“Amar Rav,” Megillah, folio 5. This tractate has been dedicated by my good friend Norman Jamal in honor of my parents, that they should continue to have success and derive satisfaction from their children. Amen. May Shalema Hayah Salah bat Simcha be healed among the sick of Israel. Amen.
We are at the top line. Rav says that when the Megillah is read at its proper time—on the fourteenth of Adar in the unwalled cities and on the fifteenth in the walled cities—it may be read even by an individual. One does not need a quorum; it is an obligation incumbent upon each individual. However, when it is read שלא בזמנה, not at its proper time, as in the case of the villages that read it early, on the day when people gather to hear the Torah, there must be publicizing of the miracle. Since they are reading it outside its proper time, they must read it specifically with ten people.
Rav Ashi says that whether it is read at its proper time or outside its proper time, one should preferably read it with ten. This is not indispensable, however. If ten people cannot be found, one reads it with one person, because Rav Ashi understands that there is a mitzvah to pursue a quorum.
There was an incident in which Rav delayed reading the Megillah in order to find ten people. We see from this that Rav was concerned to have ten even when the Megillah was being read at its proper time, as Rav Ashi said.
The Gemara asks: Did Rav really say that the Megillah may be read by an individual? It was taught that when Friday is its time, Friday is its time, and when Shabbat is its time, Shabbat is its time. The Gemara initially understands this to mean that a Friday reading, although technically outside the regular time, is treated like a reading at the proper time. Just as a reading at the proper time may be done by an individual, so too a reading outside the proper time may be done by an individual. This appears to contradict Rav, who said that a reading outside its proper time requires ten.
The Gemara answers that “Friday is its time” means something else. It means that Friday is considered the proper time as opposed to Thursday. We learned yesterday the opinion of Rabbi that when the reading is pushed back, it is pushed back to Thursday. This teaching tells us that, according to Rav, when the reading is pushed back to Friday, ten people are still required. Rav is therefore consistent with his position.
Tosafot asks: Since Rav was concerned to follow Rav Ashi, even for a reading at the proper time, whom should the halachah follow? We have Rav Ashi, who says that one should pursue ten, and Rav, who was concerned to follow Rav Ashi. Tosafot nevertheless says that the halachah follows Rav, because Rabbi Yochanan agrees with him in the second part of the discussion.
If a person reads the Megillah from a scroll containing all of the biblical books, rather than from a separate Megillah, he has not fulfilled the obligation, because it must be written as an independent book. The Gemara then asks: Why should a person not fulfill the obligation when reading from such a scroll in public? From the fact that the Gemara asks specifically about reading in public, it appears that reading from such a scroll alone is acceptable. This supports Rabbi Yochanan, who permits reading the Megillah alone, and the halachah follows Rabbi Yochanan.
We also have a general principle that when Rav disagrees with Rabbi Yochanan, the halachah follows Rabbi Yochanan. In addition, Rav Ashi agrees with Rabbi Yochanan. Rav Ashi was a student of Rav, so it is understandable that he would generally follow Rav, but here Rabbi Yochanan’s position is also supported by the discussion. Accordingly, one may read the Megillah alone.
Rav Yosef taught in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that when one reads the Megillah alone, one must recite the blessings. This is also found in a responsum of Rashi: whether one is reading as an individual or as part of the congregation, one person recites the blessing and the others listen. It is reasonable to say that once we have established that the Megillah may be read alone, the blessings are recited as well.
One might ask why the Gemara did not make a distinction between an individual and a congregation when discussing the blessings. The fact that it did not make that distinction indicates that the blessings are recited in either case. The real distinction is between reading at the proper time and reading outside the proper time. A reading outside the proper time requires ten, whereas the case of an individual that concerns us is a reading at the proper time.
There may still be a practical difference concerning the final blessing. The first blessings are recited before the reading, but the final blessing may depend on the presence of ten. The ten people mentioned here are the asara batlanim, the ten people who are available for the needs of the community. They do not go to work; they remain available so that a quorum will always be present. The community supports them so that they can sit and study and be available for a quorum.
The reason for this arrangement is that when God comes to the synagogue and does not find a quorum, it is considered a problem. The purpose of the ten is therefore to ensure the availability of a quorum. A place with fewer than ten such people is considered a village, whereas a place with ten is considered a city for this purpose.
The Mishnah says that in certain cases we read the Megillah earlier, and in other cases we delay the reading. If the fourteenth or fifteenth of Adar falls on Shabbat, we move the reading back rather than forward. The walled cities then read on Sunday, while the other communities read earlier. There are also other dates that may fall on Shabbat: the days of the families who brought wood for the Temple service, Tisha B’Av, the festival offering, and the public gathering known as Hakhel.
