kill them and such. He says everyone knows this, and they’ll see that it’s a real thing. First of all, someone will go into Jewish history, a Jew becomes a Joel power…

But the simple meaning is that it’s a lost cause. You want to be such that you want the Jews not to shout that it’s not just a state. Now the only question is whether the state will survive or not. But the Jews hold on to being around and around, don’t come here to my lamp.

Comparison with “We Are Still Servants of Achashverosh”

But one needs to understand — it’s somewhat similar to what the Gemara says: “We are still servants of Achashverosh” (achati avdei d’Achashverosh anan). As if the Sages say: we still can’t make a full feast (seudah), because look, we are still stuck among the nations. And that removes the reason to celebrate.

But he doesn’t say that. It’s a beautiful Torah thought, but look, they say: why should I rejoice? You see that we’re still stuck with children, wives, and sons at the table of kings. Every time one is going to say at the seudah, you’re going to teach us. I have a good answer for you. It’s still interesting — everyone should tell me a Torah thought. You need to stay, you need to leave yourself something to be different.

Why Did Esther Send to the Sages?

One needs to understand a few things. One needs to understand: why does Esther say this? Esther, when she reached out to the Sages, she didn’t say it because she wanted their expertise about antisemitism. About antisemitism, she understood better. She is the viceroy (mishneh lamelech). She is the one who stands and is immersed in this.

Apparently, when she asks the Sages with the stringency about the matters of “kiv’uni” — “establish me” means adding a mitzvah, a holiday, which is discussed on daf 14.

Or perhaps “kiv’uni l’doros” means that they should simply institute it? Every rabbi in his shul should know — you are the rabbis after all. You see, as it says that it’s already written there — this is the Maharsha. The Maharsha learns… so it says in “these are the writings” (elu hen kesuvim), this matter — the second letter (igeres hasheinis) means that they sent… He thought that he sent to the Sages and asked, they said no, and for this she answered back… It’s precise in the verse. So says the verse — the meaning is approximately this: two letters are sent here, it gets sent back to the Sages, she answered that the essence of the portion of Amalek, for example — this was some drama between Esther and the Sages.

This is more of a homiletical interpretation (drush) — this is literally the plain meaning (pshat).

The “Satmar” Discussion – Whether One Should Engage with the Nations

Okay. The second thing. I think she meant to say that when it came here, the Satmar approach, oh I agree, the Satmar Rebbe is right, it would have been smarter for the Jews not to get involved with the gentiles anyways. But now, that option no longer exists. Why? Because the exile is already on its way out, the exile has begun, you can’t undo it. Now there are only two options, either lose or win. So what should one do? Lose? Win, obviously.

It’s not a mitzvah. What the Rebbe says that one shouldn’t get involved with the gentiles, it’s not a mitzvah. It’s good advice. That means it’s not a mitzvah to lose. People say otherwise. People say otherwise. We sometimes become aware that even the Jews, I know, your cards, what do they say? They also believe in a Messiah (Moshiach). And Moshiach can also organize this.

The gentile who is already the type of lover of wisdom, and doesn’t really say any way to… One doesn’t go against our faith (emunah) that the Jews are better than the gentiles. But here we’re talking about “write me” (“kisveuni”), “write me.” Okay, very good. The next question, the next question.

If it could have been that the gentiles would never know that we hold that Moshiach is coming, that we are the chosen and elevated people. But they already know anyways. So therefore let’s just carry it out. What’s the point of hiding it? You’re not going to accomplish anything. You’re just going to be a loser, you’re just going to have idle hands, yes, not win over all the gentiles, and not…

I stand up but no. That he can be — “it is already written” means, it’s already written, nothing happened to us with a child, nothing happened in the situation. Yes it happened, they wanted to be original. You have to understand that the whole Mordechai thing started from one act of zealotry, yes? He won’t bow down, one act not of zealotry, one act of self-sacrifice (mesiras nefesh). He won’t bow down, he’s going to act like a Zelensky essentially, right? He won’t bow down to Trump. Yes yes, and the whole… all the Jews are being killed. And you want to do it again? Let me remind you every time, the day that one didn’t bow to Trump, are you crazy? We almost lost everything.

This is what the Gemara says, that it could be that Esther answered that they don’t know that Mordechai is already a Jew. It was written in… That is her strategy. There are two strategies. One strategy is which I have, bow down, you don’t mean it, you do mean it. As it says “And Mordechai would not kneel and would not bow” (“u’Mordechai lo yichra v’lo yishtachaveh”). It says Mordechai would not go along with this, “And Mordechai would not kneel and would not bow.” They started it. But once they did it, there’s no way out, because they’re already stuck. Now how does one get out of this? Is one going to say “I’m not a Jew”?

Discussion: There is a concept of celebrating and bringing out the car

On this we see something, that it has to do with “establish me” (“kav’uni”), and the gentiles want to know. We see that there is a concept of celebrating and bringing out the car, everyone should see. It doesn’t fit. Purim is after all the concept that the gentiles should notice that it’s Purim. A gentile who walks through the Jewish streets on Purim knows it’s Purim. They see the costumes. It could be something entirely different.

The interesting thing is, “it is already written” (“k’var k’suvun”) it says. It could be that Esther is saying about herself, I am already one of the… It could be, yes, “it is already written in the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia” (“k’var k’suvun al divrei hayamim l’malchei Madai u’Faras”). I was already a great queen, and I was no longer afraid of antisemitism.

No, “it is already written” means… “I” means Megillas Esther, my Megillah. “I” is like “about me,” everything speaks about her. She is the center of the story. She is the center of the story, in a certain respect, she with Mordechai. She, not Mordechai. It doesn’t say Mordechai, it says Esther. It says “And Esther wrote” (“va’tichtov Esther”). This is apparently the…

Okay. Anyway, enough.

Summary: This is not a halachah discussion, this is politics

But what you’re saying, this is all not a halachah discussion, this is all a discussion of politics, whether it’s worthwhile. Politics in the good sense, right? Not politics. I mean that it’s not halachah. It’s whether one should take precautionary action or not. The question is whether one should make the enactment (takanah). It’s not whether one should make the enactment, that is apparently…

Continuation of the Introduction to the Laws of Megillah and Chanukah: “Write me for generations,” the source for writing Megillas Esther, and the dispute among the Tannaim

“They sent to them: Write me for generations” – What did Esther request?

Speaker 1: She is the story, she is after all the center of the story in a certain respect. She with Mordechai. You can’t say it’s not Mordechai. It says, we say Mordechai, it says Esther. It says “And Esther took” (“va’tikach Esther”), this is apparently the… Okay. Anyway, this is… Okay.

But what I want to say, this is all not a halachah discussion, this is all a discussion of politics. It’s… worthwhile politics, politics in the good sense, right? Not politics. It’s, one should do so or not. A question, should one make the enactment. There’s no stumbling block here. The later authorities (Acharonim) say that this is the main intention, on account of a holiday (Yom Tov), the reading of the Megillah, the entire holiday, Purim, Purim is a holiday of provocation of the nations (hisgarus ba’umos), so one needed to have a permissive ruling (heter) for that.

A new teaching: “Rav and Rav Chanina and Rabbi Yochanan and Rav Chaviva taught throughout the order of Moed”

Speaker 1: Okay, now a new teaching. Rav and Rav Chanina and Rabbi Yochanan and Rav Chaviva taught throughout the order of Moed, wherever this pair appears, substitute Rabbi Yochanan and insert Rabbi Yonasan. What does this mean? It’s not clear, many statements of Rabbi Yochanan are actually Rabbi Yonasan. No, perhaps Rav and Rav Chanina and Rabbi Yochanan and Rav Chaviva taught throughout the order of Moed, wherever this pair appears, substitute Rabbi Yochanan and insert Rabbi Yonasan. What? Who is this group of sages? What’s going on here?

“One of them, for anyone who finds any mention.” He’s now going to mention a teaching of the Sages. So he first states who said the teaching. He says that these four learned together? No, perhaps we’ll see what Rashi explains here. Differently. “Taught” (“masnu”) – a minute, stop. Rav and Rav Chanina and Rabbi Yochanan and Rav Chaviva taught. These four righteous ones taught, they transmitted a teaching (mishnah).

