Hadran alach, Maseches Megillah!

[lannamichaels]

Megillah was fun! Up next: Moed Katan, for all your small festival needs.

Here are the rest of my Megillah notes.



I have no idea what this is doing here and I have no idea what this is talking about.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁקְּרָאוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיַעֲקֹב ״אֵל״, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּקְרָא לוֹ אֵל אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לְמִזְבֵּחַ קְרָא לֵיהּ יַעֲקֹב ״אֵל״ - ״וַיִּקְרָא לוֹ יַעֲקֹב״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא ״וַיִּקְרָא לוֹ״, לְיַעֲקֹב, ״אֵל״. וּמִי קְרָאוֹ ״אֵל״ - ״אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״.

Apropos statements in this line of tradition, the Gemara adds: And Rabbi Aḥa further said that Rabbi Elazar said: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, called Jacob El, meaning God? As it is stated: “And he erected there an altar, and he called it El, God of Israel” (Genesis 33:20). It is also possible to translate this as: And He, i.e., the God of Israel, called him, Jacob, El. Indeed, it must be understood this way, as if it enters your mind to say that the verse should be understood as saying that Jacob called the altar El, it should have specified the subject of the verb and written: And Jacob called it El. But since the verse is not written this way, the verse must be understood as follows: He called Jacob El; and who called him El? The God of Israel.

-Megillah 18a, bold is direct translation, unbold is not

MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מוּנָא. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מוּנָא. בְּסוּרָא מַתְנוּ הָכִי. בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא מַתְנוּ הָכִי: אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מוּנָא. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מוּנָא. רַב בִּיבִי מַתְנִי אִיפְּכָא, רַב אָמַר: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מוּנָא, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מוּנָא.

Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Mona, but Shmuel said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Mona. The Gemara elaborates: This is how they taught the opinions of the Sages in Sura. However, in Pumbedita they taught it slightly differently, like this: Rav Kahana said that Rav said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Mona, but Shmuel said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Mona. Rav Beivai taught the opposite: Rav said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Mona, but Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Mona.

-Megillah 18b

Gotta love that an answer to an objection is "surely no one would be that rude to Rav!"

תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּרַב אִיקְּלַע לְבָבֶל בְּתַעֲנִית צִבּוּר, קָם קְרָא בְּסִיפְרָא. פְּתַח בָּרֵיךְ, חֲתַים וְלָא בָּרֵיךְ. נְפוּל כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אַאַנְפַּיְיהוּ, וְרַב לָא נְפַל עַל אַפֵּיהּ.

A different proof is now suggested. Come and hear the following incident: Rav once happened to come to Babylonia on a public fast. He stood and read from a Torah scroll. When he began to read, he recited a blessing, but when he concluded, he did not recite a blessing. Everyone else fell on their faces, i.e., bowed down on the floor, during the Taḥanun supplication, as was the custom, but Rav did not fall on his face.

מִכְּדֵי רַב בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל קְרָא, מַאי טַעְמָא חֲתַם וְלָא בָּרֵיךְ? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵי לְמִיקְרֵי אַחֲרִינָא בָּתְרֵיהּ?

The Gemara attempts to clarify the halakha based upon Rav’s conduct. Now, Rav must have read the portion that is designated for an Israelite, as he was neither a priest nor a Levite, and therefore he was the third person to read from the Torah. What, then, is the reason that when he concluded his reading he did not recite a blessing? Was it not because another person was to read after him, and since only the last reader recites a blessing, Rav did not recite a blessing upon completion of his portion? This would indicate that four readers are called to the Torah on public fasts.

לָא, רַב בְּכָהֲנֵי קְרָא. דְּהָא רַב הוּנָא קָרֵי בְּכָהֲנֵי.

The Gemara rejects this proof: No, Rav read the first reading, which is generally designated for priests. He was the leading Torah authority of his generation, and one who holds this position is called to read from the Torah even before a priest, as Rav Huna would read the first reading, which is generally designated for priests, and Rav would do the same.

בִּשְׁלָמָא רַב הוּנָא קָרֵי בְּכָהֲנֵי, דְּהָא אֲפִילּוּ רַב אַמֵּי וְרַב אַסִּי דְּכָהֲנֵי חֲשִׁיבִי דְּאַרְעָא יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִיכָּף כַּיְיפִי לֵיהּ לְרַב הוּנָא. אֶלָּא רַב - הָא אִיכָּא שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּכָהֲנָא הֲוָה, וְדָבַר עֲלֵיהּ!