The dates on which the families brought wood for the altar were established days of celebration. Tisha B’Av can fall on Shabbat, as can the festival offering and Hakhel, which takes place after the Sabbatical year, on Sukkot. At Hakhel, the king of Judah would read a special portion of the Torah before the men, women, and children gathered in Jerusalem.
In these cases, we delay the observance rather than advancing it. Tisha B’Av is moved to Sunday because we do not advance a calamity. We hope that by Saturday night the Messiah will come, and there will be no need to fast. This is true even though the fast is then taken away from a day of the summer. The same issue arises with the seventeenth of Tammuz, so when these fasts fall on Shabbat, the summer is effectively extended.
The festival offering is delayed because it cannot be brought before the festival. It can be brought throughout the festival, but it cannot be brought before the festival begins. The wood offering is a voluntary offering, so if its established day falls on Shabbat, it is brought afterward. Hakhel is also delayed because its proper time has not yet arrived; it cannot be held before the festival.
Rashi explains the date of the wood offering by citing the discussion in Tractate Ta’anit. Certain families of Israel accepted upon themselves specific days each year on which they would bring wood for the altar. Their offering was called the wood offering. If their day fell on Shabbat, they would bring the offering on the following day.
There was a discussion about why the Mishnah specifically mentioned Tisha B’Av. Tisha B’Av is a particularly difficult day, even more so than the seventeenth of Tammuz. On Tisha B’Av the Temple was destroyed, whereas on the seventeenth of Tammuz there was a dispute about the degree to which the fast was accepted. Since everyone observes Tisha B’Av, it is the clearest example of an observance that is delayed when it falls on Shabbat.
Why can Hakhel not be held on Shabbat? The Gemara will explain that a platform had to be constructed for the king. The platform took up valuable space on the festival, and therefore it could not be built in advance and left standing. It also could not be constructed on Shabbat. Even though it was a miracle that no one was injured in the crowds, one cannot rely on miracles or act outside the normal way of the world. The platform could not be built on Shabbat, and it was not appropriate to occupy the space in advance, so Hakhel had to be delayed.
As for the wood offering, it was an actual offering connected with the celebration. It was not merely called a wood offering because wood was donated; it was a formal offering. It was an ordinary offering, and it could be a peace offering or another type of offering, but it was brought in connection with the donation of the wood.
The Mishnah then continues with a rule that we have seen several times: the earlier reading applied only when the custom was for people to gather on Mondays and Thursdays. Since that custom is no longer observed in the same way, the practical application is different.
Although we said that on Purim it is permitted to engage in certain activities on the day when the villagers read the Megillah, the Mishnah teaches that after the fifteenth one may not move the observance forward. If the fifteenth falls on Shabbat, one cannot move the reading to the sixteenth. When the observance is moved, it is moved backward to the fourteenth.
The Gemara then discusses how we calculate a year and a month. When we count years, we count by months rather than by days. The practical difference would be in a vow. If a person vows not to do something for a year beginning on the first of Nisan, the vow ends on the first of Nisan twelve months later. If one counted by days, one would have to add approximately eleven days, because the solar year is longer than the lunar year. Since we count years by months, twelve months from Nisan to Nisan completes the year.
Similarly, we do not count the hours in a month. Consider the case of a man who says to his wife, “This is your bill of divorce if I do not return by the end of this month.” Suppose he returns during the night of the twenty-ninth. If one calculated the month by hours, he might still have several hours remaining, because a lunar month is approximately twenty-nine and a half days. But we do not calculate a month by hours. Once the twenty-ninth day has ended, the month is over.
If it is a month of thirty days and he returns at the end of the thirtieth day, he has arrived in time. We do not take the additional hours into account. A month is counted by its days, not by the remaining hours. This is the practical application of the principle that we do not count hours toward the month.
The Gemara returns to the Mishnah: “The wood offering, Tisha B’Av, the festival offering, and Hakhel are delayed and not advanced.” Why is Tisha B’Av delayed to Sunday? The Gemara answers, “We do not advance a calamity.” We do not want to bring the calamity earlier. One hopes that the Messiah will come by Saturday night and that the fast will no longer be necessary.
Why are the festival offering and Hakhel delayed? Their obligation has not yet arrived. The festival offering cannot be brought before the festival, and Hakhel cannot take place before its appointed time. This is the common reason for delaying them.
The Mishnah says, “The festival offering and the entire time of the festival offering are delayed.” The Gemara presents several explanations for the phrase “the entire time of the festival offering.”
