The Gemara Megillah (daf gimmel, bet amud bet), starting three lines from the bottom, discusses the origin of the final forms of certain Hebrew letters. Rabbi Yirmiya, or some say Rabbi Chiya bar Abba, states that the letters Mem, Nun, Tzadi, Peh, and Chaf (referred to collectively as "Manztapach") in their final forms were instituted by the prophets. Rashi explains that these are the double letters, such as the open Mem and the closed Mem, the regular Nun and the final Nun, and so on. The statement suggests that these final forms are not from the Torah itself, but rather an innovation of the prophets, or "seers."
The Gemara immediately challenges this: "Is that possible? But it is written, 'These are the commandments,' implying that a prophet is not permitted to innovate anything new after the Torah was given." How then could the prophets introduce new letter forms? This question stands regardless of whether "Manztapach" refers to the open or closed forms of the letters. The Gemara further asks, "Moreover, didn't Rav Chisda say that the Mem and Samech on the Tablets of the Law stood miraculously?" This refers to the closed Mem and Samech, which, being fully enclosed, would have had their centers suspended miraculously when carved through the stone. This implies that these closed letters existed from the time of the giving of the Torah. If "Manztapach" refers to the closed forms, how could the prophets have instituted them if they were already present on the Tablets?
The Gemara responds by clarifying that the letters themselves, both open and closed forms, certainly existed from the beginning. The issue was that people had forgotten which forms were to be used in the middle of a word and which at the end. The prophets then came and re-established that the open forms are used in the middle of a word and the closed forms at the end. However, the Gemara again objects: "Ultimately, 'These are the commandments,' meaning a prophet is not permitted to innovate anything new from now on." Re-establishing a forgotten practice is still an innovation if it was not explicitly ordained by the Torah. The Gemara concludes that the true answer is that these forms were entirely forgotten, and the prophets merely re-established what was originally given at Sinai. Nothing new was innovated.
Rashi notes that the Gemara's intermediate answer, that the prophets merely established the usage of existing forms, was not the truth. It was offered as a potential answer in the dialectic, even though it would be immediately rejected due to the principle of "These are the commandments." Tosafot addresses a discrepancy between this Gemara and a parallel passage in Masechet Shabbat. Here, the Gemara seems to imply that "Manztapach" refers to the closed forms, as it raises Rav Chisda's question about the Tablets. In Masechet Shabbat, however, the Gemara appears to assume that "Manztapach" refers to the open forms, using Rav Chisda's statement as proof that closed forms are from the Torah, implying open forms are rabbinic.
Tosafot resolves this by explaining that the two Gemaras begin with different assumptions. The Gemara Shabbat starts with the knowledge of Rav Chisda's teaching, thus assuming "Manztapach" refers to the open forms. Our Gemara, however, initially does not assume knowledge of Rav Chisda, allowing it to raise the question. Ultimately, when the Gemara concludes that the forms were forgotten and re-established, this applies to all forms, both open and closed. Tosafot also wonders why the letters are called "Manztapach" when their alphabetical order would suggest "Kamnapatz." He answers that "Manztapach" is a play on words, a hint ("remez") to "min sofim" (from the seers), indicating their origin.
The Gemara continues with another statement by Rabbi Yirmiya, or some say Rabbi Chiya bar Abba: the translation of the Torah (Targum Onkelos) was given by Onkelos the Convert from the mouths of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. The translation of the Prophets (Targum Yonatan) was given by Yonatan ben Uziel from the mouths of the prophets Chaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. When Yonatan ben Uziel revealed his commentary on the Prophets, the land of Israel shook for 400 by 400 parasangs. A heavenly voice (Bat Kol) emerged, asking, "Who is this who has revealed My secrets to human beings?" Yonatan ben Uziel stood and replied, "I am the one who revealed Your secrets to human beings. It is revealed and known before You that I did not do it for my honor, nor for the honor of my father's house, but for Your honor, so that disputes would not multiply in Israel." He then sought to reveal the translation of the Writings (Ketuvim), but a Bat Kol stopped him, saying, "Enough!" The reason given is that the Writings contain the "End of Mashiach" (Ketz Mashiach), referring to the precise time of the Messiah's arrival, which is meant to remain concealed.
