ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Megilah 7
MEGILAH 6-10 sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
(a) When Esther asked the Chachamim 'Kav'uni la'Doros' - she meant that they
should commemorate her by fixing the annual reading of the Megilah as an
(b) When they initially declined, on the grounds that doing so would only
incite the hatred of the Nochrim - she replied that the entire incident was
anyway recorded in the annals of Medes and Persia, and that reading annually
it would make no difference.
(c) And when she asked them to include Megilas Esther among the holy
writings, and they quoted the Pasuk in Mishlei "ha'Lo Kasavti Lecha
Shalishim" - they meant that Shlomoh ha'Melech indicated in this Pasuk that
the battle with Amalek is to be hinted in T'nach only three times and no
more; and it has already been hinted three times: in Beshalach, in Ki Seitzei
and in Shmuel. Consequently, there is no room for Megilas Esther in T'nach.
(a) The Chachamim relented however, on account of the Pasuk in Beshalach
"K'sov Zos Zikaron ba'Seifer" - "K'sov Zos" - what is written in the Torah,
Chazal explain, counting all the occasions that Amaleik is mentioned in the
Torah as one (presumably because "Zos" refers to Torah - like we find "ve'Zos
ha'Torah"), "Zikaron", what is written in Shmuel, "ba'Seifer", in Megilas
(b) The above explanation is the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ha'Muda'i. Rebbi
Yehoshua explains this Pasuk - "K'sov Zos", what is written here in
Beshalach, "Zikaron", what is written in Ki Seitzei, "ba'Seifer" in Shmuel.
(c) We can infer from Shmuel's statement that Esther does not render one's
hands Tamei - that it was not written with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.
(d) We reconcile this with another statement of his, where he says that
Esther was said with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh - by explaining his first statement
(that Esther was not said with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh) to mean that she was not
granted permission to write it down in the form of a Seifer, only orally
(although the content of the Megilah was still said with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh).
(a) According to Rebbi Meir, Koheles does not render the hands Tamei, and
there is a Machlokes by Shir ha'Shirim; according to Rebbi Yossi, there is a
Machlokes by Koheles, Shir ha'Shirim definitely *does*. Rebbi Shimon says
1. ... Koheles - is from the leniences of Beis Shamai (that it does *not*
render the hands Tamei) and the stringencies of Beis Hillel (that it *does*).
(b) Shmuel (who just said that Esther does not render the hands Tamei) does
not hold like Rebbi Shimon and the Tana'im who appear to agree with him. He
holds like Rebbi Yehoshua - whom we saw earlier maintains that Esther does
not render the hands Tamei.
2. ... Rus, Shir ha'Shirim and Esther - render the hands Tamei.
(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya maintains that Koheles does not render the hands
Tamei - because he says, it constitutes the wisdom of Shlomoh ha'Malech, and
was not written with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.
(d) It appears from the Pasuk in Melachim "Vayedaber Sheloshes Alafim Mashal
(which are *not* recorded) that those parables that *are* (including Koheles)
were said with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. We finally prove it from the Pasuk - "Al
Tosef Al Devarav", implying that it was written with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.
(a) The Tana'im bring a number of proofs that Esther was said with Ru'ach
ha'Kodesh. Some say from "va'Yomer Haman be'Libo" (Rebbi Eliezer), others
from "va'Tehi Esther Noseis Chein be'Einei Kol Ro'ehah" (Rebbi Akiva) ...
from "va'Yivada ha'Davar le'Mordechai" (Rebbi Meir) ... and from "u'va'Bizah
Lo Shalchu es Yadam" (Rebbi Yossi ben Durmaskis). Shmuel brings a proof -
from the Pasuk in Esther "Kiymu ve'Kiblu ha'Yehudim", 'Kiymu Lema'alah Mah
she'Kiblu Lematah', something which no-one could possibly have known without
(b) According to Rava, there is a flaw in each of the Tanas' proofs. The flaw
in the proof from ...
1. ... "Vayomer Haman be'Libo" - is that everybody knew that Haman was the
most esteemed man in the king's eyes, in which case it is obvious from his
words that that is what he was thinking.
2. ... "va'Tehi Esther Noseis Chein be'Einei Kol Ro'ehah" - is that Esther
found favor with everybody, because she appeared to them like a woman from
their own country (like Rebbi Elazar says), and Esther simply overheard
people telling each other that she was from their country.
3. ... "va'Yivada ha'Davar le'Mordechai" - is that Mordechai actually
overheard them plotting to kill the king (as the Gemara will explain later in
the name of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba).
4. ... "u'va'Bizah Lo Shalchu es Yadam" - is that Mordechai may well have
been informed of this fact through messengers sent to him expressly to supply
him with this information.
(a) We can infer from the words ...
1. ... "u'Mishlo'ach Manos Ish le'Re'eihu" - that the Mitzvah of 'Sh'lach
Manos' consists of two gifts to one friend.
(b) Rebbi Oshaya said to Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'a when he sent him the thigh of a
third calf and a flask of wine - that with that, he had fulfilled the Mitzvah
of Sh'lach Manos.