So the Gemara says that they learned the order of Moed. It’s not necessarily that Rabbi Yochanan was there. Perhaps both, I would have set it up like you, it makes more sense. “Wherever this pair appears, substitute Rabbi Yochanan” – why specifically in Moed? It makes more sense that they learned all of Moed. But someone comes and says to the Gemara, or someone later said so, that when you see this pair, I guess Rashi knows perhaps that it’s not only Moed, it could be that there are more places where the Gemara adds this. That in the order of Moed it could be that it wasn’t Rabbi Yochanan.

Those who learned together with the whole group in Moed, only in Moed did Rabbi Yonasan join them there. Okay. In all such cases, substitute Rabbi Yochanan, make the switch. Rabbi Yonasan said, you see here the total, and one of them noted that it only appears four times. Shabbos, Eruvin, Sukkah… You see here apparently a marginal note from the side given by Rabbi Yoel, he writes in, ah, yes, yes, the cookie switch works out this way, the later ones, the masters of the Gemara. It’s difficult, perhaps already it’s my… Okay.

“They sent to them, the Sages: Write us for generations”

Speaker 1: They sent to them, the Sages, another thing, “Write us for generations” (“kisveunu l’doros”). They said, they should express it exactly so, “They sent to them, the Sages: Write us for generations.” Not “establish us for generations” (“kav’unu l’doros”) as Rashi said that one should make a holiday, rather “write us for generations” means this, that there should be a Megillah that one should copy my Megillah, one should make sure that every synagogue has a copy of my Megillah. Yes, they said, write my Megillah into the “for generations,” into the books that the synagogues have.

“Have I not written for you three times” – The first response of the Sages

Speaker 1: They sent to them, they responded… In other words, it apparently fits under the… They sent to them, they responded with a hint from a verse in Proverbs (Mishlei), that she should herself understand what it means, yes? What does it say in Proverbs? “Have I not written for you three times” (“halo kasavti lecha shalishim”). Three times? Three times? Let it be, certainly the verse here is surely not talking about the obliteration of Amalek (mechiyas Amalek), something is written there, yes? What is the verse’s plain meaning? That’s not the point. The point is, they understood… “In counsels and knowledge” (“b’moatzos v’daas”). What they did expound there on the verse, on the Torah. It already says in the Torah three times the obliteration of Amalek, so says Rashi, it already says three times, in Exodus (Shemos), in Deuteronomy (Mishneh Torah), and in Samuel (Shmuel). And the Gemara says, “Have I not written for you three times” – three times.

Discussion: What about the Book of Samuel?

Speaker 2: But apparently, what you’re right about, is that this is like a rhetorical expression, which is built on the idea that one may not add to the Torah. But then, what about the Book of Samuel?

Speaker 1: Okay, anyway Samuel is never read publicly in the Torah reading. That’s according to the answer I gave, yes, but I don’t know. So it is, perhaps it connects… Okay. I don’t know.

“Until they found a verse written in the Torah” – The source for writing the Megillah

Speaker 1: Until they found a verse written in the Torah, they did find a source written in the Torah that hints that one can indeed make a fourth. Yes? That’s what one only needs to plan.

What does it say? There is a verse “Write this as a remembrance in a book” (“k’sov zos zikaron ba’sefer”). There are four words here: “Write this as a remembrance in a book.” “Write this” – there are two expressions, the word “this” (“zos”) is an extra word. Okay. “Remembrance” (“zikaron”) implies in the Prophets (Nevi’im), “in a book” (“ba’sefer”) implies in the Megillah. What does it say in the Prophets? In the Prophets means in the Book of Samuel. This is all a verse in Beshalach, right? “Write this as a remembrance in a book.” He argued, Exodus, Deuteronomy, and the Book of Samuel. Ah, he already sees it being fulfilled. This is the third, an extra expression in the plural. An interesting expression.

But they argued differently. “Write this” – “this” specifically, about Deuteronomy, that means in the Chumash. “Remembrance” implies in the Prophets, that means in the Book of Samuel. “In a book” – an interesting expression.

In short, the implication is that one can indeed write. There is such a great stringency that they viewed the entire book as a law regarding the obliteration of Amalek. Besides the story that happened, it means that Esther descended from Amalek.

Discussion: Why should this be a problem of writing?

Speaker 2: Why should this be a problem of writing? One may only do it three times?

Speaker 1: They perhaps viewed it as one may not add too much regarding the obliteration of Amalek, it’s already too much zealotry, one is already all day busy with wiping out gentiles. He says, one may indeed.

Speaker 2: A good question. I don’t know the answer. Okay.

Speaker 1: In short, this is how they learned it.

Discussion: The verse “Write this as a remembrance in a book” as a prophecy

Speaker 2: No, I think that the verse “Write this as a remembrance in a book” is already a hint that there will be in the future more Amaleks. The question is only how many more Amaleks there will be. “Write this as a remembrance in a book and place it in the ears of Joshua” (“v’sim b’oznei Yehoshua”), “I will surely obliterate” (“macho emcheh”) – there was one sin of Amalek, and the verse says that it’s a prophecy, this is one of the prophecies in the Chumash. There will be more, one will carry out the Amalek again. So the question is only, how much does this mean? Is this with one little hint? One can say that it only means Samuel, because Samuel certainly said that he was going to carry out what the verse said here. But here I would say that perhaps there is one more. You understand the hint, the counting of words I don’t know, but the idea that it says here that there will be more Amalek is not refuted. It’s simply the plain meaning, I mean it makes sense.

“Like the Tannaim” – The dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i

Speaker 1: After that the Gemara says: Like the Tannaim, the subject, the dispute between Esther and the Sages is a dispute among the Tannaim. What? Esther and the Sages, it says in a Baraisa: “Write this” – what is written here, “remembrance” – what is written in Deuteronomy, “and place” – what is written in the Prophets, these are the words of Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i says: “Write this” – what is written here and in Deuteronomy, “remembrance” – what is written in the Prophets, “and place” – what is written in the Megillah.

And what is this? According to this it turns out that it’s a dispute between Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i and Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Yehoshua held that Esther was not said with divine inspiration (ruach hakodesh), basically. Right? Rabbi Yehoshua held that one may not write the Megillah. Correct? And Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i argued that yes.

A beautiful interpretation of “three times and not four times”

Speaker 1: I saw a very beautiful interpretation of “three times and not four times” (“shalishim v’lo r’vi’im”). He asks on the question, “and what does Amalek have to do with this verse?” What is the connection of the verse in Proverbs? Rather, he says, Solomon says that I have written “that I have written for you three times” – that I received permission, as it were, from Heaven to write three books, “in counsels and knowledge.” This fits, because the entire verse fits. Why didn’t Solomon write more books? Because he didn’t receive permission for more, as it were, each book. Therefore, Esther has no right to write an entirely new book. They answered from this verse.

Discussion: Rashi’s interpretation versus the alternative interpretation

Speaker 2: A different interpretation than Rashi, it means the three times that the Gemara will bring. But the books according to Rashi are from the Gemara later, the Gemara counts here three, four. But I want to understand, the interpretation that I’m saying. Again? Three, three, three. But Rashi has a source, or the Gemara tells once later about the chains. Again.

Speaker 1: Yes, you’re talking about the story of Solomon. Yes. Solomon made three books. Yes. Yes, but Rashi’s interpretation fits better with the continuation of the Gemara, where we see that this is the text of “Write this as a remembrance in a book.”

Discussion: The Ritva’s approach – two separate matters

Speaker 2: Ah, I thought about that. That according to the Ritva, I had to answer that “Write this as a remembrance in a book” is the reading from the book. What is the answer actually?

Speaker 1: He answers, “Write this” is the implication of the written Torah, “remembrance” is the implication of the Prophets, “in a book” is the implication of the Megillah. As if, perhaps he means to say, I don’t know if the Ritva addresses this, but it could be that according to the Ritva he would say so, that from the verse “Write this as a remembrance in a book” we learn that one may indeed write additional parts of Torah. One can write the first part of Torah, one can write Deuteronomy, one can write the Prophets.

