Datasets:

davidr70
/

megilla_sugyot_merged

Dataset card Data Studio Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · 466 rows

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.

id stringlengths 52 55	metadata dict	content stringlengths 171 3.77k
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.m.9.1	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.m.9.1", "sections": [ "Megillah.8a.9" ] }	MISHNA: The difference between a zav who experiences two emissions of a pus-like discharge from his penis and one who experiences three emissions is only that the zav who experienced three emissions is obligated to bring an offering after he recovers, in order to complete his purification process.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.9.1	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.9.1", "sections": [ "Megillah.8a.10", "Megillah.8a.11", "Megillah.8a.12", "Megillah.8a.13", "Megillah.8a.14" ] }	GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of transmitting ritual impurity to a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting, and similarly with regard to the counting of seven days clean of emissions so that he may immerse in a ritual bath as part of the purification process, both this, i.e., one who experienced two emissions, and that, one who experienced three emissions, are equal. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita that Rabbi Simai says: The verse enumerated two emissions: When any man has an emission out of his flesh, due to his emission he is impure (Leviticus 15: 2) , and it called the zav impure. Another verse enumerated three emissions: And this shall be his impurity in his emission: Whether his flesh runs with his emission, or his flesh be stopped from his emission, it is his impurity (Leviticus 15: 3) , and it too called him impure. How so? If he is impure after two emissions, for what purpose does the Torah mention three? It is to teach: Two emissions to establish impurity and three to render him liable to bring an offering. The Gemara raises an alternative. And say instead: Two emissions to establish impurity but not to render him liable to bring an offering; three emissions to render him liable to bring an offering, but not to establish impurity. The Gemara rejects this: That is impossible, as you can say that until he experienced three emissions, he already experienced two, and therefore he is impure in the case of three emissions as well. The Gemara raises a different alternative. And say instead: Two emissions to render him liable to bring an offering, but not to establish impurity; three emissions to establish impurity as well. The Gemara answers that this suggestion cannot enter your mind, as it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: And the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord from his emission (Leviticus 15: 15) . The preposition from that precedes the words his emissions indicates that some with the status of a zav bring an offering and some with the status of a zav do not bring an offering. How so? If he experienced three emissions, he brings an offering; if he experienced two emissions, he does not bring an offering. The baraita suggests: Or perhaps, it means nothing other than that if one experienced two emissions, he brings an offering; if he experienced three emissions, he does not bring an offering. The Gemara rejects this: That is impossible, as you can say that until he experienced three emissions, he already experienced two, and therefore he is obligated to bring an offering in the case of three emissions as well.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.9.2	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.9.2", "sections": [ "Megillah.8a.15", "Megillah.8a.16", "Megillah.8a.17", "Megillah.8a.18", "Megillah.8b.1", "Megillah.8b.2" ] }	The Gemara comments: It was necessary to cite the proof of Rabbi Simai based on the number of mentions of the word emissions in the two verses, and it was necessary to cite the proof from the words: From his emission. As if the difference between two and three emissions was derived from the statement of Rabbi Simai, I would have said in accordance with our question: Perhaps one who experiences two emissions brings an offering, and one who experiences three emissions is impure and brings an offering. Therefore, it teaches us: From his emission. And if the difference between two and three emissions was derived from the term: From his emission, I would not have known how many emissions render him liable to bring an offering, only that some with the status of a zav are not required to bring an offering. Therefore, it teaches us the proof cited by Rabbi Simai. The Gemara asks: And now that you said that the term: From his emission, is exclusionary and comes for derivation, what do you derive from the verse: And when the zav is cleansed from his emission (Leviticus 15: 13) ? The Gemara answers: That verse is needed to derive that which was taught in a baraita. It is written: And when the zav is cleansed from his emission, then he shall count to himself seven days for his purification (Leviticus 15: 13) , when his emissions cease. The baraita infers from the term: From his emission, that he needs to be cleansed only from his emission, but not from his emission and his leprosy. If one was both a zav and also had leprosy, he need not wait until he is asymptomatic of his leprosy before counting seven clean days. Rather, he counts seven clean days, and after the leprosy symptoms cease, he immerses for both impurities. From his emission, then he shall count: This teaches concerning a zav who experienced two emissions, that he too requires a count of seven clean days. The baraita continues: But in order to derive that halakha, the verse is unnecessary, as isnt it only logical? If a zav who experienced two emissions renders a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting ritually impure and all strictures of a zav apply to him, wouldnt he require a count of seven clean days to become purified? A woman who observes a clean day for one day or two days that she experiences a discharge will prove that this is not the case. This refers to a woman who experienced one or two days of bleeding not during her menstrual period and is required to wait one day without any further discharge of blood before immersion in a ritual bath. This is significant because she renders a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting ritually impure, and nevertheless she does not require a count of seven clean days to become purified. And you too should not then be surprised that this zav, although he renders a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting ritually impure, he does not require a count of seven clean days to become purified. Therefore, the verse states: From his emission, then he shall count, meaning that even a partial zav is obligated in the mitzva of: Then he shall count. This teaches concerning a zav who experienced two emissions, that he too requires a count of seven clean days.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.9.3	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.9.3", "sections": [ "Megillah.8b.3", "Megillah.8b.4", "Megillah.8b.5" ] }	Rav Pappa said to Abaye: What is different about this verse that states: From his emission, which is interpreted to include a zav who experienced two emissions in the obligation to count seven clean days; and what is different about that verse that states: From his emission, which is interpreted to exclude a zav who experienced two emissions from the obligation to bring an offering? Why is the identical term interpreted once as inclusionary and once as exclusionary? Abaye said to him: If it enters your mind to say that this instance of the term: From his emission, comes to exclude a zav who experienced two emissions from the obligation to count seven clean days, let the verse remain silent and omit the term, as there would have been no basis to include a zav who experienced two emissions in that halakha. And if you would say that this can be inferred logically, a woman who observes a day for a day will prove that there is no correlation between ritual impurity transmitted to a surface designated for lying and a surface designated for sitting, and the obligation to count seven clean days. And if you would say that this term: From his emission, is needed to derive a different inclusion, i.e., that he counts seven days when he is clean from his emission and not from his leprosy and therefore it was necessary to write this term, that is not so. As if it were so, then let the verse write: And when the zav is cleansed and let the verse remain silent and omit the term, and it would have been clear that even one afflicted with leprosy counts seven clean days once he is cleansed from his emission. Why then do I need the term: From his emission? Rather, it must be understood as an inclusionary term that teaches concerning a zav who experienced two emissions, that he too requires a count of seven clean days.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.m.10.1	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.m.10.1", "sections": [ "Megillah.8b.6", "Megillah.8b.7" ] }	MISHNA: The difference between a quarantined leper, i.e., one examined by a priest who found his symptoms to be inconclusive, and who must therefore remain in isolation for a period of up to two weeks waiting to see if conclusive symptoms develop; and a confirmed leper, i.e., one whose symptoms were conclusive and the priest declared him an absolute leper, is only with regard to letting the hair on ones head grow wild and rending ones garments. A confirmed leper is obligated to let the hair on his head grow wild and rend his garments; a quarantined leper is not. The difference between a leper purified from quarantine, whose symptoms never became conclusive, and a leper purified from a state of confirmed leprosy is only with regard to shaving the hair on all his body and bringing birds as a purification offering, which are obligations incumbent only upon the confirmed leper.