And so, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month—that is, the month of Adar—when the king’s command and decree were to be executed, the very day on which the enemies of the Jews had expected to get them in their power, the opposite happened, and the Jews got their enemies in their power. Throughout the provinces of King Ahasuerus, the Jews mustered in their cities to attack those who sought their hurt; and no one could withstand them, for the fear of them had fallen upon all the peoples. Indeed, all the officials of the provinces—the satraps, the governors, and the king’s stewards—showed deference to the Jews, because the fear of Mordecai had fallen upon them. For Mordecai was now powerful in the royal palace, and his fame was spreading through all the provinces; this man Mordecai was growing ever more powerful. So the Jews struck at their enemies^atheir enemies I.e., those armed forces that were reckless enough to attack despite the king’s declaration that the Jews could stand their ground with impunity; cf. v. 2 and 8.11. with the sword, slaying and destroying; they wreaked their will upon their enemies. In the fortress Shushan the Jews killed a total of five hundred of them. They also killed^bThey also killed Moved up from v. 10 for clarity.
Parshandatha,
Dalphon,
Aspatha, Poratha,
Adalia,
Aridatha, Parmashta,
Arisai,
Aridai,
and Vaizatha, the ten sons of Haman son of Hammedatha, the foe of the Jews. But they did not lay hands on the spoil. When the number of those slain in the fortress Shushan was reported on that same day to the king, the king said to Queen Esther, “In the fortress Shushan alone the Jews have killed a total of five hundred, as well as the ten sons of Haman. What then must they have done in the provinces of the realm! What is your wish now? It shall be granted you. And what else is your request? It shall be fulfilled.” “If it please Your Majesty,” Esther replied, “let the Jews in Shushan be permitted to act tomorrow also as they did today; and let Haman’s ten sons be impaled on the stake.” The king ordered that this should be done, and the decree was proclaimed in Shushan. Haman’s ten sons were impaled: and the Jews in Shushan mustered again on the fourteenth day of Adar and slew three hundred men in Shushan. But they did not lay hands on the spoil. The rest of the Jews, those in the king’s provinces, likewise mustered and fought for their lives. They disposed of their enemies,^ctheir enemies See note at v. 5. killing seventy-five thousand of their foes; but they did not lay hands on the spoil. That was on the thirteenth day of the month of Adar; and they rested on the fourteenth day and made it a day of feasting and merrymaking. (But the Jews in Shushan mustered on both the thirteenth and fourteenth days, and so rested on the fifteenth, and made it a day of feasting and merrymaking.) That is why village Jews, who live in unwalled towns, observe the fourteenth day of the month of Adar and make it a day of merrymaking and feasting, and as a holiday and an occasion for sending gifts to one another. Mordecai recorded these events. And he sent dispatches to all the Jews throughout the provinces of King Ahasuerus, near and far, charging them to observe the fourteenth and fifteenth days of Adar, every year— the same days on which the Jews enjoyed relief from their foes and the same month that had been transformed for them from one of grief and mourning to one of festive joy. They were to observe them as days of feasting and merrymaking, and as an occasion for sending gifts to one another and presents to the poor. The Jews accordingly assumed as an obligation that which they had begun to practice and that Mordecai prescribed for them. For Haman son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the foe of all the Jews, had plotted to destroy the Jews, and had cast pur—that is, the lot—with intent to crush and exterminate them. But when [Esther] came before the king, he commanded: “With the promulgation of this decree,^dWith the promulgation of this decree Meaning of Heb. uncertain. let the evil plot that he devised against the Jews recoil on his own head!” So they impaled him and his sons on the stake. For that reason these days were named Purim, after pur.
In view, then, of all the instructions in the said letter and of what they had experienced in that matter and what had befallen them, the Jews undertook and irrevocably obligated themselves and their descendants, and all who might join them, to observe these two days in the manner prescribed and at the proper time each year. Consequently, these days are recalled and observed in every generation: by every family, every province, and every city. And these days of Purim shall never cease among the Jews, and the memory of them shall never perish among their descendants. ^eForce of these verses is uncertain in part. Verse 29 reads literally, “Then Queen Esther, daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote with full authority to confirm this second letter of Purim.” Then Queen Esther daughter of Abihail wrote a second letter of Purim for the purpose of confirming with full authority the aforementioned one of Mordecai the Jew. Dispatches were sent to all the Jews in the hundred and twenty-seven provinces of the realm of Ahasuerus with an ordinance of “equity and honesty”:^fof “equity and honesty” I.e., of new holidays, the instituting of which is linked to love of equity and honesty in Zech. 8.19. These days of Purim shall be observed at their proper time, as Mordecai the Jew—and now Queen Esther—has obligated them to do, and just as they have assumed for themselves and their descendants the obligation of the fasts with their lamentations.^gjust as they have assumed … fasts with their lamentations The Jews had long been observing fast days in commemoration of national calamities; see Zech. 7.5; 8.19. And Esther’s ordinance validating these observances of Purim was recorded in a scroll.

