The **Gemara** in **Megilla**, on page 14, begins with a dedication in honor of Mr. Norman Nissim Jamal's parents, with a blessing for their health and joy from their children and grandchildren. We delve into the text, starting from the bottom of page 13b, with the verse: "Then the king said to **Haman**, 'The money is given to you, and the people are yours to do with as you see fit.'" This verse from the **Scroll of Esther** recounts how **Haman** offered to pay the king for the extermination of the Jewish people. However, **Achashverosh** was so eager for this outcome that he offered to cover the cost himself, instructing **Haman** to proceed without financial burden. From this, we learn that **Achashverosh** harbored no less anti-Jewish sentiment than **Haman** himself; both shared the same nefarious intentions.
The **Gemara** illustrates this with a famous parable: Two men owned fields. One had an undesirable mound of dirt in his field, while the other had an undesirable furrow, or hole. The owner of the furrow wished to buy the dirt to fill his hole, and the owner of the mound wished to sell his dirt to get rid of it. When they met, the owner of the furrow (representing **Haman**) offered to buy the mound. The owner of the mound (representing **Achashverosh**) replied, "Take it for free, and I wish it were so!" This parable, as the **Maharsha** explains, likens the Jewish people to the mound of dirt, demonstrating that **Achashverosh** was just as eager to eliminate the Jews as **Haman**.
The narrative continues: "Then the king removed his ring." This act, giving **Haman** the royal ring, granted him full authority to execute his plan. **Rabbi Abba bar Kahana** states that the removal of the ring accomplished more to bring the Jewish people closer to God than the rebukes of 48 prophets and seven prophetesses over generations. While the prophets' sermons often fell on deaf ears, the tangible threat symbolized by **Haman** wielding the king's ring, which he could use to sign decrees against them, spurred the people to repentance and drew them closer to **HaKadosh Baruch Hu**.
The **Maharsha** elaborates that the king's decree, accompanied by the ring, included the instruction, "and the people are yours to do with as you see fit." The **Midrash** notes **Achashverosh**'s intense hatred for Israel, evident in his failure to even request collateral for such a valuable item as his ring. Based on this **Gemara**, a profound question posed by **Rabbi Be'er Yosef** (**Rav Yosef Salant**) in **Parashat Korach** can be answered. **Masechet Gittin** states that some of **Haman**'s grandchildren converted and became great Torah teachers in **Bnei Brak**. This suggests **Haman** had some merit. **Rav Yosef Salant** explains that this merit stems from the unintended positive consequence of his actions: he inadvertently caused the Jewish people to repent. Even though **Haman**'s intention was the opposite, the principle that **HaKadosh Baruch Hu** does not withhold the reward of any creature, even for unintended good that arises from malicious intent, applies. Thus, the reward for this unintended good was that his descendants became Torah leaders, demonstrating that all actions, even those with negative intent, are registered in Heaven if good results.
The **Gemara** continues, stating that the 48 male prophets and seven prophetesses who prophesied to Israel neither added nor subtracted from the commandments written in the Torah. This means they found no allusions in the Torah to permit such changes. However, there was one exception: the reading of the **Scroll of Esther**. They found allusions in the Torah that allowed them to establish the holiday of **Purim** and the reading of its scroll. **Rabbi Chiya bar Avin**, in the name of **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha**, explains this with an a fortiori argument: If we sing a song of praise, like the Song of the Sea (**Az Yashir Moshe**), when we transitioned from slavery to freedom during the exodus from Egypt, how much more so should we sing a song for the **Purim** miracle, which saved us from a death sentence to life?
The **Gemara** then asks, if this is the case, why do we not recite Hallel on **Purim**, just as we do on **Pesach**? The response is that Hallel is not established for miracles that occur outside **Eretz Yisrael**. The **Purim** story, in **Shushan** and other cities, took place outside the Land of Israel. The **Gemara** challenges this, noting that the exodus from Egypt also occurred outside **Eretz Yisrael**, yet we recite Hallel. The **Gemara** clarifies a distinction: Before the Jewish people entered **Eretz Yisrael**, all lands were suitable for miracles to warrant the recitation of Hallel. However, once they entered **Eretz Yisrael**, even if they were later exiled, lands outside Israel were no longer considered suitable for Hallel. Since the **Purim** story occurred after the Babylonian exile, after they had already entered and subsequently left **Eretz Yisrael**, Hallel would not be recited.