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.10.1	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.10.1", "sections": [ "Megillah.8b.10", "Megillah.8b.11", "Megillah.8b.12", "Megillah.8b.13", "Megillah.8b.8", "Megillah.8b.9" ] }	Rava said to him: However, if that is so, i.e., that vetaher means that one is somewhat pure at the outset, then with regard to a zav, as it is written: And he shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and he shall be clean [vetaher] (Leviticus 15: 13) , there, what sense of: And he shall be clean, at the outset is there in that case? Up until that point, the zav was ritually impure in every sense. Rather, vetaher means that he is now pure from rendering earthenware vessels impure through movement. There is a halakha that a zav renders a vessel impure if he causes it to be moved, even though he did not come into direct contact with it, even if the opening of the vessel is smaller than a fingerbreadth. The verse teaches that once the zav is purified through counting and immersion, he no longer renders vessels impure in that manner. The novelty here is that even if he then experiences another emission, he does not render the vessels impure retroactively. This emission is unrelated to the previous emissions. Therefore, upon experiencing the emission, the zav is not retroactively considered to have been ritually impure the entire time, even after immersion. Rather, since he counted seven clean days and immersed, the legal status of this latest emission is that of a new emission. Here too, with regard to the leper, vetaher means that the quarantined leper is now pure from retroactively rendering the contents of a house impure by his entrance into the house. If someone with inconclusive symptoms of leprosy was quarantined and then declared ritually pure, and subsequently conclusive symptoms of leprosy developed, he is not considered to have been a leper from the time of the original quarantine, in which case the contents of any house he entered from that point would be rendered impure retroactively. Rather, once he was purified, he was absolutely pure. These subsequent conclusive symptoms are unrelated to the previous inconclusive symptoms. Therefore, the proof adduced by Rav Shmuel bar Yitzhak is no proof. Rather, Rava said that the halakha that a quarantined leper is exempt from the obligation to let his hair grow and to rend his clothing is derived from here. It is written: And the leper in whom [bo] the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall grow wild (Leviticus 13: 45) , indicating that only one whose leprosy is dependent on the state of his body, in whom the plague is, is obligated to let his hair grow wild and to rend his garments. This excludes that leper whose leprosy is not dependent solely on the state of his body, but rather on the passage of days, as he is obligated to wait seven days. GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of expulsion, from all three camps in the encampment of the Israelites in the desert and from the walled cities in Eretz Yisrael, and the ritual impurity of a leper: Both this, the quarantined leper, and that, the confirmed leper, are equal. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as Rav Shmuel bar Yitzhak taught in a baraita before Rav Huna. It is written with regard to a leper who was purified from quarantine: The priest shall pronounce him clean: It is but a scab, and he shall wash his clothes and be purified [vetaher] (Leviticus 13: 6) . The word vetaher is not in the future tense, which would indicate that from that point he is purified; it is rather in the present tense, indicating that at the outset, even before the priests pronouncement, he was pure in the sense that he was exempt from the initial obligation of letting the hair on his head grow wild and rending his garments, as those obligations are incumbent exclusively upon the confirmed leper.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.10.2	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.10.2", "sections": [ "Megillah.8b.14", "Megillah.8b.15", "Megillah.8b.16", "Megillah.8b.17", "Megillah.8b.18" ] }	Abaye said to him: However, if that is so, then also with regard to the verse: All the days during which the plague shall be in him [bo] he shall be impure (Leviticus 13: 46) , say one whose leprosy is dependent on the state of his body requires expulsion from the camp, and one whose leprosy is not dependent solely on the state of his body, but rather on the passage of days, does not require expulsion. And if you would say: Indeed that is so, but isnt it taught in the mishna: The difference between a quarantined leper and a confirmed leper is only with regard to letting the hair on ones head grow wild and rending ones garments? And it is inferred that with regard to the matter of expulsion and the capacity of a leper to render impure the contents of a house by entry into the house, both this, the quarantined leper, and that, the confirmed leper, are equal. Rava said to him: There is a different source for the obligation to expel the quarantined leper from the camp. The verse could have stated: The days during which the plague shall be upon him. Instead the verse states: All the days, to include a quarantined leper in the obligation of expulsion from the camp, like a confirmed leper. The Gemara asks: If that is so, what is the reason that a quarantined leper is not obligated in shaving the hair on all his body and bringing birds as a purification offering as part of his purification process? As it teaches in the mishna: The difference between a leper purified from quarantine, whose symptoms never became conclusive, and a leper purified from a state of confirmed leprosy, is only with regard to shaving the hair on all his body and bringing birds as a purification offering. Abaye said that the verse states: And the priest shall go out of the camp, and the priest shall look, and behold, if the plague of leprosy is healed in the leper (Leviticus 14: 3) , then the purification process that includes shaving and bringing birds commences. This indicates that these halakhot apply to a confirmed leper whose leprosy is dependent on healing, to exclude that leper whose leprosy is not dependent solely on healing but rather on the passage of days. Even if his symptoms are healed, he is pure only at the conclusion of the seven days of quarantine.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.m.11.1	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.m.11.1", "sections": [ "Megillah.8b.19", "Megillah.8b.20" ] }	MISHNA: The difference between Torah scrolls, and phylacteries and mezuzot, in terms of the manner in which they are written, is only that Torah scrolls are written in any language, whereas phylacteries and mezuzot are written only in Ashurit, i.e., in Hebrew and using the Hebrew script. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even with regard to Torah scrolls, the Sages permitted them to be written only in Greek. Torah scrolls written in any other language do not have the sanctity of a Torah scroll.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.11.1	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.11.1", "sections": [ "Megillah.8b.21", "Megillah.8b.22", "Megillah.8b.23", "Megillah.9a.1", "Megillah.9a.2" ] }	GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of stitching the sheets of parchment with sinews, and with regard to rendering the hands of one who touches them impure, both this, Torah scrolls, and that, phylacteries and mezuzot, are equal. The Sages issued a decree rendering the hands of one who touches sacred scrolls impure with second-degree ritual impurity. The mishna stated: Torah scrolls are written in any language. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: A Torah scroll containing a Hebrew verse in the Bible that one wrote in Aramaic translation, or a verse written in Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible, or that was written in the ancient Hebrew script and not in Ashurit, renders the hands impure only if one writes it in Ashurit script, on a parchment scroll, and in ink. Apparently, contrary to the mishna, a scroll written in a language other than Hebrew is not sacred. Rava said: This is not difficult. Here, the mishna is referring to Torah scrolls written in another language in our script, i.e., in Hebrew letters. There, the baraita is referring to Torah scrolls written in another language in their script, in the letters of another alphabet. Abaye said to Rava: How did you establish that baraita, i.e., that it is referring to Torah scrolls written in another language in their script? If it is so, why did the baraita specifically teach that the legal status of a Hebrew verse in the Bible that one wrote in Aramaic translation, or a verse written in Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible, is not that of sacred writings? The legal status of even a Hebrew verse in the Bible that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible and a verse written in Aramaic translation that one wrote in Aramaic translation are also not that of sacred writings, as it is taught at the end of the baraita: A Torah scroll renders the hands impure only if one writes it in Ashurit script, on a parchment scroll, and in ink.