Rabbi Oshaya explains that the phrase refers to another offering brought on the same day as the festival offering: the burnt offering of appearance. On the festival, one brings the festival offering, which may be eaten, and one also brings the burnt offering of appearance. The novelty is that even the burnt offering of appearance is not brought on the festival when the relevant day falls on Shabbat; it is delayed until the following day.
The festival offering may be brought on the festival because it is food for a person. The burnt offering, however, is entirely burned on the altar. According to Beit Shammai, an offering that is not needed for a person may not be brought on the festival. Therefore, when the phrase refers to the offering of the festival, it includes the burnt offering of appearance, which is also delayed.
Beit Shammai permits peace offerings to be brought on the festival because they are needed by a person, but Beit Shammai does not permit laying hands on the animal on the festival. Laying hands on an animal is considered using an animal on the festival. Beit Shammai therefore requires the laying on of hands before the festival. Beit Shammai does not accept the principle that laying on of hands must immediately precede slaughter, so the two acts may be separated.
Beit Hillel disagrees and permits the burnt offering of appearance on the festival as well. Beit Hillel understands the verse as distinguishing between what is “for you” and what is “for God.” “For you” refers to food and other human needs, but “for God” permits the offering as well. This produces a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerning the burnt offering of appearance.
Rava offers a second interpretation. He understands “the festival offering and the entire time of the festival offering” as one statement. The phrase teaches that when the festival offering cannot be brought on the first day, it may be brought throughout the entire festival. If a person did not celebrate on the first festival day, he may celebrate during the rest of the pilgrimage festival, including the final festival day.
The verse therefore gives the duration during which the festival offering may be brought. The phrase “the entire time of the festival offering” does not establish a second halachah concerning another offering; it explains how long the festival offering may be brought when it was not brought on the first day.
A third interpretation concerns the case in which the entire pilgrimage festival has passed and the person did not bring the offering. Once the pilgrimage festival has passed, he is no longer obligated to make it up.
Another possible application is to Shavuot, which lasts only one day. Suppose Shavuot falls on Shabbat. The festival offering cannot be brought on Shabbat. When can it be brought? The teaching says that even in the case of Shavuot, the offering may be brought on the day after the festival. That day is called the day of slaughtering, because it is the day on which the offerings are slaughtered after the festival.
According to Beit Shammai, if Shavuot falls on Friday, the burnt offering of appearance cannot be brought on Friday, because Beit Shammai does not permit it on the festival. It cannot be brought on Shabbat either, so the day of slaughtering is Sunday. This shows that Shavuot, even though it lasts only one day, has a period afterward during which the offerings may still be brought.
According to Beit Hillel, the burnt offering of appearance may be brought on the festival. If Shavuot falls on Friday, both the festival offering and the burnt offering may be brought on Friday, so there is no need for a separate day of slaughtering. The dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerns whether the burnt offering may be brought on the festival.
When does everyone agree? If Shavuot falls on Shabbat, everyone agrees that the offerings cannot be brought on Shabbat. The daily and additional offerings are brought as required, but the festival offering and the burnt offering of appearance are not brought on Shabbat. The day of slaughtering is therefore Sunday according to everyone.
Tosafot discusses the statement that the offering is delayed according to Beit Shammai. In a discussion elsewhere, the law is that a voluntary burnt offering brought on the festival involves a prohibition. Tosafot asks why the teaching here does not express a greater novelty by mentioning a voluntary burnt offering. It would be a greater novelty to say that even the burnt offering of appearance, which is connected to the needs of the festival, is prohibited according to Beit Shammai.
Tosafot answers that the mention of the festival offering may teach a leniency concerning Beit Shammai. Although Beit Shammai says that the relevant offering may not be brought on the festival, bringing it does not necessarily incur lashes. The Mishnah therefore mentions the peace offering of the festival to teach that it is prohibited according to Beit Shammai but does not result in lashes.
The Maharsha questions Tosafot’s premise. Why must we search for a special novelty concerning Beit Hillel? Beit Hillel is not even explicitly mentioned in the teaching. Usually, when both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel appear in the Mishnah, we compare the two opinions and may seek to show that one is more lenient than the other. Here, however, the statement stands on its own as the opinion of Beit Shammai. Why should we explain it in a way that introduces a novelty concerning Beit Hillel?
This may be one reason that the other commentators interpret the phrase differently. If the phrase is understood as referring to the burnt offering of appearance, the teaching is established according to Beit Shammai. The other interpretations avoid limiting the entire discussion to that position.
The Gemara then relates several actions performed by Rabbi. Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Hanina that Rabbi planted a tree on Purim. He also bathed in a bathhouse in public on the seventeenth of Tammuz and wanted to uproot Tisha B’Av when it fell on Shabbat.