and he establishes the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, rather than Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara explains the apparent contradiction: And did Rabbi Yehuda actually say that nowadays, since people look to the reading of the Megilla and use it to calculate when Passover begins, one may read the Megilla only in its designated time? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (5a): Rabbi Yehuda said: When is one permitted to read the Megilla from the eleventh of Adar? In a place where the villagers generally enter town on Monday and Thursday. However, in a place where they do not generally enter town on Monday and Thursday, one may read the Megilla only in its designated time, the fourteenth of Adar. The mishna indicates that, at least in a place where the villagers enter town on Monday and Thursday, one may read the Megilla from the eleventh of Adar even nowadays. And due to this contradiction, Rav Ashi establishes the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda. The Gemara expresses surprise: Because Rav Ashi poses a difficulty due to the apparent contradiction between the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the baraita and the opinion cited in a mishna in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, he establishes the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda? How could he have emended the text just because he had a difficulty that he did not know how to resolve? The Gemara explains: Rav Ashi heard that there were those who taught the baraita in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, and there were those who taught it in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda. And since he had a difficulty with the apparent contradiction between one ruling of Rabbi Yehuda and another ruling of Rabbi Yehuda, he said: The one who taught it in the name of Rabbi Yehuda is not precise, whereas the one who taught it in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda is precise, and in this way he eliminated the contradiction. § We learned in the mishna: Cities that have been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, read the Megilla on the fifteenth of Adar. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, as they are not stated explicitly in the Megilla? Rava said: It is as the verse states: “Therefore the Jews of the villages, who dwell in the unwalled towns, make the fourteenth day of the month of Adar a day of gladness and feasting” (Esther 9:19). From the fact that the unwalled towns celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, it may be derived that the walled cities celebrate Purim on the fifteenth. The Gemara challenges this answer: Say that the unwalled towns celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, as indicated in the verse, and the walled cities do not celebrate it at all. The Gemara expresses astonishment: And are they not Jews? And furthermore: It is written that the kingdom of Ahasuerus was “from Hodu until Cush” (Esther 1:1), and the celebration of Purim was accepted in all of the countries of his kingdom (Esther 9:20–23). Rather, the following challenge may be raised: Say that the unwalled towns celebrate Purim on the fourteenth and the walled cities celebrate it on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth, as it is written: “That they should keep the fourteenth day of the month of Adar and the fifteenth day of the same, in every year” (Esther 9:21). This verse can be understood to mean that there are places where Purim is celebrated on both days. The Gemara rejects this argument: If it had been written in the verse: The fourteenth day and [ve] the fifteenth, it would be as you originally said. However, now that it is written: The fourteenth day and [ve’et] the fifteenth day, the particle et used here to denote the accusative comes and interrupts, indicating that the two days are distinct. Therefore, residents of these locations celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, and residents of those locations celebrate it on the fifteenth. The Gemara suggests: Say that residents of unwalled towns celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, as stated in the verse, and with regard to residents of walled cities, if they wish they may celebrate it on the fourteenth, and if they wish they may celebrate it on the fifteenth. The Gemara responds: The verse states: “In their times” (Esther 9:31), indicating that the time when the residents of this place celebrate Purim is not the time when the residents of that place celebrate Purim. The Gemara raises another challenge: Say that the walled cities should celebrate Purim on the thirteenth of Adar and not on the fifteenth. The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the residents of walled cities, who do not celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, celebrate it as it is celebrated in Shushan, and it is explicitly stated that Purim was celebrated in Shushan on the fifteenth. The Gemara comments: We found a source for observing the holiday of Purim on the fourteenth of Adar in unwalled towns and on the fifteenth of Adar in walled cities; from where do we derive that remembering the story of Purim through the reading of the Megilla takes place on these days? The Gemara explains that the verse states: “That these days should be remembered and observed” (Esther 9:28), from which it is derived that remembering is compared to observing. § The Gemara notes that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in the Tosefta (1:1) that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: Cities that have been surrounded by a wall since the days of Ahasuerus read the Megilla on the fifteenth. According to the Tosefta, the status of walled cities is determined based upon whether they were walled in the time of Ahasuerus rather than the time of Joshua. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa? The Gemara explains that the Megilla is read on the fifteenth in cities that are like Shushan: Just as Shushan is a city that was surrounded by a wall since the days of Ahasuerus, and one reads the Megilla there on the fifteenth, so too every city that was walled since the days of Ahasuerus reads the Megilla on the fifteenth. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the tanna of our mishna? The Gemara explains: It is derived through a verbal analogy between one instance of the word unwalled and another instance of the word unwalled. It is written here: “Therefore the Jews of the villages, who dwell in the unwalled towns” (Esther 9:19), and it is written there, in Moses’ statement to Joshua before the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael: “All these cities were fortified with high walls, gates and bars; besides unwalled towns, a great many” (Deuteronomy 3:5). Just as there, in Deuteronomy, the reference is to a city that was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun, so too here it is referring to a city that was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun. The Gemara continues: Granted that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa did not state his explanation in accordance with the opinion of the tanna of our mishna because he did not hold that a verbal analogy can be established between one verse that employs the word unwalled and the other verse that employs the word unwalled. However, what is the reason that the tanna of our mishna did not state his explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa? The Gemara expresses astonishment: What is the reason? Isn’t it because he holds that it is derived from the verbal analogy between one usage of the word unwalled and the other usage of the word unwalled? The Gemara explains: This is what he said, i.e., this was the question: According to the tanna of our mishna, in accordance with whom does Shushan observe Purim? Shushan is not like the unwalled towns and not like the walled cities, as residents of Shushan celebrate Purim on the fifteenth, but the city was not surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua. Rava said, and some say it unattributed to any particular Sage: Shushan is different since the miracle occurred in it on the fifteenth of Adar, and therefore Purim is celebrated on that day. However, other cities are only considered walled cities and read the Megilla on the fifteenth of Adar if they were walled since the days of Joshua. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the tanna of our mishna, this is the meaning of what is written: “And these days should be remembered and observed throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city” (Esther 9:28). The phrase “every province [medina]” is expressed in the verse using repetition, so that it reads literally: Every province and province, and therefore contains a superfluous usage of the word province, is meant to distinguish between cities that were surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, where the Megilla is read on the fifteenth, and a city that was surrounded by a wall since the days of Ahasuerus, where the Megilla is read on the fourteenth. The phrase “every city,” which is similarly expressed through repetition and contains a superfluous usage of the word city, also serves to distinguish between Shushan and other cities, as Purim is celebrated in Shushan on the fifteenth despite the fact that it was not walled since the time of Joshua. However, according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, granted that the phrase “every province” comes to distinguish between Shushan and other cities that were not walled since the days of Ahasuerus; but what does the phrase “every city” come to teach? The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa could have said to you: According to the tanna of our mishna, does it work out well? Since he holds that it is derived from the verbal analogy between one verse that employs the word unwalled and the other verse that employs the word unwalled, why do I need the phrase “every province”? Rather, the verse comes for a midrashic exposition, and it comes to indicate that the halakha is in accordance with the ruling issued by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A walled city, and all settlements adjacent to it, and all settlements that can be seen with it, i.e., that can be seen from the walled city, are considered like the walled city, and the Megilla is read there on the fifteenth. The Gemara asks: Up to what distance is considered adjacent? Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said: The limit is like the distance from the town of Ḥamtan to Tiberias, a mil. The Gemara asks: Let him say simply that the limit is a mil; why did he have to mention these places? The Gemara answers that the formulation of the answer teaches us this: How much distance comprises the measure of a mil? It is like the distance from Ḥamtan to Tiberias. § Having cited a statement of Rabbi Yirmeya, which some attribute to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, the Gemara cites other statements attributed to these Sages. Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said: The Seers, i.e., the prophets, were the ones who said that the letters mem, nun, tzadi, peh, and kaf [mantzepakh], have a different form when they appear at the end of a word. The Gemara asks: And how can you understand it that way? Isn’t it written: “These are the commandments that the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai” (Leviticus 27:34), which indicates that a prophet is not permitted to initiate or change any matter of halakha from now on? Consequently, how could the prophets establish new forms for the letters? And furthermore, didn’t Rav Ḥisda say: The letters mem and samekh in the tablets of the covenant given at Sinai

It is a positive mitzvah ordained by the Rabbis to read the Megillah at the appointed time. It is well-known that this was ordained by the Prophets.
Everyone is obligated in this reading: men, women, converts, and freed slaves. Children should also be trained to read it. Even the priests should neglect their service in the Temple and come to hear the reading of the Megillah.
Similarly, Torah study should be neglected to hear the reading of the Megillah. Surely, this applies to the other mitzvot of the Torah: the observance of all of them is superseded by the reading of the Megillah. There is nothing that takes priority over the reading of the Megillah except the burial of a meit mitzvah - a corpse that has no one to take care of it. A person who encounters such a corpse should bury it and then read the Megillah.

It is a mitzvah for the inhabitants of the villages and unwalled cities to consider the fourteenth of Adar - and for the inhabitants of the walled cities to consider the fifteenth of Adar - as a day of happiness and festivity, when portions of food are sent to one's friends and presents are given to the poor.
It is permitted to work on these days. It is not, however, proper to do so. Our Sages declared, "Whoever works on Purim will never see a sign of blessing."
Should the inhabitants of the villages read the Megillah earlier, on a Monday or a Thursday, and give monetary gifts to the poor on the day on which they read, they fulfill their obligation. The rejoicing and festivities of the Purim holiday, by contrast, should be held only on the day of the fourteenth. If they are held earlier, the participants do not fulfill their obligation. A person who conducts the Purim feast at night does not fulfill his obligation.

It is a mitzvah to read the entire Megillah and to read it both at night and during the day. The entire night is an appropriate time for the night reading, and the entire day is appropriate for the day reading.
Before the reading at night, one should recite three blessings. They are:
Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to read the Megillah.
Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who wrought miracles for our ancestors in previous days at this season.
Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who has granted us life, sustained us, and enabled us to reach this occasion.
During the day, one should not recite the final blessing.
In places where it is customary to recite a blessing after the reading, the following blessing should be recited:
Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who wages our battles and executes judgment on our behalf, who avenges the vengeance wrought against us, who exacts retribution from our enemies on our behalf, and who acquits justly all our mortal enemies. Blessed are You, God, the Almighty, who exacts payment on behalf of His nation Israel from all their oppressors, the God of salvation.