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.11.2	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.11.2", "sections": [ "Megillah.9a.3", "Megillah.9a.4", "Megillah.9a.5", "Megillah.9a.6", "Megillah.9a.7" ] }	Rather, the matter must be explained differently. This is not difficult. This ruling in the mishna is according to the Rabbis, who permit writing Torah scrolls in any language, and that ruling in the baraita is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. The Gemara asks: If the baraita is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, in addition to Ashurit, isnt there Greek in which the Torah may also be written? Rather, say this is not difficult. Here, the mishna is referring to Torah scrolls, which may be written in any language; there, the baraita is referring to phylacteries and mezuzot, which may be written only in Hebrew, using Hebrew script. The Gemara asks: With regard to phylacteries and mezuzot, what is the reason that they must be written in Hebrew? The Gemara explains: It is because it is written with regard to them: And these words shall be (Deuteronomy 6: 6) , indicating that as they are so shall they be, without change. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If the baraita is referring to phylacteries and mezuzot, what Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible is there? Granted, in the Torah there is a verse written in Aramaic translation: Yegar sahaduta (Genesis 31: 47) ; however, here, in phylacteries and mezuzot, what verses in Aramaic translation are there that could be written in Hebrew? Rather, say this is not difficult. Here, the baraita is referring to the Megilla, the Scroll of Esther, which must be written in Hebrew; there, the mishna is referring to Torah scrolls, which may be written in any language. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Megilla must be written in Hebrew? It is due to the fact that it is written with regard to the Megilla: According to their writing, and according to their language (Esther 8: 9) , without change. The Gemara asks: But if the baraita is referring to the Megilla, what Aramaic translation that one wrote in the Hebrew of the Bible is there? The entire Megilla is written in Hebrew. Rav Pappa said that it is written: And when the kings decree [pitgam] shall be publicized (Esther 1: 20) , and that pitgam is essentially an Aramaic word. Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said that it is written: And all the wives will give honor [yekar] to their husbands (Esther 1: 20) , and yekar is Aramaic for honor.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.11.3	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.11.3", "sections": [ "Megillah.9a.10", "Megillah.9a.11", "Megillah.9a.8", "Megillah.9a.9" ] }	Rather, say in explanation of the baraita: And our Rabbis permitted them to be written only in Greek. And it is taught in another baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: Even when our Rabbis permitted Greek, they permitted it only in a Torah scroll, and not for other books of the Bible, which must be written only in Hebrew. The Gemara continues: And this was due to the incident of King Ptolemy, as it is taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving King Ptolemy of Egypt, who assembled seventy-two Elders from the Sages of Israel, and put them into seventy-two separate rooms, and did not reveal to them for what purpose he assembled them, so that they would not coordinate their responses. He entered and approached each and every one, and said to each of them: Write for me a translation of the Torah of Moses your teacher. The Holy One, Blessed be He, placed wisdom in the heart of each and every one, and they all agreed to one common understanding. Not only did they all translate the text correctly, they all introduced the same changes into the translated text. Rav Ashi suggested a different explanation and said: When that baraita is taught it is taught with regard to the rest of the books of the Bible, other than the Torah. And it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Phylacteries and mezuzot are written only in Ashurit; and our Rabbis permitted writing them in Greek as well. The Gemara asks: How did our Rabbis permit this? Isnt it written with regard to phylacteries and mezuzot: And these words shall be (Deuteronomy 6: 6) , indicating that their language may not be changed. Rather, say that this is what the baraita is saying: Torah scrolls are written in any language; and our Rabbis permitted writing them in Greek as well. Once again the Gemara asks: Our Rabbis permitted? By inference, apparently the first tanna prohibits writing a Torah scroll in Greek. However, he explicitly permits writing a Torah scroll in any language.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.11.4	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.11.4", "sections": [ "Megillah.9a.11", "Megillah.9a.12", "Megillah.9a.13", "Megillah.9a.14", "Megillah.9a.15" ] }	The Gemara continues: And this was due to the incident of King Ptolemy, as it is taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving King Ptolemy of Egypt, who assembled seventy-two Elders from the Sages of Israel, and put them into seventy-two separate rooms, and did not reveal to them for what purpose he assembled them, so that they would not coordinate their responses. He entered and approached each and every one, and said to each of them: Write for me a translation of the Torah of Moses your teacher. The Holy One, Blessed be He, placed wisdom in the heart of each and every one, and they all agreed to one common understanding. Not only did they all translate the text correctly, they all introduced the same changes into the translated text. And they wrote for him: God created in the beginning [bereshit] , reversing the order of the words in the first phrase in the Torah that could be misinterpreted as: Bereshit created God (Genesis 1: 1) . They did so to negate those who believe in the preexistence of the world and those who maintain that there are two powers in the world: One is Bereshit, who created the second, God. And they wrote: I shall make man in image and in likeness, rather than: Let us make man in our image and in our likeness (Genesis 1: 26) , as from there too one could mistakenly conclude that there are multiple powers and that God has human form. Instead of: And on the seventh day God concluded His work (Genesis 2: 2) , which could have been understood as though some of His work was completed on Shabbat itself, they wrote: And on the sixth day He concluded His work, and He rested on the seventh day. They also wrote: Male and female He created him, and they did not write as it is written in the Torah: Male and female He created them (Genesis 5: 2) , to avoid the impression that there is a contradiction between this verse and the verse: And God created man (Genesis 1: 27) , which indicates that God created one person. Instead of: Come, let us go down, and there confound their language (Genesis 11: 7) , which indicates multiple authorities, they wrote in the singular: Come, let me go down, and there confound their language. In addition, they replaced the verse: And Sarah laughed within herself [bekirba] (Genesis 18: 12) , with: And Sarah laughed among her relatives [bikroveha] . They made this change to distinguish between Sarahs laughter, which God criticized, and Abrahams laughter, to which no reaction is recorded. Based on the change, Sarahs laughter was offensive because she voiced it to others. They also altered the verse: For in their anger they slew a man and in their self-will they slaughtered an ox (Genesis 49: 6) , to read: For in their anger they slew an ox and in their self-will they uprooted a trough, to avoid the charge that Jacobs sons were murderers. Instead of: And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon a donkey (Exodus 4: 20) , they wrote: And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon a carrier of people, which could be understood as referring to a horse or a camel rather than the lowly donkey.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.11.5	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.11.5", "sections": [ "Megillah.9a.15", "Megillah.9a.16", "Megillah.9b.1", "Megillah.9b.2", "Megillah.9b.3" ] }	They also altered the verse: For in their anger they slew a man and in their self-will they slaughtered an ox (Genesis 49: 6) , to read: For in their anger they slew an ox and in their self-will they uprooted a trough, to avoid the charge that Jacobs sons were murderers. Instead of: And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon a donkey (Exodus 4: 20) , they wrote: And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon a carrier of people, which could be understood as referring to a horse or a camel rather than the lowly donkey. Instead of: And the residence of the children of Israel, who resided in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years (Exodus 12: 40) , which when read literally is imprecise, for they did not dwell in Egypt that long, they wrote: And the residence of the children of Israel, who resided in Egypt and in other lands, was four hundred years. Instead of: And he sent the youth of the children of Israel, who brought burnt-offerings (Exodus 24: 5) , which evokes the question of why young men were sent to perform that service, they wrote: And he sent the elect [zaatutei] of the children of Israel. The same term was substituted again several verses later, rendering the verse: And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand (Exodus 24: 11) , as: And upon the elect of the children of Israel He laid not His hand. Instead of Moses assertion: I have not taken one donkey [hamor] from them (Numbers 16: 15) , they wrote in more general terms: I have not taken one item of value [hemed] from them, to prevent the impression that Moses took other items. To the verse that discusses the worship of the sun and the moon, about which it is written: Which the Lord your God has allotted to all the nations (Deuteronomy 4: 19) , they added a word to make it read: Which the Lord your God has allotted to give light to all the nations, to prevent the potential misinterpretation that the heavenly bodies were given to the gentiles so that they may worship them. The verse: And has gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or the moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded (Deuteronomy 17: 3) , could be understood as indicating that God did not command their existence, i.e., these entities created themselves. Therefore, when these Elders translated the verse they added a word to the end of the verse to make it read: Which I have not commanded to serve them. And in the list of unclean animals they wrote for him: The short-legged beast [tzeirat haraglayim] . And they did not write for him: And the hare [arnevet] (Leviticus 11: 6) , since the name of Ptolemys wife was Arnevet, so that he would not say: The Jews have mocked me and inserted my wifes name in the Torah. Therefore, they did not refer to the hare by name, but by one of its characteristic features.