**Rav Nachman** offers a different perspective, stating that "its reading is its Hallel." According to him, the very act of reading the **Scroll of Esther** fulfills the obligation of Hallel. Based on this, **Rav Chida**, in his **Birchei Yosef**, suggests a novel insight: if someone on **Purim** day is out of town without a kosher **Scroll of Esther** or a quorum for its reading, they should at least recite Hallel without a blessing, as they have an obligation of Hallel that the scroll's reading would normally fulfill.
**Rava** presents another reason why Hallel is not recited on **Purim**. He argues that the Hallel prayer includes the phrase, "Praise, servants of God," implying freedom from servitude. While the exodus from Egypt truly freed the people from Pharaoh's servitude, the **Purim** miracle only saved them from death; they remained servants of **Achashverosh**. Therefore, Hallel, with its theme of complete freedom, would not be appropriate for the **Purim** story, as they were still in exile.
The **Gemara** then raises a question against both **Rava** and **Rav Nachman**, citing a teaching that once the Jewish people went into exile, lands outside **Eretz Yisrael** reverted to their original status, making them suitable for Hallel recitation. This implies that there should be no problem reciting Hallel for a miracle that occurred outside **Eretz Yisrael** after an exile. The **Gemara** clarifies that the rule against Hallel outside **Eretz Yisrael** applies only when the Jewish people are currently residing in **Eretz Yisrael** and the miracle occurs elsewhere. However, once they are in exile, miracles occurring outside **Eretz Yisrael** *can* warrant Hallel. Thus, the initial argument against Hallel for **Purim** on geographic grounds is resolved. **Rav Nachman** maintains that the reading of the **Scroll of Esther** *is* the Hallel, and **Rava**'s objection is solely based on the continued servitude to **Achashverosh**, not the location of the miracle.
The **Maharsha** draws a beautiful parallel: Just as Hallel is recited twice on **Pesach** (at night and by day), so too, by extension from the a fortiori argument comparing **Purim** to **Pesach**, the **Scroll of Esther** should be read twice—once at night and once by day. This further solidifies the connection between the two holidays and their respective songs of praise.
**Rashi** raises a point about the statement that prophets made no additions except for the **Scroll of Esther**. What about **Chanukah**? **Rashi** explains that the laws of **Chanukah** were not enacted by prophets, but by the Sages. The **Maharsha** clarifies that neither prophets nor Sages can add new commandments without an allusion in the Torah. In the time of **Mordechai**, who was a prophet, the prophets found the allusion for the **Scroll of Esther**. For **Chanukah**, the Sages found the allusion, demonstrating that any rabbinic enactment must be rooted in the Torah.
The **Gemara** then delves into the number of prophets. A verse describes **Elkanah**, the father of **Shmuel**, as "one man from Ramatayim Tzofim." The **Gemara** finds the plural "Ramatayim" (two Ramahs) peculiar, as he lived in one place. One interpretation is that "Ramatayim" alludes to "two hundred," suggesting **Elkanah** was one of 200 prophets of his time. The **Gemara** clarifies that while there were indeed many prophets – twice the number of those who left Egypt, totaling 1.2 million – only those whose prophecies were relevant for future generations had their words written down. **Rashi** lists the 48 prophets whose words were recorded for all time.
**Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani** offers another interpretation of "Ramatayim Tzofim": **Elkanah** came from a place where two mountains "saw" each other. **Rav Chanin** offers a third interpretation: **Elkanah** came from descendants who "stood in the highest place." These were the **Bnei Korach**, who, when the earth swallowed Korach and his followers, repented and clung to a ledge that protruded from the mouth of Gehennom, thus standing in a high place.
Next, the **Gemara** identifies the seven prophetesses: **Sarah**, **Miriam**, **Devorah**, **Channah**, **Avigail**, **Chuldah**, and **Esther**. For **Sarah**, the proof comes from her alternate name, "Yiskah." **Rabbi Yitzchak** explains that "Yiskah" means "she saw" or "she was covered" by Divine inspiration. This is supported by God's instruction to **Avraham**: "Whatever **Sarah** tells you, listen to her voice." The extra word "her voice" implies that her voice carried the **Ruach HaKodesh**. Another interpretation of "Yiskah" is that all would gaze at her beauty. **Miriam** is explicitly called "Miriam the prophetess, sister of **Aharon**." The **Gemara** asks why she is called the sister of **Aharon** and not **Moshe**. **Rav Nachman** explains that she prophesied even before **Moshe** was born, when she was only the sister of **Aharon**. She foretold that her mother would bear a son who would redeem Israel. When **Moshe Rabbeinu** was born and the house filled with light, her father, Amram, kissed her, confirming her prophecy. However, when **Moshe** was thrown into the Nile, Amram struck her, questioning her prophecy. This is why the verse states, "His sister stood from afar to know," meaning to see how her prophecy would ultimately materialize.