But it depends. Again, the Ritva will learn that these are two separate matters. The “three times and four times” has nothing to do with the question of “Write this as a remembrance in a book.” It’s an extra text. They found a source that one can indeed write, that here one has a source to write the new story of the obliteration of Amalek. But, but, you understand? This is not an answer to the question. There are two. They said that one cannot write more Torah. One says, but yes, there is a source that one can write.

According to Rashi, he learned it in that it depends on this verse, as it were “one shall not add” (“lo yosif”). In practice, it doesn’t say “lo yosif.” In the verse it doesn’t say “lo yosif.” One still needs some verse that it’s three times and no more. I think that later there is a Tosafos HaRosh or something.

Discussion: Where does it say “Mishlei chovesh”?

Speaker 2: Where does it say “Mishlei chovesh”? “Mishlei chovesh”? “Have I not written for you three times in counsels and knowledge, to make known to you the certainty of the words of truth.” No, I don’t know, there’s no connection.

Speaker 1: No, the Rashash doesn’t plant any bad plan here. He says that it’s a rhetorical expression about the three times that are hinted at in “Write this as a remembrance in a book.” Just as the Gemara learns, the Gemara says that the dispute about the essence of the Chumash, or the teaching that Rava and Rav Chanina insert into this verse, is essentially a dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yochanan, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yochanan.

What depends on this dispute?

Speaker 1: And by the way, what depends on this dispute?

Speaker 2: The dispute depends on whether Deuteronomy (Mishneh Torah) is a part of the Torah. Did you notice?

Speaker 1: Ah, whether “he wrote a book” means…

Speaker 2: Whether one can separate the sections of Deuteronomy or not. That’s what they had a dispute about in the interpretation of Deuteronomy. One held that Deuteronomy is like the rest of the book, and the other held that it’s not.

Introduction to the Laws of Megillah and Chanukah – Continuation: The dispute among the Tannaim about “Esther was said with divine inspiration,” ritual impurity of the hands (tumas yadayim), and the approach of Shmuel

The connection between Deuteronomy and the writing of Megillas Esther

The Gemara says that the dispute about “es” and “chamor” and the teaching that Rav and Rabbi Chanina insert into this verse, is essentially the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yehoshua.

And by the way, what depends on this dispute? The dispute depends on whether Deuteronomy is a part of the Torah. Did you notice? Whether writings, what this means, if one can separate sections in Deuteronomy or not.

The dependency is as follows: they had a dispute about the interpretation of Deuteronomy. One argued that Deuteronomy is “repeated in the book,” and the other said that Deuteronomy is a part of the Torah. So there is a Tosafos that explains this dispute.

So it turns out, if Mishneh Torah is a part of the Torah, now make the calculation. If Mishneh Torah is a part of the Torah, then it’s already mentioned, so Esther is the third. But if Mishneh Torah is not a part of the Torah, then one may not write Esther.

The one who believes that the Book of Deuteronomy has an extra din, an extra kedusha (sanctity), he doesn’t hold of Purim. The one who holds that it’s not an extra thing, he does make Purim.

So one can also derive the custom of reading Mishneh Torah on Shabbat Zachor at night, that he also reads the Megillah. In and of itself, it’s not so much from the custom.

I’m just telling you the introduction. I know that you know it. I just think that one can… okay.

Two Questions in the Sugya: The Holiday of Purim vs. the Sanctity of the Megillah

The Gemara continues. So here it’s implied, by the way, here is the sugya, the first piece of “establish me” speaks about the holiday. Apparently there is no dispute that there is a holiday of Purim.

Now, however, we’re speaking about writing the Megillah, whether the Megillah has sanctity. Perhaps this is what the Rambam is also speaking about here when he says that it is known that it is an enactment of the prophets, that according to his interpretation it turns out that there was a dispute among the Tannaim.

There were Tannaim, Rabbi… what’s his name? Rabbi Yehoshua, yes, Rabbi Yehoshua held that the Megillah is not a part of the Torah. And the others held that it is. A dispute among the Tannaim.

And look further, the entire statement of the Gemara was not a difficulty. Rabbi Yehoshua was like the one who argues with Esther. Exactly. Rabbi Yehoshua didn’t celebrate Purim, I don’t know. The Rishonim all struggle with this, you should know. Nothing is so simple.

But Rashi himself states that one can reconcile it, and that the main point of the book is not the writing of the Megillah. Soon we’ll see. Learn the next sugya.

The Mishnah in Yadayim – Ritual Impurity of Hands Regarding Esther, and the Difficulty with Shmuel

Once again the statement of Rabbi Yehudah with Shmuel. No, try when Shmuel is Shmuel ben Yehudah now. Another attempt hasn’t been made yet. Not Rabbi Yehudah with the unfinished. Yes? Yes.

The Gemara says. So it seems that Shmuel held, apparently, Rabbi — it seems to me! There is no sanctity. Like Rabbi Yehoshua. Right? Like Rabbi Yehoshua. So the connection to this… because if Rabbi Yehoshua’s problem is entirely about the writing of the Megillah, it’s not a question whether the book sanctifies or… of course! That is the question. The establishment for generations, that is the beauty. There is a fine way to make it into something… not then is the beauty. Okay, yes.

And Shmuel… Shmuel, let’s say he was more of a rationalist, he didn’t love the Holy Spirit so strongly, he made many statements, the Esther one with a certain opinion, Esther said… “Esther was not said through the Holy Spirit (ruach hakodesh)”… we have Esther with the other Shmuel, because Shmuel said… there is another statement from Shmuel, “Esther was said through the Holy Spirit”…

The Gemara answers, it was indeed said through the Holy Spirit, but not to be written. So apparently… it was said not to be written but was said to be read… which is as if it’s a part of the Oral Torah (Torah she’b’al peh), not a part of the Written Torah (Torah she’bichtav)… and that is the… now that’s what it means.

“Said to Be Read but Not Said to Be Written” – The Distinction Between Ruach Hakodesh and the Sanctity of Holy Writings

That’s what it means, I can explain the approach of the Gemara. The approach of the Gemara is that there is a statement from Shmuel that Esther does not render the hands ritually impure (eino metamei et hayadayim), meaning does it have the same sanctity as the Torah? No, simply the world would have said that the story is indeed through ruach hakodesh, but that doesn’t yet mean that the written text is a part of the Holy Writings (kitvei hakodesh). It could be that the Tsanzer Rebbe has ruach hakodesh…

Not like Tosafot says here. Can you say that the Tsanzer Rebbe has ruach hakodesh? Does that mean it renders the hands impure? Rendering the hands impure is what we say regarding halachah, a din of Holy Writings, right? One can save it from a fire, whatever.

The Tsanzer Rebbe has ruach hakodesh — does that mean that now there is a sanctity of Holy Writings? No! Everyone understands that this is “said to be read,” not “said to be written.” It’s very simple.

Tosafot already asks a question: if so, how can one read Megillat Esther by heart? That is Tosafot’s question. But “said to be read” is very… everyone understands that Shmuel didn’t mean to say that one doesn’t make Purim, that one doesn’t read the Megillah on Purim. He only meant to say that it doesn’t have the din of Holy Writings. Or like that other opinion.

The Mishnah in Yadayim – Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yosi, Rabbi Shimon

Okay. The Gemara asks a question, okay. There is a Mishnah: “What is the reason of Rabbi Meir? He says Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) does not render the hands impure, and there is a dispute regarding Shir HaShirim (Song of Songs). Rabbi Yosi says, Shir HaShirim renders the hands impure, and the dispute is regarding Kohelet. Rabbi Shimon says, Kohelet is among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel, but Ruth, Shir HaShirim, and Esther render the hands impure.” This is all a Mishnah.

So we see that according to Rabbi Shimon, we see that Rabbi Shimon holds that Esther does render the hands impure. This is a difficulty with Shmuel, right? Shmuel said that Esther does not render the hands impure, and there is a problem, there is a Mishnah… I mean it’s a Mishnah.

And Rabbi Meir said, Kohelet is not metamei, Shir HaShirim is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, okay? Correct?