2. ... "u'Matanos la'Evyonim" - that the Mitzvah of Matanos la'Evyonim
consists of two gifts to two needy people (one gift to each). Note: 'Manos'
also implies ready-to-eat food, whereas Matanos means any kind of gift.
(c) When Rabah gave Abaye Sh'lach Manos which included a sack of dates to
take to Mari bar Mar, Abaye commented to Rabah - that when a farmer becomes a
king, he continues to place a basket around his neck, like he did when he was
a farmer. Likewise Rabah, who had now become the Rosh Yeshivah, nevertheless
continued to send Sh'lach Manos like an ordinary person.
(d) And when Mari sent him back with a sack of ginger and a cupful of long
peppers - he passed the comment that Rabah would complain that he had sent
him sweet things, whereas in return he received sharp ones.
(a) Abaye related how, he once left Rabah's house satisfied, yet, when, in
Mari's house, they brought him sixty different kinds of sweet dishes, he not
only ate them all, but he wanted to chew the dishes as well.
(b) To prove his point - he quoted the folk-saying that there is always room
for sweet things.
(c) Abaye bar Avin and Rav Chanina bar Avin were both very poor. They
killed two birds with one stone on Purim - by exchanging their Purim Se'udos.
(a) One is obligated to become drunk to the point that one is unable to
distinguish the difference between 'Arur Haman' and 'Baruch Mordechai'.
(b) One Purim, when Rabah and Rebbi Zeira fulfilled that Mitzvah - Rabah
Shechted Rebbi Zeira. On the following day, he Davened and brought him back
(c) When, on the following year, Rabah suggested that they eat their Purim
Se'udah together again - Rebbi Zeira replied that miracles do not occur every
(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Esther "*Yemei* Mishteh ve'Simchah" - that the
Purim Se'udah must be eaten by day, and not by night.
(b) When Ameimar assumed that the Rabbanan were late for the Derashah one
Purim because they were busy with the Purim Se'udah - Rav Ashi suggested that
they could have eaten it on the previous night (after the reading of the
(c) Ameimar corrected him - by quoting Rava, who says that the Purim Se'udah
can only be fulfilled by day, and not by night.
(d) Rav Ashi asked Ameimar to repeat it - forty times, until he felt that he
had it 'in his pocket'.
(a) According to our Mishnah, the only difference between what is permitted
and what is forbidden on Shabbos and on Yom-Tov is 'Ochel Nefesh'. The author
of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Yehudah - because, in addition to Ochel
Nefesh, he permits Machshirei Ochel Nefesh on Yom-Tov, although it is
forbidden on Shabbos.
(b) The Tana of our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk in Bo "Hu" 've'Lo
Machshirav'. Rebbi Yehudah learns his concession from a Pasuk in the same
Parshah - "Hu Levado Ye'aseh *Lachem*" 'le'Chol Tzorcheichem'.
1. ... the Tana Kama learns from "Lachem" - "Lachem" 've'Lo le'Akum' "Lachem"
(d) An example of a Melachah that could not have been performed on Erev Yom-
Tov - is a knife that only became jagged on Yom-Tov.
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah learn from "Hu" - that Machshirin which he could have
prepared before Yom-Tov are not permitted on Yom-Tov.
(a) The only difference between the Melachos of Shabbos and those of Yom
Kipur - is that whereas the former is punishable at the hands of Beis-Din
(S'kilah), the latter is punishable only at the hands of Hashem (Kareis).
(b) The author of our Mishnah must be Rebbi Nechunyah ben ha'Kanah who holds
that Shabbos and Yom Kipur have the same Din as regards 'Tashlumin' - meaning
that someone who set fire to someone's haystack (for example) on Yom-Kipur,
is Patur from paying (because he receives the stricter punishment), in the
same way as he would have been Patur for doing so on Shabbos.
(c) The Rabbanan say - that it is only on Shabbos (when the stricter
punishment is at the hands of Beis-Din) that one is Patur from the lesser
punishment (of Beis-Din), but not on Yom-Kipur, when the stricter punishment
is only at the Hands of Hashem.
(a) We learned in a Mishnah in Makos that, according to Rebbi Chananyah ben
Gamliel, all Chayvei Kerisus who receive Malkos, are absolved from Kareis.
Rebbi Yochanan comments - that the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Chananyah ben
Gamliel. According to them, he remains Chayav Kareis.
(b) Rava tries to prove Rebbi Yochanan's statement from our Mishnah - which
differentiates between Shabbos, which is punishable by Beis-Din, and Yom
Kipur, which is punishable by Hashem. Now if our Tana would hold like Rebbi
Chananya ben Gamliel, then Yom Kipur too, would be punishable by Beis-Din.
(c) Rav Nachman (bar Yitzchak) refutes Rava's proof by establishing our
Mishnah like Rebbi Yitzchak - who says that someone who is Chayav Kareis is
not subject to Malkos at all.
(d) Rav Ashi considers that unnecessary. He refutes Rava's proof even if the
author would not be Rebbi Yitzchak - because, he explains, when the Tana says
that Yom-Kipur is *punishable* at the Hands of Hashem (and not by Beis-Din),
he is referring to the *main* punishment, no matter that, under certain
circumstances, he can receive Malkos.