the term: The second, and it was also necessary to write the phrase: In each and every year; proof from one of the verses would have been insufficient. As, if I had derived the halakha only from the phrase: In each and every year, I would have said my conclusion according to our question raised earlier: Why not celebrate Purim in the Adar adjacent to Shevat? Therefore, it teaches us using the term: The second. And had it taught us only the term: The second, I would have said that Purim must be celebrated both in the first Adar and in the second Adar, ab initio. Therefore, it teaches us: In each and every year, indicating that even in an intercalated year, just as in an ordinary year, Purim is to be celebrated only once. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, what does he do with this term: The second? Since he holds that the Megilla is read in the first Adar, what does he derive from the verse? The Gemara answers: He requires the term to derive that statement of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, as Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said: Initially, they established the observance of Purim in the city of Shushan alone, and ultimately they established it throughout the world, according to the second letter of Purim. Apropos the statement of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda with regard to the establishment of the holiday of Purim, the Gemara cites a related statement. Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said: Esther sent to the Sages: Establish me for future generations. Esther requested that the observance of Purim and the reading of the Megilla be instituted as an ordinance for all generations. They sent to her: You will thereby arouse the wrath of the nations upon us, as the Megilla recounts the victory of the Jews over the gentiles, and it is best not to publicize that victory. She sent back to them: I am already written in the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia, and so the Megilla will not publicize anything that is not already known worldwide. It was related that Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rav Ḥaviva taught the statement cited below. The Gemara comments: Throughout the order of Moed, wherever this latter pair of Sages is mentioned, exchange Rabbi Yoḥanan and insert Rabbi Yonatan in his place. They said: Esther sent to the Sages: Write me for future generations and canonize my book as part of the Bible. They sent to her that it is written: “Have I not written for you three times” (Proverbs 22:20), indicating that Israel’s battle with Amalek is to be mentioned three times in the Bible and not four times? Since it is already mentioned three times (Exodus 17:8–16; Deuteronomy 25:17–19; I Samuel 15), there is no need to add a fourth source. The Sages did not accede to Esther’s request until they found a verse written in the Torah: “Write this for a memorial in the book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: That I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under the heavens” (Exodus 17:14). The Sages interpreted the verse: “Write this,” that which is written in the Torah here in Exodus, and in Deuteronomy; “a memorial,” that which is written in the Prophets, i.e., in I Samuel, on this matter; “in the book,” that which is written in the Megilla. The Megilla is the third mention of Amalek and not the fourth, as both mentions in the Torah pertaining to Amalek are considered one; therefore, Esther would be the third, not the fourth source. The Gemara comments: This matter is parallel to a dispute between the tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: “Write this,” that which is written here, in the book of Exodus; “a memorial,” that which is written in Deuteronomy; “in the book,” that which is written in the Prophets; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i disagrees and says: “Write this,” that which is written in the Torah here in Exodus, and in Deuteronomy; “a memorial,” that which is written in the Prophets on this matter; “in the book,” that which is written in the Megilla. Here too, the tanna’im disagreed whether or not the book of Esther has the same force and sanctity as that of the canonized books of the Bible. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The book of Esther does not render the hands ritually impure. Although the Sages issued a decree that sacred scrolls render hands ritually impure, the book of Esther was not accorded the sanctity of sacred scrolls. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Shmuel maintains that the book of Esther was not stated with the inspiration of the Divine Spirit? But didn’t Shmuel himself say elsewhere that the book of Esther was stated with the inspiration of the Divine Spirit? The Gemara answers: It was stated with the Divine Spirit that it is to be read in public; however, it was not stated that it is to be written. Therefore, the text was not accorded the sanctity of sacred scrolls. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. Rabbi Meir says: The book of Ecclesiastes does not render the hands ritually impure, as it was not accorded the sanctity of sacred scrolls; however, there is a dispute with regard to whether or not the Song of Songs renders the hands impure. Rabbi Yosei says: The Song of Songs renders the hands ritually impure, but there is a dispute with regard to the book of Ecclesiastes. Rabbi Shimon says: The ruling with regard to Ecclesiastes is among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and among the stringencies of Beit Hillel, as according to Beit Hillel it renders the hands impure and according to Beit Shammai it does not. However, everyone agrees that the books of Ruth, and the Song of Songs, and Esther render the hands ritually impure, contrary to the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: It was Shmuel who stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua cited earlier that the book of Esther was not accorded the sanctity of sacred scrolls. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: The book of Ecclesiastes does not render the hands ritually impure because it is the wisdom of Solomon, and not divinely inspired. They said to him: It was certainly divinely inspired and that is the reason that the book of Ecclesiastes was added to the canon; as was it this alone that Solomon said? Wasn’t it already stated: “And he spoke three thousand proverbs, and his poems were a thousand and five” (I Kings 5:12)? Solomon spoke many proverbs, but only a portion of them were canonized in the Bible. Apparently, what is unique about those in Ecclesiastes is that they were divinely inspired. And it says: “Add you not unto his words” (Proverbs 30:6). The Gemara asks: What is added by the proof introduced with the phrase: And it says? Why wasn’t the first proof sufficient? The Gemara answers: And if you would say that in terms of what he said, he said a great deal, with regard to which, if he so desired, it was written, and if he so desired, it was not written; then that is why not all of his statements were preserved. Therefore, come and hear: Add you not unto his words. Apparently, the reason that it is prohibited to add to the proverbs is that the book of Ecclesiastes was divinely inspired. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: The book of Esther was said with the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, as it is stated: “And Haman thought in his heart” (Esther 6:6). If the book of Esther was not divinely inspired, how was it known what Haman thought in his heart? Rabbi Akiva says: The book of Esther was said with the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, as it is stated: “And Esther obtained favor in the sight of all those who looked upon her” (Esther 2:15); this could have been known only through divine inspiration. Rabbi Meir says: The book of Esther was said with the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, as it is stated with regard to the conspiracy of Bigtan and Teresh against Ahasuerus: “And the thing became known to Mordecai” (Esther 2:22). This too could have been known only through divine inspiration. Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit says: The book of Esther was said with the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, as it is stated: “But they did not lay their hands on the plunder” (Esther 9:15). The only way that could have been stated with certainty is through divine inspiration. Shmuel said: Had I been there among the tanna’im, I would have stated a matter that is superior to them all, as it is stated: “They confirmed, and took upon themselves” (Esther 9:27), which was interpreted to mean: They confirmed above in heaven what they took upon themselves below on earth. Clearly, it is only through divine inspiration that this could have been ascertained. Rava said: There is a refutation for all of these proofs, except for the proof cited by Shmuel, for which there is no refutation. The Gemara elaborates. That which Rabbi Eliezer said with regard to knowledge of what Haman was thinking in his heart can be refuted, as it is based on logical reasoning to conclude that this was his thinking. There was no other person as important to the king as he was; and the fact is that when he elaborated extensively and said: “Let the royal apparel be brought” (Esther 6:8), he said it with himself in mind. That which Rabbi Akiva said with regard to the knowledge that Esther found favor in the eyes of all, perhaps it can be understood and refuted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who said: This teaches that she appeared to each and every one as one of his nation, and they expressed that sentiment aloud. And that which Rabbi Meir said, i.e., that the divine inspiration of the book of Esther is clear from the fact that Mordecai exposed the conspiracy against Ahasuerus, perhaps this can be explained and refuted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, who said: Bigtan and Teresh were both members of the Tarsi people and conversed in their own language. Mordecai, who was a member of the Sanhedrin and therefore fluent in many languages, understood what they were saying. And that which Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit said with regard to the knowledge that no spoils were taken, perhaps this can be explained and refuted by the fact that they dispatched messengers who informed them of the situation. However, with regard to Shmuel’s proof from the fact that they confirmed above what they took upon themselves below, there is certainly no refutation. Ravina said: This explains the folk saying that people say: One sharp pepper is better than a basketful of pumpkins, as the quality of the pepper’s taste is more significant than the quantity of the pumpkins. Rav Yosef said: Proof that the book of Esther was divinely inspired may be cited from here: “And these days of Purim shall not cease from among the Jews” (Esther 9:28), an assertion that could have been made only with divine inspiration. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Proof may be cited from here, at the end of that verse: “Nor the memorial of them perish from their seed” (Esther 9:28). The mishna mentions: And gifts distributed to the poor. Rav Yosef taught a baraita that the verse states: “And of sending portions one to another” (Esther 9:22), indicating two portions to one person. The verse continues: “And gifts to the poor” (Esther 9:22), indicating two gifts to two people. The Gemara relates that, on Purim, Rabbi Yehuda Nesia sent to Rabbi Oshaya the leg of a third-born calf and a jug of wine. Rabbi Oshaya sent him a message of gratitude: You have fulfilled two mitzvot through us, our teacher: The mitzva of: “And sending portions one to another,” and the mitzva of: “And gifts to the poor,” as Rabbi Oshaya was poor and this was a substantial gift. The Gemara relates that Rabba sent Purim portions from the house of the Exilarch to Marei bar Mar in the hands of Abaye, who was his nephew and student. The Purim portions consisted of a sack [taska] full of dates [kashva] and a cupful of roasted flour [kimḥa de’avshuna]. Abaye said to him: Now, Mari will say the popular expression: Even if a farmer becomes the king, the basket does not descend from his neck. Rabba was named the head of the yeshiva in Pumbedita, and nevertheless, he continued to send very plain gifts, because he was impoverished. Marei bar Mar sent back to him a sack full of ginger and a cupful of long peppers [pilpalta arikha], a much more expensive gift. Abaye said to him: The master, Rabba, will now say: I sent him sweet items and he sent me pungent ones. In describing that same incident, Abaye said: When I left the house of the master, Rabba, to go to Marei bar Mar, I was already satiated. However, when I arrived there at Marei bar Mar’s house, they served me sixty plates of sixty kinds of cooked dishes, and I ate sixty portions from each of them. The last dish was called pot roast, and I was still so hungry that I wanted to chew the plate afterward. And in continuation Abaye said: This explains the folk saying that people say: The poor man is hungry and does not know it, as Abaye was unaware how hungry he had been in his master’s house. Alternatively, there is another appropriate, popular expression: Room in the stomach for sweets can always be found. The Gemara relates that Abaye bar Avin and Rabbi Ḥanina bar Avin would exchange their meals with each other to fulfill their obligation of sending portions on Purim. Rava said: A person is obligated to become intoxicated with wine on Purim until he is so intoxicated that he does not know how to distinguish between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordecai. The Gemara relates that Rabba and Rabbi Zeira prepared a Purim feast with each other, and they became intoxicated to the point that Rabba arose and slaughtered Rabbi Zeira. The next day, when he became sober and realized what he had done, Rabba asked God for mercy, and revived him. The next year, Rabba said to Rabbi Zeira: Let the Master come and let us prepare the Purim feast with each other. He said to him: Miracles do not happen each and every hour, and I do not want to undergo that experience again. Rava said: A Purim feast that one ate at night did not fulfill his obligation. What is the reason? “Days of feasting and gladness” (Esther 9:22) is written, i.e., days and not nights. The Gemara relates: Rav Ashi was sitting before Rav Kahana his teacher on Purim, and it grew dark and the Sages who usually came to study with him did not come. Rav Ashi said to him: What is the reason that the Sages did not come today? Rav Kahana answered: Perhaps they are preoccupied with the Purim feast. Rav Ashi said to him: Wasn’t it possible for them to eat the feast at night on Purim, instead of being derelict in their Torah study on Purim day? Rav Kahana said to him: Didn’t the master learn that which Rava said: A Purim feast that one ate at night