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.11.6	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.11.6", "sections": [ "Megillah.9b.4", "Megillah.9b.5" ] }	The mishna cites that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even with regard to Torah scrolls, the Sages permitted them to be written only in Greek. Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yohanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And Rabbi Yohanan said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? He based his opinion on an allusion in the Torah, as the verse states: God shall enlarge Japheth, and He shall dwell in the tents of Shem (Genesis 9: 27) , indicating that the words of Japheth shall be in the tents of Shem. The language of Javan, who is the forbear of the Greek nation and one of the descendants of Japheth, will also serve as a sacred language in the tents of Shem, where Torah is studied. The Gemara asks: And say that it is the languages of Gomer and Magog that serve as sacred languages, as they too were descendants of Japheth (see Genesis 10: 2) . The Gemara answers that Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said: This is the reason, as it is written: God shall enlarge [yaft] Japheth [Yefet] . Yaft is etymologically similar to the Hebrew term for beauty [yofi] . The verse teaches that the beauty of Japheth shall be in the tents of Shem, and Greek is the most beautiful of the languages of the descendants of Japheth.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.m.12.1	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.m.12.1", "sections": [ "Megillah.9b.6", "Megillah.9b.7" ] }	MISHNA: The difference between a High Priest anointed with the oil of anointing, which was the method through which High Priests were consecrated until the oil was sequestered toward the end of the First Temple period, and one consecrated by donning multiple garments unique to the High Priest, which was the practice during the Second Temple period, is only that the latter does not bring the bull that comes for transgression of any of the mitzvot. An anointed High Priest who unwittingly issued an erroneous halakhic ruling and acted upon that ruling, and transgressed a mitzva whose unwitting violation renders one liable to bring a sin-offering, is obligated to bring a sin-offering unique to one in his position. The difference between a High Priest currently serving in that capacity and a former High Priest, who temporarily filled that position when the High Priest was unfit for service, is only with regard to the bull brought by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, and the tenth of an ephah meal-offering brought daily by the High Priest. Each of these offerings is brought only by the current High Priest, and not by a former High Priest.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.12.1	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.12.1", "sections": [ "Megillah.9b.10", "Megillah.9b.11", "Megillah.9b.8", "Megillah.9b.9" ] }	The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? It is as it is taught in a baraita that it is written: If the anointed priest shall sin (Leviticus 4: 3) . From the word anointed, I have derived only that this halakha applies to a High Priest who was actually anointed with the oil of anointing. From where do I derive that even a High Priest consecrated by donning the multiple garments is also included in this halakha? The verse states: The anointed, with the definite article, indicating that the halakha applies to every High Priest. The Gemara asks: How did we establish the mishna? We established that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Say the latter clause of the mishna: The difference between a High Priest currently serving in that capacity and a former High Priest is only with regard to the bull brought on Yom Kippur, and the tenth of an ephah meal-offering. The Gemara infers that with regard to all other matters, both this, a High Priest currently serving, and that, a former High Priest, are equal. If so we have arrived at the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: If temporary disqualification befell the High Priest, and they appointed another priest in his stead, then after the cause of disqualification of the first priest passes, he returns to his service as High Priest. With regard to the second priest, all of the mitzvot of the High Priest are incumbent upon him; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The first returns to his service; the second is fit to serve neither as a High Priest nor as a common priest. GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of the bull brought by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, and with regard to the tenth of an ephah meal-offering, both this, the anointed High Priest, and that, the High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments, are equal. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it would be difficult. Isnt it taught in a baraita: A High Priest consecrated by donning the multiple garments unique to the High Priest brings the bull brought for the unwitting violation of any of the mitzvot; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He does not bring that offering.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.12.2	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.12.2", "sections": [ "Megillah.9b.12", "Megillah.9b.13", "Megillah.9b.14" ] }	And Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident involving the priest Rabbi Yosef ben Elem of Tzippori, who, when disqualification befell a High Priest, the priests appointed him in his stead. And after the cause of the disqualification was resolved, the incident came before the Sages for a ruling with regard to the status of Rabbi Yosef ben Elem. And the Sages said: The original High Priest returns to his service, while the second is fit to serve neither as High Priest nor as a common priest. The Gemara explains: Neither as a High Priest, due to hatred, jealousy, and bitterness that would arise if there were two High Priests with equal standing in the Temple; nor as a common priest, because the principle is: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade. Once he has served as a High Priest he cannot be restored to the position of a common priest. Is that to say that the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Meir, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Rav Hisda said: Indeed, the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rav Yosef said: The entire mishna is according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he formulates it according to the opinions of different tannaim, that is to say, resulting in a third opinion, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to a High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments, and the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to a former High Priest.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.m.13.1	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.m.13.1", "sections": [ "Megillah.9b.15" ] }	MISHNA: The difference between a great, public altar, such as the altars established at Nob and Gibeon, which served as religious centers following the destruction of the Tabernacle in Shiloh, and a small, personal altar on which individuals would sacrifice their offerings, is only with regard to Paschal lambs, which may not be sacrificed on a small altar. This is the principle: Any offering that is vowed or contributed voluntarily is sacrificed on a small altar, and any offering that is neither vowed nor contributed voluntarily, but rather is compulsory, e.g., a sin-offering, is not sacrificed on a small altar.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.13.1	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.13.1", "sections": [ "Megillah.9b.16", "Megillah.9b.17" ] }	GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Is the difference only Paschal lambs and nothing more? The continuation of the mishna indicates that there are additional differences. The Gemara answers: Say that the difference between them is only with regard to offerings that are similar to Paschal lambs. The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion is the mishna taught? The Gemara answers: It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Even the public sacrificed only Paschal lambs and compulsory offerings for which there is a set time, like fixed communal offerings. However, compulsory offerings for which there is not a set time, e.g., sin-offerings brought for an unwitting transgression committed by the community, are sacrificed neither here on a small altar nor here on a great altar; they are sacrificed only in the Temple.