**Devorah** is explicitly called "Devorah a prophetess." She is also called "Eshet Lapidos," which literally means "wife of Lapidos." However, since her husband **Lapidos** was not famous, the **Gemara** interprets "Eshet Lapidos" as referring to **Devorah** herself. She would make wicks for the **Holy Temple**, bringing light to it. Measure for measure, God rewarded her by granting her the light of prophecy and the wisdom to judge the Jewish people. The verse also states that she would sit under a palm tree. The **Gemara** asks why this detail is mentioned. **Rabbi Shimon ben Avishalom** explains that she did so to avoid seclusion with men (**yichud**) who came to her for judgment. Unlike other trees whose leaves extend downwards, a palm tree's branches are high, allowing her to sit beneath it in public view. Another interpretation is that just as a palm tree has only one central heart (sap in its trunk but not its branches), so too the Jewish people in her generation had one heart, devoted solely to **HaKadosh Baruch Hu**.
**Channah**'s prophecy is evident in her prayer: "My heart exults in **HaShem**; my horn is exalted in **HaShem**." She foresaw that her son **Shmuel** would anoint kings. She distinguished between kings anointed with a flask (like **Shaul**), whose kingdoms would not endure, and those anointed with a horn (like **David**), whose kingdoms would last. The flask, being earthenware, breaks easily, symbolizing a temporary reign, while the horn, being strong, symbolizes an enduring one. **Tosfos** notes that the entire chapter of **Channah**'s prayer is filled with prophecies about future events, including **Sancheriv**, **Nevuchadnetzar**, and **Haman**.
**Channah** also declared, "There is none holy like **HaShem**; for there is none besides You." **Rabbi Yehuda bar Menashya** interprets "besides You" as "to wear You out," meaning no creation can outlast its Creator. Unlike human creations that outlive their makers, **HaKadosh Baruch Hu** outlives His creations, witnessing their deterioration while remaining eternal. She further proclaimed, "There is no painter like our God." A human painter creates an image on a wall but cannot infuse it with spirit, soul, or internal organs. **HaKadosh Baruch Hu**, however, creates an image within an image (a fetus within a mother) and imbues it with spirit, soul, and all its internal components. **Rav Chaim Brim** offered a profound ethical lesson on this: A human painting looks most real from a distance, but its artificiality becomes apparent up close. God's creation, this world, is the opposite: the closer one is to it, indulging in its physicality, the more real it seems. Only by stepping back and gaining distance from this world does one realize its ephemeral and ultimately illusory nature, thus revealing the unique artistry of **Borei Olam**.
The **Gemara** then discusses **Avigail**, wife of the wicked **Naval**. The verse states she was "riding on the donkey and descending by the hidden part of the mountain." The **Gemara** asks what "hidden part" refers to. **Rabbah bar Shmuel** explains it alludes to "matters of blood that come from hidden places," referring to the laws of ritual impurity related to a woman's menstrual blood (niddah). **Avigail** was going to **David** to ask a question about such blood, seeking a halachic ruling. When she presented the blood, **David** questioned her, "Do we examine blood at night?" as colors must be discerned in natural daylight. **Avigail** cleverly retorted, "Do we judge capital cases at night?" She was rebuking **David** for his intent to execute her husband **Naval** that very night, even though capital cases require daylight judgment.
**David** responded that **Naval** was a rebel against the monarchy and therefore did not require a formal court judgment. **Avigail** countered that **Shaul** was still alive and **David**'s kingship was not yet universally recognized, so **Naval** could not be judged as a rebel against the monarchy. **David** then blessed her, saying, "Blessed be your reasoning, and blessed are you who have restrained me this day from coming to bloodshed." The **Gemara** notes that "bloodshed" has two implications: saving him from killing an innocent man, and saving him from the "blood" of niddah, which he would have been unable to rule upon at night. The **Gemara** adds that **Avigail** revealed her thigh, and **David** was so attracted that he traveled three *parsa'ot* (a significant distance) towards her "light." **Tosfos**, however, clarifies that this cannot mean she literally exposed herself, as she was a righteous woman. Rather, "light" here refers to the "heat" or passion of desire that **David** felt for her, which caused him to pursue her.