Yes, it’s interesting, Ruth, Shir HaShirim, and Esther are all three… Rabbi Yosi… all Megillot. Rabbi Yosi said, Shir HaShirim is certainly metamei, the dispute is only regarding Kohelet. Rabbi Shimon said, no, Kohelet is among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel. I mean, is it metamei or not metamei? Apparently, Beit Hillel said that Kohelet is… I mean it’s not metamei, that it is metamei. Ah, because Ruth and Shir HaShirim and Esther always.

He says, apparently this is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. What did the other Tannaim, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosi, hold regarding Esther? Apparently regarding Shir HaShirim, Rabbi Meir said there is a dispute. In any case, regarding Esther we don’t find clearly that there is any dispute at all in the Mishnah.

Chavrusa A: Aha. So the difficulty is not only on Rabbi Shimon, but on all of them?

Chavrusa B: Not clear. Ruth and Shir HaShirim and Esther always.

“Regarding Rabbi Shimon” – The Contradiction in Rabbi Shimon’s Opinion

The Gemara says here, “regarding Rabbi Shimon,” the Tanna Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says Kohelet does not render the hands impure, because it is merely the wisdom of Solomon. Stop, stop. “Regarding Rabbi Shimon” means that here indeed is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yosi, Rabbi Shimon himself. Rabbi Shimon holds that Esther renders the hands impure. But Rabbi Shimon said earlier that “the end of what the prophets wrote” implies that Esther does not render the hands impure. Right?

Chavrusa A: Very good. So the Mishnah indeed lacks Rabbi Shimon’s opinion. True?

Chavrusa B: Very good. That is first one approach.

The Baraita – Several Opinions on “Esther Was Said Through Ruach Hakodesh”

Another opinion, that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya also says… ah, no, he only speaks about Kohelet. But further, next. Rabbi Eliezer says Esther was said through ruach hakodesh. Rabbi Akiva says Esther was said through ruach hakodesh. Rabbi Meir says Esther was said through ruach hakodesh.

The question is, do all those who hold that it was said through ruach hakodesh argue on Rabbi Shimon? Is this a continuation? Apparently, all of them should indeed hold it renders the hands impure.

Yes, yes. It’s all disputes. It’s all opinions according to the approach of Rabbi Elazar. Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Akiva… each one had a different source. Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yosi ben Durmaskit, and Shmuel. They all bring proofs from verses that Esther could not have known.

Shmuel’s Chiddush – “If I Had Been There, I Would Have Said My Proof Is Better Than All of Theirs”

And Shmuel came… by the way, I have such pleasure from Shmuel. This is one of my greatest sources about Shmuel. Shmuel said, “If I had been there,” if I would have been there, I would have encountered Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yosi, I would have said to all of them that I have a better explanation. You hear?

Here we see clearly that Amoraim could argue with Tannaim. Shmuel said that I hold I have a better source.

Rabbah’s Agreement – “Everyone Agrees That Shmuel’s Proof Is Superior”

And Rabbah said, Rabbah said, “Everyone agrees that Shmuel’s proof is superior.” When you grasp it, he is apparently explaining Shmuel. Because from above, it already stands from Heaven that they agree that it is also not through ruach hakodesh.

Yes, “that which they accepted below.” They accepted that it is indeed a good Megillah. And the Rav said yes, that all the Amoraim, all of them can be challenged, except for Shmuel. There is perhaps a greater chiddush in Shmuel, although I believe it’s different from all the others, it is indeed a plain sanctity, but it began from below, a plain earthly matter, because you know.

Discussion: What Does “They Established Above” Mean?

Chavrusa A: No, Shmuel had something, he was mechadesh. “They established above,” Rabbeinu, the Torah — leave it for later.

Chavrusa B: No, Shmuel tells you a Torah, he says “they established above,” what does “they established above” mean? It was accepted in Heaven. What precisely does that mean?

The earlier one who says “write me for generations” that the Sages are the ones who establish, Shmuel says that in Heaven they establish it. It’s nothing, this is a Baraita that speaks, the sources that Esther is through ruach hakodesh. Okay, there are several opinions, including the opinion of Shmuel, including the opinion of Rav Yosef. All of them, this is the source, this is apparently the Gemara had earlier, a minute earlier there was the difficulty with Shmuel, “what is he telling us?”

The Gemara says a piece earlier, “the Jews established and accepted upon themselves and upon their descendants” (kiymu v’kiblu haYehudim aleihem v’al zar’am), let us derive from this verse. Here it says “they established above what they accepted below.” Ah, both — I come to derive from this verse, “they established and accepted.”

I’m afraid, I’m afraid that Shmuel means praised to make. A Shmuel, I’m afraid, another Torah, Torah, Torah, that Shmuel meant to say, the Gemara, he will explain, one can explain everything through the way of Torah, and still there can be ruach hakodesh. The ruach hakodesh is that the world believed it. But this is a Purim Torah, I don’t know any other explanation.

I’m afraid that the other answer to be able to answer the Gemara’s Torah. The Gemara asked a contradiction, how can Shmuel say Esther does not render the hands impure, and he says through ruach hakodesh? He meant it as a joke, he didn’t mean it seriously.

Digression: The Ritva’s Opinion – Solomon’s Permission to Write Three Books

There is, after all, that according to the Ritva’s explanation one needs to understand Shir HaShirim. Yes, because he says that we derive from that verse that Solomon only received permission to write three books. Well, how do you know how it fits with the… with what?

The question of Shir HaShirim with ritual impurity of hands is a question whether Solomon… had any right at all to three books, because the fundamental roots are not holy. Yes, yes. I wondered about the “they sought to hide it away,” that’s also perhaps… more hidden things. It’s a wondrous place.

Summary: Three Topics in the Entire Sugya

But we came here to learn the source of the enactments. The entire Gemara here spoke a bit about “write me for generations,” it spoke about a political question, and a bit about the question whether — and the second main lengthy discussion in the Gemara was whether Esther was through ruach hakodesh.

Introduction to the Laws of Megillah and Chanukah – Continued: Yerushalmi Megillah Chapter 1, the Source of the Enactment, and the Dialogue Between Mordechai/Esther and the Sages

Summary of the Bavli Sugya and Transition to the Yerushalmi

Speaker 1: With what?

That the question of Shir HaShirim with Kohelet is the question whether Solomon had any right at all to three books, that Shir HaShirim is not holy.

Speaker 2: Yes, yes. So would you answer with the “the Sages sought to hide it away” also, perhaps?

Speaker 1: Not yet. It’s not yet, already. One can’t yet plainly concede.

Speaker 2: Okay.

Speaker 1: We came here to learn the source of the enactment. The entire Gemara here spoke a bit about “they forced him to wear,” it spoke about a political question, and a bit about the question whether… and the second main lengthy discussion of the Gemara was whether Esther was through ruach hakodesh. It turned out that it’s a dispute among the Tannaim. No, Esther through ruach hakodesh — apparently there is no one who says that Esther is not through ruach hakodesh. But whether Esther was given to be written was Rabbi Yehoshua who held that one may indeed not write it, and Shmuel said “they established and accepted.” This is more or less what we learn here. But will this help for our question? Not really much. It’s just to learn a piece of Gemara.

In the Yerushalmi there is a clearer source. You hear? There is a Yerushalmi Megillah chapter 1, and there is also a Gemara in Shevuot that one needs to learn. Let’s look. Yes? Yerushalmi Megillah chapter 1, page 1. Do you have it? Yerushalmi Megillah chapter 1, page 1. Yes? Nu. Rabbi Shmuel Eliezer said, the second letter or the second. Okay. The Gemara says, Rabbi Yirmiyah in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzchak, okay? This is a different source for the same story that we learned on daf 7 in the Bavli. But look what he says, okay? Rabbi Yirmiyah… alef hei, we read the Megillah in the first Adar. Yes, yes. There in the middle.

Speaker 2: Yes.

The Ritva’s Interpretation of Shmuel’s “Kiymu V’Kiblu”

Speaker 1: It’s interesting, the Ritva interprets the words of Shmuel, “the Jews established and accepted” (kiymu v’kiblu haYehudim), not that “they established above” means that it was accepted, but rather that itself is a ruach hakodesh. How did he know what was accepted in Heaven?