The Gemara then returns to the translation of the Torah by Onkelos the Convert and asks a similar question: how could Onkelos create the translation if it was already given at Mount Sinai? This is based on a verse that states, "And they read in the Book of the Law of God, 'meforash' (explained) and 'sum sechel' (gave understanding) and 'vayavinu bamikra' (they understood the reading)." This verse is interpreted as follows: "reading in the Book of the Law of God" refers to the original text (Mikra); "meforash" refers to the translation (Targum); "sum sechel" refers to the divisions of verses (sof pesukim); and "vayavinu bamikra" refers to the cantillation notes (piskei te'amim), which aid in understanding the text. Some say "vayavinu bamikra" refers to the Masoret (tradition of spelling, including missing or extra letters). Since the Targum was already given at Mount Sinai, how could Onkelos have created it? The Gemara gives the same answer: "Rather, they were forgotten, and he came and re-established them."
The Gemara then asks why the world shook when Yonatan ben Uziel revealed the translation of the Prophets, but not when Onkelos revealed the translation of the Torah. The answer is that the Torah is "mefarsha milta," meaning much of it is self-explanatory. Therefore, Onkelos was not revealing deep secrets. In contrast, the Prophets contain many obscure passages and secrets ("milei de-mistaman") that Yonatan ben Uziel unraveled. For example, the verse "On that day there shall be a great eulogy in Jerusalem, like the eulogy of Hadrimon in the valley of Megiddo" is initially puzzling, as Hadrimon and Megiddo are associated with different events. Rav Yosef states that without Yonatan's translation, he would not understand this verse. The Targum clarifies that it refers to combining two eulogies: that of Ahab ben Omri, killed by Hadrimon ben Tavrimon in Ramot Gilad, and that of King Yoshiyahu ben Amon, killed by Pharaoh Neco in the valley of Megiddo. The future eulogy for Mashiach ben Yosef in Jerusalem will be greater than both.
The Gemara then brings another example from the book of Daniel, where Daniel sees a vision, but the men with him do not, though great fear falls upon them, causing them to hide. Rabbi Yirmiya, or some say Rabbi Chiya bar Abba, identifies these men as Chaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, who were prophets. The Gemara notes that these prophets had an advantage over Daniel because they were actual prophets, while Daniel was not (he had Ruach Hakodesh but was not a prophet). However, Daniel had an advantage over them in this instance because he saw the vision, and they did not. The Gemara asks why they became afraid if they did not see the vision. The answer is that even though they did not see it, their guardian angels ("mazalaihu") saw it, causing them fear. Ravina derives a practical lesson from this: if a person is scared without knowing why, it is because their guardian angel has seen something. The remedy for such fear is to recite Shema Yisrael. If one is in an unclean place where Shema cannot be recited, one should move four cubits. If moving is impossible (e.g., due to a river), one should say, "The goats in the slaughterhouse are fatter than I," which serves as a protective charm.
The Maharsha provides historical context for Targum Onkelos, explaining that while the Torah was given in Hebrew, its explanation at Sinai included Aramaic, a language familiar to the Israelites from Lavan the Aramean. This Targum was forgotten after the time of Ezra and later re-established by Onkelos. Regarding Targum Yonatan, the Maharsha clarifies that Yonatan ben Uziel was a student of Hillel, who lived 100 years before the destruction of the Second Temple. The phrase "from the mouths of Chaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi" means he received a tradition (Kabbalah) from them through his teachers, not that he met them directly. The Maharsha also notes that Yonatan lived before Onkelos and asks why Yonatan did not also re-establish the translation of the Torah. He answers that Yonatan did not feel it necessary to translate the Torah because it was generally self-explanatory, focusing instead on the Prophets with their hidden meanings. Onkelos later translated the Torah as well.
The Gemara then shifts to a discussion of the laws of Purim. It connects to a previous discussion about the words "medina u'medina" (province and province) and "ir va'ir" (city and city) in the Megillah, which teach that not only walled cities read on the fifteenth of Adar, but also cities close to or visible from a walled city. The Gemara asks what the phrase "mishpacha u'mishpacha" (family and family) comes to teach. Rav Yose bar Chanina states it teaches that the families of Kohanim and Levites, even when engaged in their Temple service, must suspend their work to hear the reading of the Megillah. This includes the Kohanim in their service, the Levites on their platform, and the Israelites in their "ma'amadot" (standing by the daily offerings). All of them suspend their service to hear the Megillah. Tosafot clarifies that "suspending" here means delaying, not completely canceling, as there is ample time for both the Megillah reading (which can be done early) and the Temple service.