**Avigail** then prophesied to **David**: "Let this not be a stumbling block for you." This implied that while this particular incident would not be a stumbling block, another one would be – referring to the future incident with **Batsheva**. This demonstrates her prophetic insight into **David**'s destiny. As she was leaving, she told **David**, "And when **HaShem** has dealt well with my master, remember your maidservant." This shows her foresight that **Naval** would soon die, and she would become available. **Rav Nachman** comments on this, citing two popular sayings: "A woman can spin and talk at the same time," meaning she can plan ahead even while engaged in other tasks; and "A gosling walks humbly, but its eyes are up," meaning **Avigail** appeared humble but was already looking to the future.
**Tosfos** addresses several questions regarding **David**'s interaction with **Avigail** and the judgment of a rebel against the monarchy. First, if a rebel against the monarchy does not require a court, why does the **Gemara** in **Sanhedrin** derive the protocol for capital cases (starting with the smallest judge) from **Naval**'s case, implying a court was involved? Second, how could **David** sit in court, as a king is generally not allowed to sit in the **Sanhedrin**? Third, why was **David** punished for killing **Uriah** without bringing him to the **Sanhedrin**, if **Uriah** was also a rebel against the monarchy? **Tosfos** explains that a rebel against the monarchy *does* require judgment, but not in the same way as other capital cases. For a regular capital case, if the judges find the accused guilty, they must wait until the next day to confirm the verdict. For a rebel against the monarchy, however, they can issue a guilty verdict on the same day. Thus, **Avigail**'s point was that **David** had to wait until the next day, to which **David** replied that for a rebel, immediate judgment is permissible. Regarding **David** sitting in court, **Tosfos** explains that a king usually does not sit in the **Sanhedrin** because it is undignified for him to remain silent while others speak. However, in a case where the king is personally involved, it is actually honorable for him to listen and speak last, to avoid the appearance of bias. Therefore, **David**'s presence in the court for **Naval** was appropriate. Finally, concerning **Uriah**, **David** was indeed punished for not bringing him to the **Sanhedrin**, because even a rebel against the monarchy requires a formal court process, even if the judgment can be expedited.
The **Gemara** moves on to **Chuldah**. Her prophetic status is explicitly stated: "Then Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asaiah went to **Chuldah** the prophetess." The **Gemara** asks how she could prophesy when **Yirmeyahu** was already an established prophet. The school of Rav Shila offers two answers: First, **Chuldah** was a relative of **Yirmeyahu**, and he did not object to her prophesying. Second, women are inherently merciful, and King **Yoshiyahu** preferred to consult **Chuldah** hoping for a softer prophecy, as she might pray for the decree not to come to pass. **Rabbi Yochanan** offers a different answer: **Yirmeyahu** was not present at the time; he had gone to bring back the ten tribes from exile. The proof that he brought them back is derived from the law of **Yovel** (Jubilee), where properties return to their original owners. This law applies only when the majority of the Jewish people are in **Eretz Yisrael**. Since **Yirmeyahu** prophesied that the **Yovel** would eventually be nullified, it implies that at the time of his prophecy, it *was* in effect, meaning the ten tribes had been returned. Furthermore, **Yoshiyahu** was king over these returned tribes, as indicated by his actions at **Beit El**, a city in the territory of the ten tribes, where he burned the bones of the idolatrous priests.
Finally, for **Esther**, the proof of her prophecy comes from the verse: "And it was on the third day, that **Esther** wore royalty." The **Gemara** notes that one does not "wear royalty" but "clothes of royalty." Therefore, "she wore royalty" means she was clothed in **Ruach HaKodesh**, as indicated by a similar phrase elsewhere referring to a spirit clothing a person. **Rav Nachman** remarks that arrogance is not becoming for women, and he cites **Devorah** and **Chuldah** as examples of prophetesses who, despite their names (bee and weasel, symbolizing humility), exhibited a degree of arrogance in their interactions with important men like **Barak** and King **Yoshiyahu**.
The **Gemara** then discusses **Chuldah**'s lineage. **Rav Nachman** states she was a descendant of **Yehoshua**, citing a connection between her husband's name, "Harchas," and **Yehoshua**'s burial place, "Timnat Cheres." **Rav Eina Saba** challenges this, stating that eight prophets, who were also priests, descended from **Rachav ha-Zona**, and **Rabbi Yehuda** includes **Chuldah** among them, based on her husband's name "Tikvah" (hope), which is also associated with **Rachav**'s scarlet thread. **Rav Nachman** reconciles these views by suggesting that both are correct: **Rachav ha-Zona** converted and married **Yehoshua**. The **Gemara** then questions whether **Yehoshua** had children, as the book of Chronicles only lists his lineage up to **Nun** and **Yehoshua**. The **Gemara** concludes that while **Yehoshua** did not have sons, he did have daughters, thus allowing **Chuldah** to be his descendant through them.