Speaker 2: Yes, yes, that is the simple explanation in the Gemara.

Speaker 1: No, I learned “they established above” that it was accepted. When you ask what is the ruach hakodesh?

Speaker 2: That’s not correct. That’s a Purim Torah.

Speaker 1: No, it’s not, it’s not. “They established above” — the book was accepted. “Above” means in Heaven. In Heaven. That the book was accepted. And not that “they established above what they accepted below,” that the book was accepted as a holy book.

Speaker 2: In Heaven. Not on earth.

Speaker 1: In Heaven. And from where did he know? It must be that it’s a ruach hakodesh. That is the simple explanation. It’s a very funny explanation, because there is a refutation.

Speaker 2: What is the refutation?

Discussion: The Circular Argument and the Gemara in Makkot

Speaker 1: Can one die because of this? As he says, “hold me as an expounder.” There is a Gemara in Makkot about this, about that man… Rabbi Yosi asked such a question on the other one who said a halachah that “all those liable to karet (excision) who received lashes are exempted from their karet.”

Rav Yosef said, “my lot at night and he said.” The master of the house said, “What do you mean? There is a verse.” It’s a circle — there is a verse, but how do we know the verse is true? Because there is a verse. This is an interpretation of Rabbi Yosef of Zlotshov. He made every day a study of the soul… a righteous man, a righteous man…

Speaker 2: “You’re not answering the question!”

Speaker 1: He says, he says there is a verse, he doesn’t say how he knows. How does he indeed know from the same verse? But he says, once we know that there is a measure and intermediaries between the two places…

The holy Baal Shem Tov said to Rabbi Michel of Zlotshov, “It’s so cold, if not he would have been a heretic regarding ‘there is nothing besides Him’ (ein od milvado), he said that he lived with two worlds.” I say, no, you’re assuming heresy based on the assumption that we don’t know what’s happening there. The Gemara in Taanit says… I have a Gemara! I have a Gemara! You’re not… Rabbi Michel of Zlotshov didn’t say anything different from the Gemara. The Gemara in Makkot says that we don’t know, we only know what is written in the verse. And there is another Gemara on this topic. But that it’s written in a verse — so who says it’s written in a verse? “Moses received the Torah from Sinai” (Moshe kibel Torah miSinai). It could be that there is a simple explanation. There are Torah interpretations on this statement of Chazal, it could be that there is a simple explanation. I haven’t seen a normal explanation of this Shmuel. You see that Shmuel is after all a sage, he says that all those Tannaim who say something about the Torah, it doesn’t work, right? But his explanation works even worse than all of them.

Tosafot’s Difficulty with Shmuel

Speaker 1: And that’s indeed a good question, that what? That in another place it says… What is Tosafot’s question? What does Tosafot ask? That Tosafot asks regarding all the difficulties in Perek Chelek on Shmuel, that one does need the verses to come and one can come for a different teaching. Or Rava said, we are indeed overturning Torah. But no, they come for that alone. That the Jews accepted the Torah willingly — this we don’t know through ruach hakodesh?

Speaker 2: No, really, it’s making mockery. Ah, no, “they accepted” means that the people knew, it wasn’t coercion, it was willingly. No, it wasn’t willingness and not willingness, it was a compulsion from love of the heart.

Yerushalmi Megillah Chapter 1 – The Dialogue Between Mordechai/Esther and the Sages

Speaker 1: Okay, hear a piece of Yerushalmi. Okay, but we’re speaking nicely. The Yerushalmi also has a beautiful thing. Open Yerushalmi Megillah chapter 1, page 1. Do you have it? Yerushalmi Megillah chapter 1, page 1. Yes? Nu. Rabbi Shmuel Eliezer said, the second letter or the second. Okay. The Gemara says, Rabbi Yirmiyah in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzchak, okay? This is a different source for the same story that we learned on daf 7 in the Bavli. But look what he says, okay? Rabbi Yirmiyah… alef hei, we read the Megillah in the first Adar. Yes, yes. There in the middle.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzchak said, what is the reason they say the second one? This is such a great matter that our rabbis obligated them to say to them, these two have risen above you to choose a year, isn’t it enough the troubles that have come upon us, but you want to add upon us the troubles of Haman? You can go faster, I can’t keep up. You want to teach me and pose the question to me? Yes.

Discussion: The Meaning of the Words “sheyihu omrim lahem” (that they should say to them)

Speaker 1: There is the Gemara, Rabbi Yirmiyah in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzchak, he said as follows: “What did Mordechai and Esther do? This is such a great matter that our rabbis obligated them to say to them, these two have risen above you to choose a year, and isn’t it enough the troubles that have come upon us, but you want to add upon us the troubles of Haman?” What does “sheyihu omrim lahem” (that they should say to them) mean? What does “sheyihu omrim lahem” mean? He says it like the other one said, “you are arousing jealousy (kinah) against us”? The trouble that the nations will know that we have a story?

Let’s see what the Or LaYesharim says. He says, the holy Or LaYesharim is a matter. What does it mean? He learns it like the Gemara in the Bavli, “you are arousing jealousy against us,” you are causing us troubles. Are we lacking troubles? They said to them, what should we say? “The troubles of Haman,” haven’t we already lived through them? I mean to say, are you afraid they should be a copycat?

Rav Sh. Lieberman brings that the Midrash Ruth brings the same language, he writes “Isn’t it enough the troubles of the world, but you burden us to write down the years and the days.” We have enough troubles, do we also need to inscribe it in the Megillah? That’s what it means.

There will be the Purim merry-go-round, one needs to come up with money for everyone for how to make Purim. Well, it’s my rest. Okay.

Speaker 2: Well, it must be that they mean something else. Well, it must be because the answer, “the image of his master is upon him,” doesn’t mean the answer about needing to send mishloach manot (gifts of food). Yes, do you understand? Or I know what you’re saying, that I’m making jokes.

Speaker 1: Aha, that is very good. Here one learns from the Yerushalmi what the source is. The Gemara stands at the end of Megillah chapter 2, mishnah 7, very clearly that the Gemara learns that it’s a dialogue, the two dispute letters. Simply, “And he sent letters to all the Jews,” this is by the way a rule in the plain meaning of Scripture, many times one sees in a verse that someone says something, then he says another thing, and it always means that actually someone answered back, only sometimes it doesn’t write it. This is implied, one understands that this is an answer. The answer was, “The Jews established and accepted upon themselves (kiymu v’kiblu),” they answered, ah, that’s what you’re saying, “the Jews established and accepted,” that’s what they wrote.

The Yerushalmi’s Source: “Written in the Torah, in the Prophets, and in the Writings”

Speaker 1: Read, read, read, I’ve already forgotten. “And written upon the Jews and upon their descendants and upon all who joined them, and they showed the writings and entered them in the archives.” Just as “entering in the archives” means in the archive. Just as “entering in the archives” that appears in the Gemara. “Archives” means archives, I believe it’s a Greek term. “Rather, these are the writings, this is the Torah scroll, the sages of the sixth day, the holiday of Purim.”

Shmuel bar Nachmani in the name of Rabbi Yonatan said, and by us it is established that here where we say instead of Rabbi Yochanan it is Rabbi Yonatan. And here it is Rabbi Yonatan, the next one, but later it is Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani in the name of Rabbi Yonatan. Yes, yes, but the earlier statement about “anyone who sends gifts to his friend,” when does it appear in the Bavli? From Rabbi Yehudah ben Shmuel. Ah, yes, I remembered. Again, here it is also Rabbi Shmuel b’Rabbi Yitzchak. Rabbi Yirmiyah in the name of Rabbi Shmuel b’Rabbi Yitzchak. No, no, it’s a different person, not Rabbi Shmuel b’Rabbi Yehudah. Okay. The second one is indeed Rabbi Yonatan, that’s correct. Okay.