From this, the scholars of Beit Rebbe derived a custom: they would suspend Torah study (Talmud Torah) to hear the Megillah. They reasoned through a "kal va'chomer" (a fortiori argument): if Temple service (Avodah), which is more stringent, is suspended for Megillah reading, then surely Torah study is suspended. The Gemara immediately questions this premise: "Is Avodah more stringent than Talmud Torah?" It cites the story of Yehoshua at Jericho. An angel appeared to him with a drawn sword. Yehoshua, after confirming the angel's identity by its use of God's name (which even a demon would not utter falsely), asked, "Are you for us or for our adversaries?" The angel replied that the Israelites had neglected the afternoon daily offering (Tamid shel Bein Ha'arbayim) the previous day and were neglecting Torah study that night. When Yehoshua asked for which offense the angel had come, the angel replied, "Now I have come," indicating the present neglect of Torah study. This implies that Torah study is more severe than Temple service. Yehoshua immediately rectified this by spending the night in deep Torah study ("lan be'umka shel Halacha"). Rav Shmuel bar Unya concludes from this that Torah study is greater than offering the daily sacrifices.
The Gemara resolves the apparent contradiction by distinguishing between public Torah study ("Talmud Torah de'Rabbim") and individual Torah study ("Talmud Torah de'Yachid"). Yehoshua's case involved public Torah study, which is indeed more stringent than Temple service. However, the custom of Beit Rebbe referred to individual Torah study, which is less stringent than Temple service. Therefore, individual Torah study is suspended for Megillah reading. Tosafot (on "chayshinan shema shed hu") clarifies that the prohibition against greeting someone at night, fearing they might be a demon, applies only outside a city where harmful spirits are common, not within a populated area. Tosafot (on "emesh bitaltem") explains that the Kohanim were unable to offer the daily sacrifice because the Ark, which they carried, was taken out to battle and not in its proper place, a prerequisite for sacrifices.
The Gemara further challenges the idea that individual Torah study is less stringent than Avodah. It cites a Mishnah regarding eulogies on intermediate days of festivals (Moed). On Moed, women may mourn ("me'anot") but not clap ("metapchot"). On Rosh Chodesh, Chanukah, and Purim, they may do both, but not lament mournfully ("mekonenot"). Rabbah bar Huna states that "there is no Moed in the presence of a Torah scholar" who has passed away, meaning all forms of eulogy are permitted, even on Moed. This applies even more so to Chanukah and Purim. Tosafot understands this to mean that eulogizing a Torah scholar overrides even Megillah reading. Since the death of a Torah scholar is a matter concerning an individual ("yachid"), this implies that the honor of a Torah scholar (which is a form of individual Torah study) is more stringent than Megillah reading. The Gemara answers that this is a matter of "Kevod Torah" (honor of Torah), which is distinct from "Talmud Torah" (study of Torah). The honor due to a Torah scholar, representing the entirety of his Torah learning, is more stringent than the act of individual Torah study at a given moment.
Rava then presents a series of comparisons: 1. Avodah (Temple service) vs. Mikra Megillah (Megillah reading): Mikra Megillah is superior, as derived from Rav Yose bar Chanina's teaching that Kohanim suspend their service for it. 2. Talmud Torah de'Yachid (individual Torah study) vs. Mikra Megillah: Mikra Megillah is superior, as derived from the custom of Beit Rebbe. 3. Talmud Torah vs. Met Mitzvah (a deceased person with no one to bury them): Met Mitzvah is superior. This is learned from a teaching that one suspends Torah study for a funeral or for bringing a bride to her wedding. Tosafot clarifies that this applies not only to a Met Mitzvah but to any deceased person, though the term Met Mitzvah is used here because it will be relevant in the next comparison.
4. Avodah vs. Met Mitzvah: Met Mitzvah is superior. This is derived from a verse concerning a Nazir. The verse states that a Nazir may not become ritually impure for any deceased person, listing "his father, his mother, his brother, or his sister." The Gemara, through a detailed exegesis (drasha) in the Sifrei (as explained by Rashi), interprets these extra words to teach that even a Nazir who is also a Kohen Gadol (the highest level of ritual purity) must become impure for a Met Mitzvah. The word "or his sister" is then applied to a general case: if a person is on his way to offer the Paschal sacrifice or circumcise his son (both serious Avodah-related Mitzvot), and he hears that a relative has died, he should not become impure. However, for a Met Mitzvah, he must become impure, thus overriding the performance of these Mitzvot. Tosafot questions why a specific verse is needed for this, arguing that a "kal va'chomer" from Torah study should suffice. He answers that this applies to a Met Mitzvah who is not a great scholar ("kari ve'tani"), for whom Torah study would not ordinarily be suspended by a large number of people. Thus, a specific verse is needed to teach that even for such a person, Avodah is suspended.