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.m.14.1	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.m.14.1", "sections": [ "Megillah.10a.1", "Megillah.9b.18", "Megillah.9b.19" ] }	after the Tabernacle was destroyed, there is permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars. But with regard to the sanctity of Jerusalem, after the Temple was destroyed, there is no permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars, as the prohibition remains intact. MISHNA: The difference between the Tabernacle in Shilo and the Temple in Jerusalem is only that in Shiloh one eats offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g., individual peace-offerings, thanks-offerings, and the Paschal lamb, and also the second tithe, in any place that overlooks Shiloh, as Shiloh was not a walled city and any place within its Shabbat boundary was regarded as part of the city. And in Jerusalem one eats those consecrated items only within the walls. And here, in Shiloh, and there, in Jerusalem, offerings of the most sacred order are eaten only within the hangings. The Tabernacle courtyard in Shiloh was surrounded by hangings and the Temple courtyard in Jerusalem was surrounded by a wall. There is another difference: With regard to the sanctity of Shiloh,
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.1	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.1", "sections": [ "Megillah.10a.2", "Megillah.10a.3" ] }	GEMARA: Rabbi Yitzhak said: I heard that one sacrifices offerings in the temple of Onias in Egypt at the present time. The Gemara cites the basis for the statement of Rabbi Yitzhak. He maintains that the temple of Onias is not a house of idol worship but rather a temple devoted to the service of God, and he maintains that the initial consecration sanctified Jerusalem for its time and did not sanctify Jerusalem forever. Therefore, after the destruction of the Temple, the sanctity of Jerusalem lapsed and the sacrifice of offerings elsewhere was no longer prohibited. For these reasons it was permitted to sacrifice offerings in the temple of Onias after the Temple was destroyed. The Gemara cites the source of this halakha. It is as it is written: For you are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance (Deuteronomy 12: 9) , which is interpreted: Rest, this is Shiloh; inheritance, this is Jerusalem. The verse juxtaposes and likens inheritance to rest: Just as in the place of rest, Shiloh, after its destruction there is permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars, so too in the place of inheritance, Jerusalem, after its destruction there is permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.2	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.2", "sections": [ "Megillah.10a.4", "Megillah.10a.5" ] }	The Gemara reports that the other Sages said to Rabbi Yitzhak: Did you say this halakha with regard to the temple of Onias? He said to them: No, I did not say that. Rava said, reinforcing his assertion with an oath: By God! Rabbi Yitzhak did in fact say this, and I myself learned it from him, but he later retracted this ruling. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason he retracted his ruling? The Gemara explains: It is due to the difficulty raised by Rav Mari, as Rav Mari raised an objection from the mishna: With regard to the sanctity of Shiloh, after the Tabernacle was destroyed there is permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars. But with regard to the sanctity of Jerusalem, after the Temple was destroyed there is no permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars. And furthermore, we learned in a mishna (Zevahim 112b): Once they came to Jerusalem, improvised altars were prohibited, and they did not again have permission to do so, and Jerusalem became the everlasting inheritance.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.3	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.3", "sections": [ "Megillah.10a.6", "Megillah.10a.7" ] }	The Gemara comments: This matter is subject to a dispute between tannaim, as it is taught in a mishna (Eduyyot 8: 6): Rabbi Eliezer said: I heard that when they were building the Sanctuary in the Second Temple, they fashioned temporary hangings for the Sanctuary and temporary hangings for the courtyard to serve as partitions until construction of the stone walls was completed. The difference was only that in building the Sanctuary, the workers built the walls outside the hangings, without entering, and in the courtyard, the workers built the walls inside the hangings. And Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard that one sacrifices offerings on the altar even though there is no Temple, one eats offerings of the most sacred order in the Temple courtyard even if there are no hangings, and one eats offerings of lesser sanctity and second tithe produce in Jerusalem even if there is no wall surrounding the city, due to the fact that the initial consecration sanctified Jerusalem for its time and also sanctified Jerusalem forever. Even if the walls do not exist, the sanctity remains intact. The Gemara concludes: From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua based his opinion on the principle that the initial sanctification sanctified Jerusalem forever, by inference one can conclude that Rabbi Eliezer holds: It did not sanctify Jerusalem forever. Apparently, this issue is subject to a dispute between tannaim.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.4	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.4", "sections": [ "Megillah.10a.8", "Megillah.10a.9" ] }	Ravina said to Rav Ashi: From where do you draw this inference? Perhaps everyone maintains that the initial consecration sanctified Jerusalem for its time and also sanctified Jerusalem forever. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, stated that tradition, which he heard from his teachers, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua, stated that tradition, which he heard from his teachers, and there is no dispute between them. And if you would say: Why then do I need hangings at all according to Rabbi Eliezer? The original sanctity remained when Jerusalem was not surrounded by walls, and the presence or absence of hangings is irrelevant as well. The Gemara answers: The hangings were established merely for seclusion, as it would have been unbecoming for the activity in this most sacred venue to be visible to all. Rather, this matter is subject to the dispute between these tannaim, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: Why did the Sages enumerate these nine cities in tractate Arakhin as cities walled since the days of Joshua, son of Nun? Werent there many more? As, when the exiles ascended to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, they discovered these cities and consecrated them as walled cities; but the sanctity of the first walled cities enumerated in the book of Joshua was negated when settlement in the land was negated and the Jewish people were exiled. Apparently, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, maintains: The initial consecration sanctified Jerusalem for its time only and did not sanctify Jerusalem forever.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.5	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.5", "sections": [ "Megillah.10a.10", "Megillah.10a.11", "Megillah.10b.1", "Megillah.10b.2" ] }	The Gemara raises a contradiction from a different baraita. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: Were these cities that were enumerated in tractate Arakhin the only walled cities? Wasnt it already stated: Sixty cities, all the region of Argov (Deuteronomy 3: 4) , and concerning these cities it is written: All these cities were fortified with high walls, gates and bars (Deuteronomy 3: 5) , indicating that there were a great number of walled cities? Rather, why then did the Sages enumerate these specific cities? It is due to the fact that when the exiles ascended from Babylonia they discovered these and consecrated them as walled cities. The Gemara asks: Consecrated them? If their sanctity remained, why was it necessary to consecrate them? Now, didnt they say later in the same baraita that it is not necessary to consecrate them? Rather, this is what the baraita means to say: It is due to the fact that when the exiles ascended from Babylonia they discovered these and enumerated them. The baraita continues. And not only these, but in any city with regard to which you receive a tradition from your ancestors that it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun, all these mitzvot are observed in it, due to the fact that the initial consecration sanctified Eretz Yisrael for its time and sanctified Eretz Yisrael forever. This is difficult, as there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yishmael and another statement of Rabbi Yishmael.