The point concerning Tisha B’Av was not necessarily that Rabbi wanted to eliminate the fast entirely. Tisha B’Av had already been pushed from Shabbat to Sunday, and Rabbi reasoned that once it had already been displaced, perhaps it could be eliminated in that year. The Sages did not agree with him.
There was a discussion about the significance of this incident. Rabbi did not necessarily want to abolish the regular observance of Tisha B’Av. One possibility is that he wanted to remove the additional restrictions and observe only the fast itself. Another possibility is that he wanted to move the day from the ninth of Av to the tenth, because the Temple continued burning into the tenth. This idea is also associated with the statement that if one had been present, one would have established the fast on the tenth, because that was the principal day on which the Temple was burned.
Thus, there are several ways to understand Rabbi’s position. Rashi appears to understand that he wanted to eliminate Tisha B’Av altogether in that particular circumstance. Tosafot rejects the idea that he wanted to abolish it entirely. Tosafot explains that he may have wanted either to remove the additional restrictions or to move the observance from Saturday to Sunday, or from the ninth of Av to the tenth.
The Gemara questions how Rabbi could have planted a tree on Purim. The Book of Esther calls Purim a day of gladness and feasting and says that it is not a day for eulogies. The Megillah also describes it as a festival, and planting a tree appears to be work that should not be performed on a festival.
Rabbi bar bar Ravina answers that Rabbi must have lived in a place that celebrated Purim on the fourteenth and planted the tree on the fifteenth. Alternatively, he may have lived in Tiberias, where there was uncertainty concerning the date of the original walled city, and the Megillah was read on both the fourteenth and the fifteenth.
The Gemara then asks whether that answer is sufficient. Even if Tiberias celebrated primarily on the fifteenth, both the fourteenth and the fifteenth are mentioned in connection with Purim. The teaching concerning the days of fasting indicates that both dates are protected from eulogies. Perhaps, then, one should also prohibit work on both days.
The Gemara answers that the stringency of prohibiting work on both days applies specifically to the fast-related enactment. With respect to work on Purim, the prohibition applies only on the day on which a particular place celebrates Purim. Rabbi, as a resident of Tiberias, could therefore plant the tree on the fourteenth, since Tiberias celebrated on the fifteenth.
The Gemara then raises a similar difficulty from Rav. Rav saw a person planting flax on Purim and cursed him, and the crop did not succeed. If work is permitted on the other date, why did Rav curse the man?
The Gemara answers that the man had been planting on the actual day of Purim in his location. The possibility of planting on the other date applied only where that was not the local day of Purim. Since the man was working on the day his community celebrated Purim, Rav cursed him.
One might have answered that the enactment prohibiting work was never formally accepted on Purim. The Megillah describes Purim with joy and feasting, but perhaps the people never accepted it as a festival on which work is prohibited. If so, why did Rav curse the person who planted flax?
The answer is that the local custom must be followed. In one place, people may work on the day that is not their day of celebration, while in another place the accepted custom may prohibit work. Rabbi planted the tree because he was in a place with a different local practice. The person whom Rav saw was in a place where the day was observed as Purim, and therefore Rav objected to his working.
This is similar to other cases in which a community maintains a practice based on an erroneous premise. If people refrain from eating produce because they mistakenly believe that their location has the status of part of the Land of Israel, a rabbi may tell them that they are mistaken and may eat the produce. But if people know that work is technically permitted on Purim and nevertheless accepted a practice not to work, that practice remains meaningful. At least they understand the law and are not acting under a mistaken assumption.
The Gemara offers another answer: Rabbi planted a tree of joy. The discussion in Tractate Ta’anit says that after the fasts had passed without rain, certain pleasurable activities had to be minimized. Construction connected with joy was prohibited, such as building a house for a newly married son or planting a pleasant shade tree. Rabbi planted a tree of joy, and that type of planting was permitted in the particular circumstance.
Tosafot questions this explanation. If the restriction concerned a tree of joy, perhaps ordinary planting should have been permitted. Yet the person whom Rav saw was planting ordinary flax, which is also a form of work. Why was he cursed?
The answer is that the leniency concerned the particular pleasurable activity that the circumstances allowed, whereas ordinary commercial work or agricultural work remained subject to the local practice. Rabbi’s planting was permitted because it belonged to the category of planting for joy. The man planting flax was engaging in ordinary work on the day of Purim, and therefore Rav objected.
The discussion distinguishes between the particular type of work that was prohibited and other work that remained permitted. Rabbi’s action was connected with the permitted planting of a tree of joy, while the planting of flax was ordinary labor. That is why the two cases are not equivalent.
We will stop here and continue from this point.