5. Mikra Megillah vs. Met Mitzvah: Rava asks which is superior. He then answers that Met Mitzvah is superior because "Kevod HaBriyot" (human dignity) is so great that it overrides a negative commandment of the Torah. Rashi explains this by citing the law that a Torah scholar may ignore a lost object if retrieving it would be beneath his dignity, thus overriding the commandment "You shall not ignore it." The Maharsha, however, argues that this example is not ideal, as the verse itself implies exceptions. He suggests that "Kevod HaBriyot" overrides the negative commandment of "Lo Tasur" (do not stray from the words of the Sages), which is the source for the rabbinic obligation of Megillah reading. Therefore, Met Mitzvah takes precedence over Megillah reading.
The Gemara then discusses the definition of a walled city (Krach) for the purpose of Purim. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi states that a Krach, anything close to it, and anything visible from it, are all considered a Krach. This is derived from the verses "city and city, province and province." A city can be "visible but not close" if it's on a mountaintop, and "close but not visible" if it's in a valley. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi also states that a city that was settled first and then walled is treated like an unwalled village (Kfar) for the laws of "Batei Arei Chomah" (houses in walled cities). This means the seller does not lose his right to repurchase after a year. The proof is from the verse "a house in a walled city," implying the wall existed before the settlement. Rashi interprets this as referring to the laws of "Batei Arei Chomah."
Tosafot, however, objects that if this referred to "Batei Arei Chomah," it should have been discussed in Masechet Arachin, and the term "Kfar" is unusual; it should say "Arei HaChatzerim" (unwalled cities). Therefore, Tosafot concludes that this statement refers to the laws of Megillah, using the verse about "Batei Arei Chomah" to define what constitutes a valid wall. Tosafot then asks about Tverya, whose wall is the Sea of Kinneret. Tverya reads the Megillah on the fifteenth, even though a body of water does not make it a walled city for "Batei Arei Chomah." Tosafot resolves this by explaining that Tverya's "wall" (the sea) existed before its settlement, fulfilling the condition of "walled first, then settled," even if the wall is natural. However, a city settled first and then walled is never considered a walled city for Megillah.
Tosafot further asks why a verse is needed to exclude a "shur agar" (a wall formed by houses built in a circle) from being considered a valid wall. If the houses were built first and then formed a wall, it should already be excluded by the rule of "settled first, then walled." Tosafot answers that the verse comes to teach that even if no one lived in the houses until the entire circular wall was completed (thus the wall technically came before settlement), it is still not considered a valid wall. Finally, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi states that a Krach (a large city) that lacks ten "batlanim" (idlers who ensure a quorum for prayer) is treated like a Kfar. The Gemara asks why this is a new teaching, as it is already known that a large city needs ten "batlanim." The Gemara answers that this teaching is specifically about a Krach, which, being a metropolis, might be thought to always have ten "batlanim" from various sources, even if not officially designated. The teaching clarifies that designated, standard "batlanim" are required. Tosafot clarifies that this rule about "batlanim" applies only to regular large cities, not to cities walled since the time of Yehoshua bin Nun, which read on the fifteenth regardless of whether they have ten "batlanim."
The last point of the Gemara states that a Krach that was destroyed ("charav") and then resettled ("yashav") is still considered a Krach. The Gemara questions what "destroyed" means. If it means its walls fell, then the teaching "even if it has no wall now but had one previously" (from Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Yosi) would imply that rebuilding the wall is unnecessary. The Gemara clarifies that "destroyed" refers to the loss of its ten "batlanim." Thus, a Krach that lost its "batlanim" and became like a Kfar regains its status as a Krach once it re-establishes its ten "batlanim." Tosafot emphasizes that this again refers to a city not walled since the time of Yehoshua, as such cities do not require "batlanim." Tosafot also asks why the Gemara describes the case as a Krach that was destroyed and resettled, rather than a Kfar that became a Krach. He answers that this emphasizes a greater innovation: even a city that once declined in population and lost its "batlanim" can regain its status, and we do not fear that it will decline again. This demonstrates that its status is not permanently lost due to a temporary decline.