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.6	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.6", "sections": [ "Megillah.10b.2", "Megillah.10b.3" ] }	The baraita continues. And not only these, but in any city with regard to which you receive a tradition from your ancestors that it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun, all these mitzvot are observed in it, due to the fact that the initial consecration sanctified Eretz Yisrael for its time and sanctified Eretz Yisrael forever. This is difficult, as there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yishmael and another statement of Rabbi Yishmael. The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between two later tannaim, who hold according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. Each transmitted Rabbi Yishmaels opinion in a different manner. And if you wish, say instead that one of the traditions is mistaken, as with regard to this statement, Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei said it, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said that the verse states: Which has [lo] a wall (Leviticus 25: 30) . The word lo is written with an alef, meaning no, that it does not have a wall, but its vocalization is in the sense of its homonym, lo with a vav, meaning that it has a wall. This indicates that even though it does not presently have a wall, as it was destroyed, but it had a wall previously, it retains its status as a walled city. It is Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that the first consecration sanctified Jerusalem forever.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.7	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.7", "sections": [ "Megillah.10b.4", "Megillah.10b.5", "Megillah.10b.6", "Megillah.10b.7" ] }	The Gemara returns to the primary topic of this chapter, the book of Esther. The Gemara cites various aggadic interpretations of the verses of the Megilla. The opening verse of the Megilla states: And it came to pass [vayhi] in the days of Ahasuerus (Esther 1: 1) . Rabbi Levi said, and some say that it was Rabbi Yonatan who said: This matter is a tradition that we received from the members of the Great Assembly. Anywhere that the word vayhi is stated, it is an ominous term indicating nothing other than impending grief, as if the word were a contraction of the words vai and hi, meaning woe and mourning. The Gemara cites several proofs corroborating this interpretation. And it came to pass [vayhi] in the days of Ahasuerus led to grief, as there was Haman. And it came to pass [vayhi] in the days when the judges ruled (Ruth 1: 1) introduces a period when there was famine. And it came to pass [vayhi] , when men began to multiply (Genesis 6: 1) is immediately followed by the verse: And the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth (Genesis 6: 5) . And it came to pass [vayhi] as they journeyed from the east (Genesis 11: 2) is followed by: Come, let us build us a city (Genesis 11: 4) , which led to the sin of the Tower of Babel. The Gemara cites further examples: And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel (Genesis 14: 1) , about whom it is stated: These made war (Genesis 14: 2) . Another verse states: And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho (Joshua 5: 13) , it was there that he saw an angel with his sword drawn in his hand as a warning. It is written: And the Lord was [vayhi] with Joshua (Joshua 6: 27) , and immediately afterward: But the children of Israel committed a trespass (Joshua 7: 1) . It states: And it came to pass that there was a certain man of Ramathaim (I Samuel 1: 1) , and it mentions shortly afterward Hannahs inability to conceive: For he loved Hannah, but the Lord had closed up her womb (I Samuel 1: 5) . Similarly, the verse states: And it came to pass, when Samuel was old (I Samuel 8: 1) , and then it is written: And his sons did not walk in his ways (I Samuel 8: 3) . Also, it states: And it came to pass that David was successful in all his ways, and the Lord was with him (I Samuel 18: 14) , and only a few verses prior it is written: And Saul viewed David with suspicion (I Samuel 18: 9) . In another instance, the verse states: And it came to pass, when the king dwelt in his house (II Samuel 7: 1) . Here King David mentioned his desire to build a temple for God, but it is written elsewhere that he was told: Yet you shall not build the house (II Chronicles 6: 9) .
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.8	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.8", "sections": [ "Megillah.10b.10", "Megillah.10b.11", "Megillah.10b.12", "Megillah.10b.8", "Megillah.10b.9" ] }	The Gemara cites additional verses where vayhi is not indicative of impending grief: But isnt it written: And it came to pass [vayhi] in the four hundred and eightieth year (I Kings 6: 1) , which discusses the joyous occasion of the building of the Temple? And furthermore, isnt it written: And it came to pass [vayhi] when Jacob saw Rachel (Genesis 29: 10) , which was a momentous occasion? And isnt it written: And it was [vayhi] evening, and it was [vayhi] morning, one day (Genesis 1: 5) ? And isnt there the second day of Creation, and isnt there the third day, where the term vayhi is used? And arent there many verses in the Bible in which the term vayhi appears and no grief ensues? Apparently, the proposed principle is incorrect. Rather, Rav Ashi said: With regard to every instance of vayhi alone, there are some that mean this, grief, and there are some that mean that, joy. However, wherever the phrase and it came to pass in the days of [vayhi bimei] is used in the Bible, it is nothing other than a term of impending grief. The Gemara states that there are five instances of vayhi bimei in the Bible. And it came to pass in the days of [vayhi bimei] Ahasuerus; And it came to pass in the days [vayhi bimei] when the judges ruled; And it came to pass in the days of [vayhi bimei] Amraphel; And it came to pass in the days of [vayhi bimei] Ahaz (Isaiah 7: 1) ; And it came to pass in the days of [vayhi bimei] Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 1: 3) . In all those incidents, grief ensued. After citing several verses where vayhi portends grief, the Gemara mentions a number of verses that seem to indicate otherwise. But isnt it written: And it came to pass [vayhi] on the eighth day (Leviticus 9: 1) , which was the day of the dedication of the Tabernacle? And it is taught in a baraita with regard to that day: On that day there was joy before the Holy One, Blessed be He, similar to the joy that existed on the day on which the heavens and earth were created. The Gemara cites a verbal analogy in support of this statement. It is written here, with regard to the dedication of the Tabernacle: And it came to pass [vayhi] on the eighth day, and it is written there, in the Creation story: And it was [vayhi] evening, and it was morning, one day (Genesis 1: 5) . This indicates that there was joy on the eighth day, when the Tabernacle was dedicated, similar to the joy that existed on the day the world was created. Apparently, the term vayhi is not necessarily a portent of grief. The Gemara answers: This verse does not contradict the principle. On the day of the dedication of the Tabernacle, a calamity also befell the people, as Nadav and Avihu died.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.9	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.9", "sections": [ "Megillah.10b.13", "Megillah.10b.14", "Megillah.10b.15" ] }	Apropos the tradition cited by Rabbi Levi above, the Gemara cites additional traditions that he transmitted. Rabbi Levi said: This matter is a tradition that we received from our ancestors: Amoz, father of Isaiah, and Amaziah, king of Judea, were brothers. The Gemara questions: What novel element is this statement teaching us? The Gemara responds: It is in accordance with that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Any bride who is modest in the house of her father-in-law merits that kings and prophets will emerge from her. From where do we derive this? From Tamar, as it is written: When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a prostitute; for she had covered her face (Genesis 38: 15) . Can it be that because Tamar covered her face he thought her to be a prostitute? On the contrary, a harlot tends to uncover her face. Rather, because she covered her face in the house of her father-in-law and he was not familiar with her appearance, Judah didnt recognize Tamar, thought she was a harlot, and sought to have sexual relations with her. Ultimately, she merited that kings and prophets emerged from her. Kings emerged from her through David, who was a descendant of Tamars son, Peretz. However, there is no explicit mention that she was the forebear of prophets. This is derived from that which Rabbi Levi said: This matter is a tradition that we received from our ancestors. Amoz, father of Isaiah, and Amaziah, king of Judea, were brothers, and it is written: The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz (Isaiah 1: 1) . Amoz was a member of the Davidic dynasty, and his son, the prophet Isaiah, was also a descendant of Tamar.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.10	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.10", "sections": [ "Megillah.10b.16", "Megillah.10b.17" ] }	And Rabbi Levi said: This matter is a tradition that we received from our ancestors: The place of the Ark of the Covenant is not included in the measurement of the Holy of Holies in which it rested. The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: The Ark crafted by Moses had ten cubits of empty space on each side. And it is written in the description of Solomons Temple: And before the Sanctuary, which was twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth (I Kings 6: 20) . The place before the Sanctuary is referring to the Holy of Holies. It was twenty by twenty cubits. If there were ten cubits of empty space on either side of the Ark, apparently the Ark itself occupied no space. And it is written: And the wing of one of the cherubs was ten cubits and the wing of the other cherub was ten cubits; the wings of the cherubs occupied the entire area. If so, where was the Ark itself standing? Rather, must one not conclude from it that the Ark stood by means of a miracle and occupied no space?