did not fulfill his obligation? Rav Ashi said to him: Did Rava say that? Rav Kahana said to him: Yes. Rav Ashi then learned it from him forty times until he remembered it so well that it seemed to him as if it were placed in his purse. MISHNA: The previous mishna concluded with the formula: The difference between…is only, thereby distinguishing between the halakhot in two different cases. The following mishnayot employ the same formula and distinguish between the halakhot in cases unrelated to Purim and the Megilla. The first is: The difference between Festivals and Shabbat with regard to the labor prohibited on those days is only in preparing food alone. It is permitted to cook and bake in order to prepare food on Festivals; however, on Shabbat it is prohibited. GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of actions that facilitate preparation of food, e.g., sharpening a knife for slaughter, this, Shabbat, and that, Festivals, are equal, in that actions that facilitate preparation of food are prohibited. The Gemara comments: If so, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: The difference between Festivals and Shabbat is only preparing food. Rabbi Yehuda permits even actions that facilitate preparation of food on Festivals. The Gemara elaborates. What is the reason for the opinion of the first tanna? It is as the verse states: “Except that which every person must eat, only that may be done for you” (Exodus 12:16). “That” is permitted, and not actions that facilitate it. And Rabbi Yehuda says: “For you” means for you, for all your needs. The Gemara asks: And for the other, first, tanna too, isn’t it written: “For you”? The Gemara answers: He infers: For you, and not for gentiles; for you, and not for dogs. It is forbidden to perform labors for the sake of gentiles, or for animals, even if it is to feed them. The Gemara asks further: And for the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, too, isn’t it written: “That,” which is a restrictive term that limits the application of a particular halakha? The Gemara answers: It is written: “That,” which is restrictive, and it is written: “For you,” which is inclusive. Rabbi Yehuda resolves the conflict between the two: Here, the word: “That,” is referring to actions that facilitate, in which it is possible to perform them on the Festival eve but which are prohibited on the Festival; there, the phrase: “For you,” is referring to actions that facilitate, in which it is impossible to perform them on the Festival eve and which are permitted even on the Festival. MISHNA: The difference between Shabbat and Yom Kippur with regard to the labor prohibited on those days is only that in this case, i.e., Shabbat, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of Man, as he is stoned by a court based on the testimony of witnesses who forewarned the transgressor; and in that case, i.e., Yom Kippur, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of God, with karet. GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of payment of damages, both this, Shabbat, and that, Yom Kippur, are equal in that one is exempt in both cases. If one performs an action on Shabbat that entails both a prohibited labor and damage to another’s property, since his transgression is punishable by death, he is exempt from paying damages. Apparently, according to the mishna, the same halakha applies to Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion is the mishna taught? The Gemara answers: It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana would render Yom Kippur like Shabbat with regard to payment of damages. Just as in the case of one who intentionally desecrates Shabbat he is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment of damages caused while desecrating Shabbat, so too, in the case of one who intentionally desecrates Yom Kippur, he is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment of damages caused while desecrating Yom Kippur. We learned there in a mishna (Makkot 23a): All those liable to receive karet who were flogged in court were exempted from their karet, which is imposed by heaven. Most transgressors are liable to receive karet for violating prohibitions that are punishable by flogging. If they are flogged, they are exempt from karet, as it is stated with regard to one liable to receive lashes: “Then your brother shall be dishonored before you” (Deuteronomy 25:3), indicating that once he was flogged he is like your brother, and his sins have been pardoned; this is the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him on this issue. Rava said that the Sages of the school of Rav said: We learned: The difference between Yom Kippur and Shabbat is only that in this case, Shabbat, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of Man; and in that case, Yom Kippur, its intentional desecration is punishable with karet. And if the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel is so, in both this case, Shabbat, and that case, Yom Kippur, the punishment is at the hand of Man. Rav Naḥman said: There is no proof from here that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him, as in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, who said: There are no lashes in cases of those liable to receive karet, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: All those liable to receive karet in cases of incest were included in the principle: “For whoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the persons that commit them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29). And why was karet administered to one’s sister excluded from this verse and mentioned independently (Leviticus 20:17)? It is to sentence her to the punishment of karet and not to the punishment of lashes. This serves as a paradigm; wherever one is liable to receive karet, there are no lashes. Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that the mishna is according to the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yitzḥak and hold that there are lashes even in cases where there is liability for karet, there is no proof that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him. The mishna can be understood as follows: In this case, Shabbat, the primary punishment for its intentional desecration is at the hand of Man; and in that case, Yom Kippur, the primary punishment for its intentional desecration is with karet. If, however, he was flogged, he is exempt from karet.

For this reason⁸That most of the month contained festival days. no supplications⁹This refers in particular to the prayer, ‘And He, being merciful’, etc. (P.B., pp. 57-65). are offered on any of the days of Nisan and there is no fasting until Nisan has passed. The only exception is [the fast of] the firstborn who fast on the eve of Passover.¹⁰In thanksgiving for the deliverance of the Israelite firstborn on Passover eve when Egypt’s firstborn perished (Ex. 12, 29). The very pious also fast on that day on account of the unleavened bread, in order that they shall begin to eat it¹¹On the evening preceding the fifteenth of Nisan. Lit. ‘that they shall enter it’. with relish.¹²In honour and appreciation of the commandment. Scholars fast on Mondays and Thursdays [throughout the year] on account of the desecration of the name of God¹³By the heathens who destroyed Jerusalem. and for the honour of the Temple which was burnt. To what does the foregoing apply? To fasting in private, but it is forbidden to proclaim a public fast until Nisan has passed.