The Derasha from “Write This as a Memorial in a Book”

Speaker 1: He said as follows, yes, “Eighty-five elders, and among them some thirty-odd prophets, were distressed about this matter.” Yes, it’s very interesting. Interesting. Almost as if in the Bavli it says eighty-five elders. No, it says forty-eight prophets. But what does the Bavli say? A completely different framework. Well, you’re talking about the Bavli, and this one from the Bavli. Okay. They were distressed about this matter. About which matter — that one cannot add new mitzvot. Yes, they said, listen. Rather, a commandment of so-and-so, and Moshe. From Moshe we learn. One who… is not permitted to innovate a matter from now on. And Mordechai and Esther, they sought to innovate a matter. Because for them, and indeed eighty-five elders did not move from there. They continued. They continued and continued to discuss, until it became clear to them. A beautiful Gemara. And they found it written in the Torah, and in the Prophets, and in the Writings. You see that there is a place for Megillat Esther. What is the verse? It showed that one must establish it there. The verse, yes. Where is it written, “Write this as a memorial in a book (zot zikaron basefer)”? “Zot” — this. He didn’t just mention it three times and with the derashot of sanctification. You see, there are three different things. Torah, as it says. “Zot” — this is what it was. This is what it says, this is what it says, “zot” is what it says. This is what it says, from Moshe our teacher of Israel. The prophets wrote the war of Hashem in four books, and the Writings — the Writings being Esther, so what is written about Esther, it is like Purim upon it, and it shall be recorded in the book. Ah, it would be something recorded in the book — “book” contains the word “basefer.” Very good, so this is very helpful, because one can understand what the meaning of the idea in the allusions is. Right? Yes, yes.

Comparison Between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi

Speaker 1: So, this is interesting. So one… stop for a second. What we see from the Yerushalmi is, first of all, in the Bavli there are two passages that have the Yerushalmi… but the Yerushalmi here looks very much like that passage in the Bavli, also that the prophets never added anything. And here it states even more poetically that they stood and cried and laughed with joy and they struggled with the two passages in the Bavli, both the passages in the academy, and to see what it says, what the verse brings there.

The Bavli has two other approaches. One is in the beraita that they bring from the forty-eight prophets, where it says that we’re talking about the Men of the Great Assembly (Anshei Knesset HaGedolah). The language “among them several prophets” is a language that refers to the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah, remember?

Speaker 2: Yes, but it’s puzzling, because it doesn’t match historically. There weren’t that many of the… Anshei Knesset HaGedolah is the generation of Mordechai. Were they all from the generation of Mordechai?

Continuation of the Introduction to the Laws of Megillah and Chanukah: Yerushalmi Megillah – “This Megillah is a Law Given to Moshe at Sinai,” “They Are Not Destined to Be Annulled,” and the Gemara Shevuot 39a on “A Mitzvah Destined to Be Innovated”

The Connection Between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi – How the Midrash of “Esther Sent to the Sages” Split Into Two

Speaker 1: Both the midrash in the Yerushalmi that appears there, where it brings the verse, and the Bavli — the story split into two different midrashim. One is the beraita they bring from the forty-eight prophets, where it says, but here the discussion is about the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah. The language “among them several prophets” is a language that refers to the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah, remember?

Speaker 2: Yes, but it’s puzzling, because it doesn’t match historically. There weren’t that many of the… Anshei Knesset HaGedolah is the generation of Mordechai. Were they all from the generation of Mordechai?

Speaker 1: Yes, yes, certainly. Anshei Knesset HaGedolah is at one time, it’s not many generations. Let’s see what it says. Let’s see what the Gemara understood. Whether it matches historically is a different topic. But Anshei Knesset HaGedolah means people from the time of Ezra, and the Gemara understood that this was the time of Mordechai.

Discussion: The Numbers “Eighty-Five Elders and Among Them Some Thirty-Odd Prophets”

Speaker 2: What is the number eighty-five? With thirty. 85 plus 30 is 120. You remember that there were 120 elders. 85 plus 30 is how much?

Speaker 1: 85 plus 30 is 120, right?

Speaker 2: But it says here “v’chamah” (and some). “Thirty and some.”

Speaker 1: Again. Eighty-five elders, and among them thirty-some prophets.

Speaker 2: Not extra.

Speaker 1: No, among them there were thirty-some prophets.

Speaker 2: No, it doesn’t work. I think it should be together.

Speaker 1: No, “among them” — it says “among them.” There is a Torah teaching that the Baalei HaTosafot wanted to say, but… I think it says, I don’t know exactly what it says.

Speaker 2: Yeah, don’t confuse me with the facts.

Speaker 1: Let’s see what he says.

Ah, he says… by the way, I’m not the only one, but because the Aliyot Eliyahu says “ninety-eight and with them.” But he says “and with them thirty prophets.” Because 85 is the number one can count in the book of Ezra, there are 85. Okay, I don’t know.

The Reason for the Mitzvah Is the Real Problem

Speaker 1: In any case, this certainly means the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah. So one minute, so here what do we see? That what?

Speaker 2: We see clearly that what?

Speaker 1: That the problem they had is the reason for the mitzvah (illat hamitzvah). The reason for the mitzvah is also a genuine claim, it’s not clear. And the answer was indeed the midrash, and we will see that Rashi took upon himself this answer. But Rashi will say that it’s still the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah, he says it was an act of the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah.

Speaker 2: Yes, it’s interesting.

Speaker 1: What’s interesting is that when one thing stands before the other, one sees that the sages sought different kinds of… one problem is bringing antisemitism, one problem is…

Speaker 2: No, it’s a different version. Forget the antisemitism problem. Now there are two different versions.

Speaker 1: Okay, and the mitzvot… there are internal problems, external problems. Antisemitism is an external problem, no? Internal is the…

Speaker 2: Okay, then the Gemara continues further, yes?

Speaker 1: Yes.

Speaker 2: Another piece that seemingly has to do with this.

Speaker 1: Read.

Yerushalmi Megillah – “This Megillah Is a Law Given to Moshe at Sinai” and “There Is No Chronological Order in the Torah”

Speaker 2: One minute. Rava and Rav Chanina… by the way, something rough, everything in the Bavli and the Yerushalmi is rough, and with the Yerushalmi one needs to know which is more precise.

Speaker 1: Nu?

Speaker 2: One minute. Here it says with Hashem’s name, “And Hashem said to Moshe,” very good. Regarding this, Rav Chanina and Rabbi Yonatan bar Kappara in the upper academy said as follows: “This Megillah was told to Moshe at Sinai.”

Speaker 1: Actually, the whole problem — we have no problem. You mean that one needs to answer with the Yerushalmi a new question. It already says from Sinai, it’s “there is no chronological order in the Torah (ein mukdam u’me’uchar baTorah).”

Speaker 2: What does that mean? Why doesn’t it appear in Parshat Yitro? Why does it appear in Megillat Esther?

Speaker 1: Why does it appear in Megillat Esther? Because it happened later. That’s the simple meaning.

Speaker 2: Why does it say “there is no chronological order in the Torah”?

Speaker 1: Essentially it is a part of the Torah.

Speaker 2: “There is no chronological order in the Torah” means that the Torah is not chronological. That means, even though you see that it’s in the Torah, it’s written in the Torah, it has the status of Torah law, but historically it happened later.

Speaker 1: No, “there is no chronological order in the Torah” means that something can be written later and it happened earlier. Something can be written later in the third of the second month, something beautiful can be written before the first month, okay?

Speaker 2: So I’ll tell you something. Actually, where the difficulty is raised is where it should have been written in the Torah. “Come up to Me on the mountain” — the Almighty tells Moshe Rabbeinu, come up to Mount Sinai, I will tell you where the difficulty is raised. Why isn’t it written there? There is no order.

Speaker 1: Okay. That’s all. You with your history, don’t come into the Yerushalmi. I don’t know. The Rambam indeed laughed at this, but I’m telling you what the Yerushalmi says.

Speaker 2: Fine, after that Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, yes? That piece actually brought it, so go understand it, yes?

Rabbi Yochanan in the Name of Reish Lakish: “Even Megillat Esther and Halachot Are Not Destined to Be Annulled”

Speaker 1: Read, read, read. One minute. The Rambam ends with this halachah, yes?