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.11	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.11", "sections": [ "Megillah.10b.18" ] }	The Gemara cites prologues utilized by various Sages to introduce study of the Megilla: Rabbi Yonatan introduced this passage, the book of Esther, with an introduction from here: For I will rise up against them, says the Lord of hosts, and cut off from Babylonia name, and remnant, and offspring [nin] , and posterity, says the Lord (Isaiah 14: 22) . This verse may be interpreted homiletically: Name, this is the writing of ancient Babylonia that will disappear from the world. Remnant, this is the language of ancient Babylonia. Offspring, this is their kingdom. And posterity, this is Vashti, who according to tradition was Nebuchadnezzars granddaughter, and the book of Esther relates how she too was removed from the throne.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.12	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.12", "sections": [ "Megillah.10b.19", "Megillah.10b.20", "Megillah.10b.21", "Megillah.10b.22", "Megillah.10b.23" ] }	Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani introduced this passage with an introduction from here: Instead of the thorn shall the cypress come up, and instead of the nettle shall the myrtle come up; and it shall be to the Lord for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off (Isaiah 55: 13) . Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani interpreted the verse homiletically as referring to the righteous individuals who superseded the wicked ones in the book of Esther. Instead of the thorn; this means instead of the wicked Haman. He is referred to as a thorn because he turned himself into an object of idol worship, as he decreed that all must prostrate themselves before him. The Gemara cites proof that the term thorn is used in connection with idol worship, as it is written: And upon all thorns, and upon all brambles (Isaiah 7: 19) , which is understood to be a reference to idol worship. The next section of the verse discusses what will replace the thorns, i.e., Haman: Shall the cypress [berosh] come up; this is Mordecai. Why is he called a cypress [berosh] ? Because he was called the chief [rosh] of all the spices, as it is stated: Take you also to yourself the chief spices, of pure myrrh [mar deror] (Exodus 30: 23) , and we translate pure myrrh, into Aramaic as mari dakhei. Mordecai was like mari dakhi, the chief [rosh] of spices, and therefore he is called berosh. The verse continues: And instead of the nettle [sirpad] , this means instead of the wicked Vashti. Why is she called a nettle [sirpad] ? Because she was the daughter of the son of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, who burned the ceiling [saraf refidat] of the House of God, as it is written: Its top [refidato] of gold (Song of Songs 3: 10) . The next section of the verse states: Shall the myrtle [hadas] come up; this is the righteous Esther, who was called Hadassah in the Megilla, as it is stated: And he had brought up Hadassah; that is, Esther (Esther 2: 7) . The concluding section of the verse states: And it shall be to the Lord for a name; this is the reading of the Megilla. For an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off; these are the days of Purim.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.13	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.13", "sections": [ "Megillah.10b.24", "Megillah.10b.25", "Megillah.10b.26", "Megillah.10b.27" ] }	Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi introduced this passage with an introduction from here: And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to cause you to perish, and to destroy you (Deuteronomy 28: 63) . The verse indicates that just as the Lord rejoiced in the good he did on behalf of Israel, so too, the Lord will rejoice to cause you harm. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked: Does the Holy One, Blessed be He, in fact rejoice over the downfall of the wicked? But it is written: As they went out before the army, and say: Give thanks to the Lord, for His kindness endures forever (II Chronicles 20: 21) , and Rabbi Yohanan said: For what reason were the words: for He is good not stated in this statement of thanksgiving, as the classic formulation is: Give thanks to the Lord; for He is good; for His kindness endures forever (I Chronicles 16: 34) ? Because the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not rejoice over the downfall of the wicked. Since this song was sung in the aftermath of a military victory, which involved the downfall of the wicked, the name of God was not mentioned for the good. And similarly, Rabbi Yohanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: And the one came not near the other all the night (Exodus 14: 20) ? The ministering angels wanted to sing their song, for the angels would sing songs to each other, as it states: And they called out to each other and said (Isaiah 6: 3) , but the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: The work of My hands, the Egyptians, are drowning at sea, and you wish to say songs? This indicates that God does not rejoice over the downfall of the wicked. Rabbi Elazar said that this is how the matter is to be understood: Indeed, God Himself does not rejoice over the downfall of the wicked, but He causes others to rejoice. The Gemara comments: One can learn from the language of the verse as well, as it is written: So the Lord will rejoice [ken yasis] (Deuteronomy 28: 63) . And it is not written yasus, the grammatical form of the verb meaning: He will rejoice. Rather, it is written yasis. The grammatical form of this verb indicates that one causes another to rejoice. Consequently, these words are understood to mean that God will cause others to rejoice. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the case.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.14	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.14", "sections": [ "Megillah.10b.28", "Megillah.10b.29", "Megillah.10b.30", "Megillah.11a.1" ] }	Rabbi Abba bar Kahana introduced this passage with an introduction from here. The verse states with regard to Gods reward to the righteous: He gives to a man that is good in His sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy (Ecclesiastes 2: 26) . The Gemara explains that this verse is referring to the righteous Mordecai. With regard to the next part of the verse: But to the sinner He gives the task of gathering and heaping up, this is referring to Haman. The conclusion of the verse states: That he may give it to one who is good before God (Ecclesiastes 2: 26) . This is Mordecai and Esther, as it is written: And Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman (Esther 8: 2) . Rabba bar Oferan introduced this passage with an introduction from here: And I will set my throne in Elam, and destroy from there the king and the princes, says the Lord (Jeremiah 49: 38) . The king who was destroyed; this is referring to Vashti. And the princes; this is referring to Haman and his ten sons. Rav Dimi bar Yitzhak introduced this passage with an introduction from here: For we are bondmen; yet our God has not forsaken us in our bondage, but has extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia (Ezra 9: 9) . When did this occur? In the time of Haman.