On the first day of Adar a public proclamation is made regarding the shekels.¹⁴Every adult had the obligation to give one half-shekel as a contribution to the Temple. Why on the first of Adar? Because it was foreseen, revealed and known before Him Who spoke and the world came into being that Haman would in time to come weigh [shekels] against Israel.¹⁵Cf. Esth. 3, 9. He, therefore, forestalled him and instructed Moses that the shekels of Israel should precede Haman’s. It is required that Israel shall give their shekels before [43b] the Sabbath of Remember;¹⁶The Sabbath before Purim when the mafṭir reads the passage beginning Remember (Deut. 25, 17-19). and it is forbidden to say of them¹⁷The half-shekels. that they are ‘for a ransom’ [but must be given] for a freewill-offering. From the proceeds water and food should be supplied for their poor brethren on account of a sacrifice¹⁸Reading ḳorban with GRA. V has ‘on account of complaints’ (ḳoblin). [M has ḳislin which Krauss, Lehnwörter, p. 531, renders ‘feast’.] and gifts to the poor.¹⁹Cf. Esth. 9, 22. Some supply bread and wine, others supply bread and fish; in any event not less than two gifts²⁰Since Esth. loc. cit. speaks of gifts, in the plural, which indicates not less than two. should be given, although they consist only of wheat and beans.

And each one must send portions to his fellow, etc. [That is] in the first chapter of Megillah (7a:20), "Rabbi Yosef taught." And the Ran, may his memory be blessed, wrote, Two portions to one person means types of food and drink to the wealthy; but with the indigent, it is enough for each one with one gift, since it is considered like a big thing in their eyes. To here are his [words]. But in my humble opinion regarding the reason for these portions and gifts, it is so that the joy will include the joy of service to the Creator of everything, and that is gifts to the indigent; and also include the joy of a person with his loved ones and his friends, and these are the portions. And it is since the salvation on Purim included two salvations. The first was that all our opponents were paid back and we were avenged. And the second is that He saved us to the point that not one man was lost. And these are truly two great gifts; and they are hinted well in the two gifts that Ahasuerus gave. The first was the house of Haman; as through this, he paid back our opponents. And the second was the giving of the ring, such that no opponent or enemy would hurt us. And so is it written (Esther 8:2), "That very day the king [...] gave the house of Haman, etc." And it is written (Esther 8:3), "The king slipped off his ring [...] and gave it to Mordekhai, etc." In memory of these two gifts, our Sages, may their memory be blessed, established that one give two gifts from his hand and from his wealth in memory of these two salvations, for both the joy of service to the Creator and the joy of a person with his loved ones and his friends. They will not depart from in front of us on account of the gifts that Ahasuerus gave. And behold since the 'indigent will never be lacking from the earth' and 'the forsaken are many,' the commandment is to distribute and give one gift to every indigent person. For so did the earlier ones write, and so too does the intellect require. For one who has 100 gold pieces to give to the poor - his reward is greater when he distributes it to 100 poor people than when he gives all of the 100 gold pieces to one, two or three poor people. For the one who gave to 100 [people] maintained 100 souls. However with the joy of a person with his loved ones and his friends, he may not find many people he loves, as our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Batra 16b:5), "Either a friend like the friends of Job"; and likewise (Avot 1:6), "Acquire a friend for yourself." That is why the commandment is to send two portions to his good friend, to be joyful and happy with him about these two salvations, as mentioned. 'Let the sage listen and increase knowledge.'

You have fulfilled two mitzvot through us, our teacher: The mitzva of: “And sending portions one to another,” and the mitzva of: “And gifts to the poor,” as Rabbi Oshaya was poor and this was a substantial gift. The Gemara relates that Rabba sent Purim portions from the house of the Exilarch to Marei bar Mar in the hands of Abaye, who was his nephew and student. The Purim portions consisted of a sack [taska] full of dates [kashva] and a cupful of roasted flour [kimḥa de’avshuna]. Abaye said to him: Now, Mari will say the popular expression: Even if a farmer becomes the king, the basket does not descend from his neck. Rabba was named the head of the yeshiva in Pumbedita, and nevertheless, he continued to send very plain gifts, because he was impoverished. Marei bar Mar sent back to him a sack full of ginger and a cupful of long peppers [pilpalta arikha], a much more expensive gift. Abaye said to him: The master, Rabba, will now say: I sent him sweet items and he sent me pungent ones. In describing that same incident, Abaye said: When I left the house of the master, Rabba, to go to Marei bar Mar, I was already satiated. However, when I arrived there at Marei bar Mar’s house, they served me sixty plates of sixty kinds of cooked dishes, and I ate sixty portions from each of them. The last dish was called pot roast, and I was still so hungry that I wanted to chew the plate afterward. And in continuation Abaye said: This explains the folk saying that people say: The poor man is hungry and does not know it, as Abaye was unaware how hungry he had been in his master’s house. Alternatively, there is another appropriate, popular expression: Room in the stomach for sweets can always be found. The Gemara relates that Abaye bar Avin and Rabbi Ḥanina bar Avin would exchange their meals with each other to fulfill their obligation of sending portions on Purim. Rava said: A person is obligated to become intoxicated with wine on Purim until he is so intoxicated that he does not know how to distinguish between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordecai. The Gemara relates that Rabba and Rabbi Zeira prepared a Purim feast with each other, and they became intoxicated to the point that Rabba arose and slaughtered Rabbi Zeira. The next day, when he became sober and realized what he had done, Rabba asked God for mercy, and revived him. The next year, Rabba said to Rabbi Zeira: Let the Master come and let us prepare the Purim feast with each other. He said to him: Miracles do not happen each and every hour, and I do not want to undergo that experience again. Rava said: A Purim feast that one ate at night did not fulfill his obligation. What is the reason? “Days of feasting and gladness” (Esther 9:22) is written, i.e., days and not nights. The Gemara relates: Rav Ashi was sitting before Rav Kahana his teacher on Purim, and it grew dark and the Sages who usually came to study with him did not