Speaker 2: Yes, so it looks here that what is there, something to do with one and the other, but… ah, the “not destined to be annulled” means because it is a part of the Torah, but…

Speaker 1: There when? Rav, Rav Chanina, Rabbi Yochanan and Rav Kappara, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: “This Megillah is a law given to Moshe at Sinai.” Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Reish Lakish: “Rabbi Yochanan said: The Prophets and Writings are destined to be annulled, but the Five Books of the Torah are not destined to be annulled. What is the reason? ‘A great voice that did not cease (kol gadol v’lo yasaf).'” This refers to the giving of the Torah. Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Reish Lakish said: “Even Megillat Esther and the halachot” — do you hear? — “and the halachot, are not destined to be annulled.”

Speaker 2: “Even the halachot,” the Oral Torah (Torah SheBaal Peh), incredible Torah?

Speaker 1: I don’t know, “they are not destined to be annulled.” “It says here ‘a great voice that did not cease,’ and it says there ‘and their memory shall not cease from their descendants (v’zichram lo yasuf mi’zar’am).'” And from here we know that halachot will not be annulled, what does “the ways of the world are His (halichot olam lo)” mean? Halachot are “ways of the world.” They will remain forever.

The Connection to the Rambam’s Problem of “A Prophet Is Not Permitted to Innovate a Matter from Now On”

Speaker 1: So what do we do now with this? First of all, it is very interesting that this is exactly the “a prophet is not permitted to innovate a matter from now on (she’ein navi rashai l’chadesh davar me’atah).” This is very much the Rambam’s problem. But he learns here an answer. And he needs afterward one piece of Gemara that he brings, and afterward one needs to finish page 73 precisely. There needs to be here one more piece of Gemara that is interesting, we’ll say if one can learn something.

Speaker 2: Arachin?

Speaker 1: Not Arachin. Sorry. Shevuot, 39a. Shevuot, 39a. Let’s just look at Shevuot. I mean Shevuot, yes, not Shevi’it. Shevuot. Shevi’it is Shemittah. Shevuot.

Gemara Shevuot 39a – “A Mitzvah Destined to Be Innovated” and “Kiymu V’Kiblu”

Speaker 1: Shevuot page 39a says there, one moment, I have it here. Here the Gemara says, yes… “that the Holy One, blessed be He, heard Sinai for His horse”… ah… a bit later… “These are not the mitzvot that they accepted upon themselves from Mount Sinai.” A mitzvah destined to be innovated — “a nation from the midst of a nation,” from the wine? For had they not seen the signs, they would not have believed. Now, this is before the giving of the Torah, right?

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: Rabbeinu says, according to the understanding of the sages of Israel, and so we find that Moshe Rabbeinu made them swear according to the understanding of the Omnipresent. How so? There are two opinions here. One opinion says, one does not expound the signs for future generations, rather they should believe. And one opinion says, and they have no mitzvah that they should accept upon themselves miraculous acts, a mitzvah destined to be innovated, and they should believe, rather “they established and accepted (kiymu v’kiblu).”

Speaker 2: What?

Speaker 1: Very interesting. The Gemara says that Moshe Rabbeinu already made the Jews swear that they must believe in “kiymu v’kiblu.” A very wondrous statement. Right?

Speaker 2: Aha.

Speaker 1: And this is the proof from “kiymu v’kiblu.” A proof there, by the way, that they already accepted (shekiblu k’var).

Speaker 2: But that’s backwards. “Shekiblu” — it should mean that it was fulfilled that they had already accepted to follow the sages.

Discussion: Is This a Specific Law or a General Law?

Speaker 1: We need to know, is this a specific law, or it is yes, that they undertook that every matter the sages will say they will follow, so simply the very fact that they undertook to follow, “you shall not deviate from the matter (lo tasur min hadavar)” is also a mitzvah upon them. Here it doesn’t say “lo tasur,” here it says specifically about mitzvot that are destined to be innovated. And the proof is “kiymu v’kiblu,” and I don’t understand how this is the proof. The proof from there is that they had already accepted, “kiblu k’var” — to fulfill. “Kiymu” what they had “kiblu k’var” — already accepted. One sees that “asher kiblu k’var” — they had already accepted in the days of Moshe, or what?

Speaker 2: Yes, very interesting.

Speaker 1: It requires great investigation (tzarich iyun gadol). All the contemporary commentators don’t know what the meaning is. And the earlier commentators didn’t discuss this at all. The early generations — there are truly wondrous matters. I don’t know, I don’t know what the meaning of the vow is. Okay. The matter of the vow, acceptances — there are various ones. People say things. I don’t know what they say, they say things.

Conclusion: The Theme of “Something Is Wrong with the Megillah” and “Kiymu V’Kiblu” as Part of the Answers

Speaker 1: Anyway, that’s the story. So what do we know from this whole matter regarding what we are learning here in the Rambam?

Speaker 2: I don’t know.

Speaker 1: A very interesting piece of Gemara. I can’t help you. I don’t know what the meaning of it is. Do you know what the meaning is? Very interesting. First, one sees that a child — a sage must have been with Esther, both as the problem of both political problems and Torah problems. The theme is that something is wrong with the Megillah.

Speaker 2: Yes, there is some question.

Speaker 1: There is some question. And there are various answers. And “kiymu v’kiblu” is something that is part of the answers.

A Third/Fourth Meaning of “Kiymu V’Kiblu”

Speaker 1: The verse that they love so much. We already have a fourth meaning of “kiymu v’kiblu,” by the way. A third meaning. The second is “they established what they had already accepted (kiymu mah shekiblu k’var)” — the entire Torah, and here one sees that “kiymu mah shekiblu k’var” — that one learns from this that in the acceptance of the Torah there was already included mitzvot destined to be innovated in the future. Perhaps that is a separate Gemara.

He has all the meanings of “kiymu v’kiblu” — there is a connection between Shevuot, it is after all in Tractate Shevuot, between Shevuot and, I mean between the acceptance of the Torah and Purim, or the acceptance of the Torah and Megillat Esther, in two different ways.

Two Directions of the Connection Between Sinai and Purim

Speaker 1: Or did Megillat Esther strengthen — according to the plain meaning of “kimu mah shekiblu kvar” (they fulfilled what they had already accepted) — that Purim strengthened the Torah, or the other interpretation is the reverse: “kimu v’kiblu” (they fulfilled and accepted) teaches us that the Torah strengthened Purim. The question is whether Moshe Rabbeinu strengthens the Megillah, or the Megillah strengthens Moshe Rabbeinu?

Speaker 2: Yes, according to the “kimu mah shekiblu kvar” interpretation, the Megillah strengthens the entire Torah. The other interpretation is no, it’s the reverse — the Torah strengthens the Megillah.

Speaker 1: I don’t understand what you mean. Oh, yes, you mean the oaths and Shabbat — Tractate Shevuot and Tractate Shabbat are the opposite. No, I mean according to the interpretation in Tractate Shabbat, “kimu mah shekiblu kvar,” the meaning is actually the reverse — that Purim strengthened the acceptance of the Torah (kabbalat haTorah), not the other way around.

Speaker 2: I understand what you’re saying. I understand what you’re saying. I understand what you’re saying — it’s interesting, and I agree.

A Question on Those Who Learn “From the Days of Moshe We Already Accepted It”

Speaker 2: And also, according to those who learn “from the days of Moshe we already accepted it,” seemingly he didn’t provide a proof for why we make Purim into a holiday (Yom Tov). But he said exactly the opposite — without Purim there wouldn’t be any holiday at all.

Speaker 1: I asked, I say, “Excuse me, perhaps? We rejoice with the Torah.”

Conclusion of the Introduction to the Laws of Megillah and Chanukah: The Rambam Against the Gemaras — A Conclusion

A. The Rambam’s Position That Purim Is “Matters Enacted by the Prophets” — No Contradiction with Most Sources, But Yes with Several

Speaker 1:

And also, those who learn this — we do establish a bit of a fixed practice — seemingly there’s no problem with how we make Purim into a holiday. But you said exactly the opposite — without Purim there would have been a designation of a holiday…

Speaker 2:

Perhaps, we rejoice with the Torah?

Speaker 1:

No, no, you can always say whatever you want. No, it’s not that. That’s also a funny Gemara — it’s funny what you’re saying — it relates to the interpretation of the Gemara.