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.15	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.15", "sections": [ "Megillah.11a.2", "Megillah.11a.3" ] }	Rabbi Hanina bar Pappa introduced this passage with an introduction from here: The verse states: You have caused men to ride over our heads; we went through fire and through water; but You brought us out into abundance (Psalms 66: 12) . Through fire; this was in the days of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, who cast the righteous into the furnace. And through water; this was in the days of Pharaoh, who decreed that all newborn males be cast into the water. But You brought us out into abundance; this was in the days of Haman, where abundant feasts played a pivotal role in their peril and salvation. Rabbi Yohanan introduced this passage with an introduction from here: The verse states: He has remembered His mercy and His faithfulness toward the house of Israel: All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God (Psalms 98: 3) . When did all the ends of the earth see the salvation of our God? In the days of Mordecai and Esther, for their peril and salvation became known through the letters sent throughout the empire.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.16	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.16", "sections": [ "Megillah.11a.4", "Megillah.11a.5" ] }	Reish Lakish introduced this passage with an introduction from here: As a roaring lion, and a ravenous bear, so is a wicked ruler over a poor people (Proverbs 28: 15) . A roaring lion; this is the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, as it is written about him: The lion has come up from his thicket (Jeremiah 4: 7) . A hungry bear; this is Ahasuerus, as it is written about him: And behold, another beast, a second one, like a bear (Daniel 7: 5) . And Rav Yosef taught that these who are referred to as a bear in the verse are the Persians. They are compared to a bear, as they eat and drink in large quantities like a bear; and they are coated with flesh like a bear; and they grow their hair long like a bear; and they never rest like a bear, whose manner it is to move about from place to place. A wicked ruler; this is Haman. Over a poor people; this is the Jewish people, who are referred to in this manner because they are poor in their observance of the mitzvot.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.17	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.17", "sections": [ "Megillah.11a.6" ] }	Rabbi Elazar introduced this passage with an introduction from here: Through laziness the rafters [hamekare] sink in [yimakh] ; and through idleness of the hands the house leaks (Ecclesiastes 10: 18) . Rabbi Elazar interprets the verse homiletically: Through the laziness of the Jewish people, who did not occupy themselves with Torah study, the enemy of the Holy One, Blessed be He, a euphemism for God Himself, became poor [makh] , so that, as it were, He was unable to help them, as makh is nothing other than poor, as it is stated: But if he be too poor [makh] for the valuation (Leviticus 27: 8) . And the word mekare in the verse is referring to no one other than the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: Who lays the beams [hamekare] of His chambers in the waters (Psalms 104: 3) .
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.18	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.18", "sections": [ "Megillah.11a.7", "Megillah.11a.8", "Megillah.11a.9" ] }	Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak introduced this passage with an introduction from here: A song of ascents of David. If not for the Lord Who was with us, let Israel now say; if not for the Lord who was with us, when a man rose up against us (Psalms 124: 12) . The verse speaks of a man who rose up against us and not a king. This occurred in the days of Haman, as he, and not King Ahasuerus, was the chief enemy of the Jewish people. Rava introduced this passage with an introduction from here: When the righteous are on the increase, the people rejoice; but when the wicked man rules, the people mourn (Proverbs 29: 2) . When the righteous are on the increase, the people rejoice; this is Mordecai and Esther, as it is written: And the city of Shushan rejoiced and was glad (Esther 8: 15) . But when the wicked man rules, the people mourn; this is Haman, as it is written: But the city of Shushan was perplexed (Esther 3: 15) . Rav Mattana said his introduction from here: For what nation is there so great, that has God so near to them (Deuteronomy 4: 7) , as to witness the great miracles in the days of Mordecai and Esther? Rav Ashi said his introduction from here: The verse states: Or has God ventured to go and take Him a nation from the midst of another nation? (Deuteronomy 4: 34) , as in the times of Esther, God saved the Jewish people who were scattered throughout the Persian Empire.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.19	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.19", "sections": [ "Megillah.11a.10", "Megillah.11a.11", "Megillah.11a.12" ] }	The Gemara returns to its interpretation of the book of Esther. The verse states: And it came to pass [vayhi] in the days of Ahasuerus (Esther 1: 1) . Rav said: The word vayhi may be understood as if it said vai and hi, meaning woe and mourning. This is as it is written: And there you shall sell yourselves to your enemies for bondsmen and bondswomen, and no man shall buy you (Deuteronomy 28: 68) . The repetitive nature of the verse, indicating that no one will be willing to buy you for servitude, but they will purchase you in order to murder you, indicates a doubly horrific situation, which is symbolized by the dual term vayhi, meaning woe and mourning. And Shmuel said his introduction from here: And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, nor will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break My covenant with them; for I am the Lord their God (Leviticus 26: 44) . Shmuel explains: I will not reject them; this was in the days of the Greeks. Nor will I abhor them; this was in the days of Vespasian. To destroy them utterly; this was in the days of Haman. To break My covenant with them; this was in the days of the Persians. For I am the Lord their God; this is in the days of Gog and Magog. An alternative understanding was taught in a baraita: I will not reject them; this was in the days of the Chaldeans, when I appointed for them Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to pray on their behalf. Nor will I abhor them; this was in the days of the Greeks, when I appointed Shimon HaTzaddik for them, and the Hasmonean and his sons, and Mattithiah the High Priest. To destroy them utterly; this was in the days of Haman, when I appointed for them the righteous leaders Mordecai and Esther. To break My covenant with them; this was in the days of the Romans, when I appointed for them the Sages of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Sages of other generations. For I am the Lord their God; this will be in the future, when no nation or people of a foreign tongue will be able to subjugate them further.
Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.20	{ "sugya": "Talmud.Bavli_and_Mishnah.Moed.Megillah.Bavli.1.g.14.20", "sections": [ "Megillah.11a.13", "Megillah.11a.14" ] }	Rabbi Levi said his introduction from here: But if you will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall come to pass, that those whom you allow to remain of them shall be as thorns in your eyes (Numbers 33: 55) . King Sauls failure to completely annihilate Amalek allowed for the existence of his descendant Haman, who acted as a thorn in the eyes of Israel during the Purim episode. Rabbi Hiyya said his introduction from here, the continuation of the previously cited verse: And it shall come to pass, that as I thought to do unto them, so I shall do unto you (Numbers 33: 56) . Prior to the miracle of Purim, the Jewish people were subject to the punishment that the Torah designated for its enemies, because they did not fulfill Gods commandments.