come. Rav Ashi said to him: What is the reason that the Sages did not come today? Rav Kahana answered: Perhaps they are preoccupied with the Purim feast. Rav Ashi said to him: Wasn’t it possible for them to eat the feast at night on Purim, instead of being derelict in their Torah study on Purim day? Rav Kahana said to him: Didn’t the master learn that which Rava said: A Purim feast that one ate at night did not fulfill his obligation? Rav Ashi said to him: Did Rava say that? Rav Kahana said to him: Yes. Rav Ashi then learned it from him forty times until he remembered it so well that it seemed to him as if it were placed in his purse. MISHNA: The previous mishna concluded with the formula: The difference between…is only, thereby distinguishing between the halakhot in two different cases. The following mishnayot employ the same formula and distinguish between the halakhot in cases unrelated to Purim and the Megilla. The first is: The difference between Festivals and Shabbat with regard to the labor prohibited on those days is only in preparing food alone. It is permitted to cook and bake in order to prepare food on Festivals; however, on Shabbat it is prohibited. GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of actions that facilitate preparation of food, e.g., sharpening a knife for slaughter, this, Shabbat, and that, Festivals, are equal, in that actions that facilitate preparation of food are prohibited. The Gemara comments: If so, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: The difference between Festivals and Shabbat is only preparing food. Rabbi Yehuda permits even actions that facilitate preparation of food on Festivals. The Gemara elaborates. What is the reason for the opinion of the first tanna? It is as the verse states: “Except that which every person must eat, only that may be done for you” (Exodus 12:16). “That” is permitted, and not actions that facilitate it. And Rabbi Yehuda says: “For you” means for you, for all your needs. The Gemara asks: And for the other, first, tanna too, isn’t it written: “For you”? The Gemara answers: He infers: For you, and not for gentiles; for you, and not for dogs. It is forbidden to perform labors for the sake of gentiles, or for animals, even if it is to feed them. The Gemara asks further: And for the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, too, isn’t it written: “That,” which is a restrictive term that limits the application of a particular halakha? The Gemara answers: It is written: “That,” which is restrictive, and it is written: “For you,” which is inclusive. Rabbi Yehuda resolves the conflict between the two: Here, the word: “That,” is referring to actions that facilitate, in which it is possible to perform them on the Festival eve but which are prohibited on the Festival; there, the phrase: “For you,” is referring to actions that facilitate, in which it is impossible to perform them on the Festival eve and which are permitted even on the Festival. MISHNA: The difference between Shabbat and Yom Kippur with regard to the labor prohibited on those days is only that in this case, i.e., Shabbat, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of Man, as he is stoned by a court based on the testimony of witnesses who forewarned the transgressor; and in that case, i.e., Yom Kippur, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of God, with karet. GEMARA: The Gemara infers that with regard to the matter of payment of damages, both this, Shabbat, and that, Yom Kippur, are equal in that one is exempt in both cases. If one performs an action on Shabbat that entails both a prohibited labor and damage to another’s property, since his transgression is punishable by death, he is exempt from paying damages. Apparently, according to the mishna, the same halakha applies to Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: According to whose opinion is the mishna taught? The Gemara answers: It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana would render Yom Kippur like Shabbat with regard to payment of damages. Just as in the case of one who intentionally desecrates Shabbat he is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment of damages caused while desecrating Shabbat, so too, in the case of one who intentionally desecrates Yom Kippur, he is liable to receive the death penalty and is therefore exempt from the obligation of payment of damages caused while desecrating Yom Kippur. We learned there in a mishna (Makkot 23a): All those liable to receive karet who were flogged in court were exempted from their karet, which is imposed by heaven. Most transgressors are liable to receive karet for violating prohibitions that are punishable by flogging. If they are flogged, they are exempt from karet, as it is stated with regard to one liable to receive lashes: “Then your brother shall be dishonored before you” (Deuteronomy 25:3), indicating that once he was flogged he is like your brother, and his sins have been pardoned; this is the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him on this issue. Rava said that the Sages of the school of Rav said: We learned: The difference between Yom Kippur and Shabbat is only that in this case, Shabbat, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of Man; and in that case, Yom Kippur, its intentional desecration is punishable with karet. And if the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel is so, in both this case, Shabbat, and that case, Yom Kippur, the punishment is at the hand of Man. Rav Naḥman said: There is no proof from here that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him, as in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, who said: There are no lashes in cases of those liable to receive karet, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: All those liable to receive karet in cases of incest were included in the principle: “For whoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the persons that commit them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29). And why was karet administered to one’s sister excluded from this verse and mentioned independently (Leviticus 20:17)? It is to sentence her to the punishment of karet and not to the punishment of lashes. This serves as a paradigm; wherever one is liable to receive karet, there are no lashes. Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that the mishna is according to the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yitzḥak and hold that there are lashes even in cases where there is liability for karet, there is no proof that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him. The mishna can be understood as follows: In this case, Shabbat, the primary punishment for its intentional desecration is at the hand of Man; and in that case, Yom Kippur, the primary punishment for its intentional desecration is with karet. If, however, he was flogged, he is exempt from karet.