Okay, to our topic: the Rambam who says that Purim is “matters enacted by the prophets” (devarim shenisknu al yedei nevi’im) — this is not a contradiction with all those sources. The only place where there is somewhat of a contradiction is the Yerushalmi and the Gemara on daf 14, and also Shevuot. It’s a bit more…

B. The Main Problem: According to the Rambam, Purim Is “Just Another Rabbinic Enactment” — But the Gemaras See a Special Problem

Let’s understand it this way: according to the Rambam, the entire problem is more about the Oral Torah (Torah shebe’al peh). True, they can make enactments (takkanot), and they can create mitzvot — they could essentially even today create mitzvot. Granted, there’s a problem — there’s no Sanhedrin, all of Israel, whatever — but essentially they could.

And the Gemara appears to see it as a more serious problem, specifically regarding Purim. It’s not like that — it doesn’t fit so well. All those Gemaras — seemingly none of them fit so well with the Rambam. Because according to the Rambam, this is just another rabbinic enactment (takkanat chachamim), just like Hallel, just like thousands of things that are rabbinic enactments that came later. And it’s even clearer, because the event happened later, so it’s certainly later.

And the Gemara sees that there is some kind of problem. And all the Gemaras we learned — there is some issue: one needs to find a verse, one needs to derive it from a verse. It doesn’t — it doesn’t fit with the Rambam. All those Gemaras don’t fit with the Rambam.

Speaker 2:

No, also the Gemara that says the Sages never added anything, and that regarding Megillat Esther there’s something extra. No, the matter of Hallel’s arrangement is not the same as Purim.

C. The Distinction Between the Rambam’s Problem and the Gemara’s Problem

Speaker 1:

According to the Rambam it’s the reverse — he had more of a problem with things where the distinction between a Torah-level obligation (de’oraita) and a rabbinic obligation (derabbanan) isn’t clear. Here it’s obviously just an addition. The Rambam primarily has problems with things that aren’t clear, where one might think it’s a Torah-level law. That’s the reason why they didn’t make a blessing on Hallel. Here that problem doesn’t exist.

And it doesn’t fit, because very well. And the Gemara appears to see that since Purim is an entirely new holiday, there is some greater problem, and the main point is that it’s a new holiday, which is indeed a new piece of Torah.

Speaker 2:

Well, what about the various customs, such as what is written about Shir HaShirim (Song of Songs)? And what about washing hands (netilat yadayim), which is a rabbinic enactment and we make a blessing on it?

Speaker 1:

That’s not a problem — it’s not an entirely new situation. I don’t know, what’s the difference? There’s a need for it — it’s a great need — and it doesn’t fit so well with the Rambam. The Gemara only implies that they indeed had… One can always say that the reading of the Megillah (mikra Megillah) is the most overt thing, all the more so, but indeed, netilat yadayim is also included.

Discussion: A Possible Answer — “A Safeguard for My Safeguard” Versus a New Mitzvah

But according to the Rambam and what it says at the end — that all things are destined to be nullified except for the Megillah — this again depends on this point, because the Megillah is something of the greatest significance. Megillat Esther is the halachah. The Rambam brings this in chapter 12.

Perhaps one needs to consider whether all these things have to do with what it says that it will never be nullified. Because it says — because it is to him like the books of the prophets — because regarding the other things one can offer a reasoning: as long as people are weak, when Mashiach comes, indeed…

That’s not the point. The “nullification” doesn’t mean the rabbinic aspects — it’s not talking about the rabbinic elements. The “nullification” speaks of the reverse. Look at what the Rambam writes when he brings it, and so it also implies at the end of chapter 12:

All the Prophets and Writings will be nullified, except for Megillat Esther, which endures like the Torah and like the laws of the Oral Torah (halachot Torah shebe’al peh).

As if to say, and furthermore, the “laws of the Oral Torah” means the true Oral Torah. He’s not talking about rabbinic enactments (takkanot chachamim). The Rambam uses “laws of the Oral Torah” to mean the explanations of the commandments, the details of the commandments. And that is indeed the Oral Torah as transmitted. And the Megillah has something — somehow, even according to the Rambam, when the Rambam cites Chazal, somehow it is more different.

By the way, when the Rambam learns it, one sees more clearly how it’s different. The Gemara simply explains that it’s different, just like the Chanukah candle (ner Chanukah).

Speaker 2:

Well, Rashi already asks the question: what is the distinction between the Chanukah candle and Purim?

Speaker 1:

And indeed, that too is a question.

D. “Kimu V’Kiblu” — The Plain Meaning of the Verse Versus the Gemara’s Derivation

But I just want to say one thing, because “kimu v’kiblu” — when one goes with the plain meaning of the text (peshutot bamikra), what it plainly says — the “kimu v’kiblu” says the reverse: it’s not a commandment that God commanded them; rather, it’s a spontaneous thing that comes from the Jews. The Jews were so excited that they took it upon themselves. The principle of “regarding the commandment which I did not command” (el hamitzvah asher lo tziviti) means one may not say that it’s an old thing from the days of Moshe Rabbeinu. “Kimu v’kiblu” itself should have been a solution.

Speaker 2:

No, no, I’m assuming now that it’s the plain meaning of the text, the language.

Speaker 1:

“Kimu v’kiblu” means that the Jews took upon themselves a new thing. They’re saying it’s not Torah — a new thing that they undertook.

So, is that not difficult at all? “Kimu v’kiblu haYehudim aleihem” (the Jews fulfilled and accepted upon themselves) — unlike the entire Torah. The entire Torah is not because… one is obligated because of “kimu v’kiblu.” One is obligated because God commanded it. Here it’s something of “kimu v’kiblu aleihem” — the Jews themselves took upon themselves something that is not a commandment. “To be doing” — an entire day is not a commandment.

But on the contrary, they said that the “kimu v’kiblu” means they made it into a commandment. One needs to know: there is such a thing as undertaking to do something, and it still doesn’t mean it’s called a mitzvah. But the Gemara learned that “kimu v’kiblu” — the Jews undertook that they would do it — the meaning is that they undertook a mitzvah.

In short, it truly requires further study — this piece, the Rambam, the commentators. Yes.

Discussion: The Rambam’s Position on “A Prophet May Not Innovate”

But one also needs to know: the Rambam says that “a prophet may not innovate” (she’ein navi rashai lechadesh) means to say if he claims it’s a Torah-level obligation (de’oraita). That’s the problem — the mixing between Torah-level and rabbinic. So when the Gemara says it, does the Gemara say it the same way?

No, no. They say there is such a prohibition against innovating a new mitzvah, like proving libations (nesachim). He asks a strong question: and what about the three weeks of calamity (talta depuranuta), and what about a thousand other things?

Perhaps one can say that the Moreh says that all the others are safeguards for Torah-level laws — “a safeguard for My safeguard” (mishmeret lemishmarti) — but the Megillah is not a “safeguard for My safeguard.”

It’s forced — everything becomes more wordy. If one says it this way… I don’t know, I don’t know.

E. The Final Conclusion: The Four Gemaras Don’t Fit with the Rambam

And it’s not specifically the Yalkut Shimoni — he brings against the Rambam all the Gemaras that I just added for you. It looks like it’s a proof for the Rambam, and it’s not a difficulty.

I mean, when the Rambam says what Purim knowledge means — there are so many Gemaras about this. I mean the Gemaras — the Gemaras don’t seem to work with the Rambam’s… well, it doesn’t go with the Rambam’s way of thinking. The entire distinction of the proofs from the Rabbis, the entire way that the Rambam is remarkably clear about this — it doesn’t seem to me that this is the Gemara. The Gemara has a different way of thinking about this. It’s not… the Gemara doesn’t have twenty ways.

One needs to know whom the Rambam follows — perhaps yes, but all four Gemaras that we saw appear to be in the same neighborhood, in the same region of thinking, and none of them is like the Rambam. They seemingly have a different way of thinking.

I don’t know what it is. One needs to go back and learn again the entire Rambam there in the first root (shoresh aleph), to see if there are other ways to understand the proofs from the Rabbis, and yes, all those sources.

But this is what we’ve completed — we learned the Rambam with the four pieces of Gemara, and we understand that the Rambam doesn’t align with the Gemara.