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, Rav Huna read the portion designated for priests, as even Rav Ami and Rav Asi, who were the most esteemed priests in Eretz Yisrael, were subordinate to Rav Huna, and he was considered the undisputed rabbinic leader of the Jewish people. However, in the case of Rav, there was Shmuel, who was a priest, and Rav had elevated him above himself, showing Shmuel deference in all matters of honor. Consequently, Rav was not the singular leader of his generation and would not have read the first reading in place of a priest.

שְׁמוּאֵל נָמֵי מִיכָּף הֲוָה כַּיִיף לֵיהּ לְרַב, וְרַב הוּא דַּעֲבַד לֵיהּ כָּבוֹד, וְכִי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ - בְּפָנָיו, שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו - לָא עָבֵיד לֵיהּ.

The Gemara answers: In fact, Shmuel was also subordinate to Rav, as Rav was indeed the leading authority in Babylonia, and it was Rav who showed Shmuel honor of his own volition, in order to appease him for having cursed him. And he did this only when Shmuel was in his presence, but when he was not in his presence, Rav did not do this, and therefore Rav would read first from the Torah when Shmuel was not present.

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּרַב בְּכָהֲנֵי קְרָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל קְרָא, לְפָנֶיהָ מַאי טַעְמָא בָּרֵיךְ! לְאַחַר תַּקָּנָה.

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to assume that Rav read first from the portion that is generally designated for priests, because if it enters your mind to say that he read third, from the portion designated for an ordinary Israelite, what is the reason he recited a blessing before reading his portion? Only the first reader recites a blessing before reading from the Torah. The Gemara rejects this argument: This incident took place after it was instituted that all those called to read from the Torah recite a blessing.

אִי הָכִי, לְאַחֲרֶיהָ נָמֵי לְבָרֵיךְ! שָׁאנֵי הֵיכָא דְּיָתֵיב רַב - דְּמֵיעָל עָיְילִי,

The Gemara asks: If so, he should also have recited a blessing after his reading, as the rabbinic enactment requires those who read from the Torah to recite blessings both before and after their reading. The Gemara answers: The reason that the Sages required all the readers to recite blessings both before and after their readings was to prevent misunderstandings on the part of both those who enter the synagogue in the middle of the reading and those who leave early. But it was different where Rav was present, as people would enter the synagogue in the middle of the reading,

מִיפָּק לָא נָפְקִי.

but they would not leave early, out of deference to Rav, and therefore it was not necessary for him to recite a blessing after he finished his portion. In any event, the incident with Rav does not provide conclusive proof as to the number of readers on a public fast day.
-Megillah 22a-22b

The number of aliyahs... is directly related to how many things you can't do on that day?

סִימָנָא בְּעָלְמָא יָהֵיב, דְּלָא תֵּימָא יוֹם טוֹב וְחוּלּוֹ שֶׁל מוֹעֵד כִּי הֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ, אֶלָּא נְקוֹט הַאי כְּלָלָא בִּידָךְ: כֹּל דְּטָפֵי לֵיהּ מִילְּתָא מֵחַבְרֵיהּ, טָפֵי לֵיהּ גַּבְרָא יַתִּירָא.

The Gemara answers: The principle was not intended to add to what is stated explicitly in the mishna. The mishna merely gives a mnemonic by which to remember the number of readers on each day. It expresses the following: Do not say that a Festival and the intermediate days of the Festival are the same with regard to their sanctity, and therefore the same numbers of readers are called to the Torah on these days. Rather, hold this rule firmly in your hand: On any day when there is an additional element of the laws of the day, an extra person is added to the number of those who read from the Torah.

הִלְכָּךְ בְּרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ וּמוֹעֵד, דְּאִיכָּא קׇרְבַּן מוּסָף - קוֹרִין אַרְבָּעָה. בְּיוֹם טוֹב, דְּאָסוּר בַּעֲשִׂיַּית מְלָאכָה - חֲמִשָּׁה. בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, דְּעָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת - שִׁשָּׁה. שַׁבָּת, דְּאִיכָּא אִיסּוּר סְקִילָה - שִׁבְעָה.

Therefore, on the New Moon and the intermediate days of a Festival, when there is an additional offering, four people read from the Torah. On a Festival, when it is prohibited to perform labor, five people read from the Torah. On Yom Kippur, when performance of prohibited labor is punishable by karet, six people read from the Torah. On Shabbat, when there is a prohibition to perform labor that is punishable by stoning, seven people read.

-Megillah 22b

Speaking of Rav and rudeness:

גּוּפַהּ: רַב אִיקְּלַע לְבָבֶל בְּתַעֲנִית צִבּוּר, קָם קְרָא בְּסִפְרָא. פְּתַח בָּרֵיךְ, חֲתַם וְלָא בָּרֵיךְ. נְפוּל כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אַאַנְפַּיְיהוּ וְרַב לָא נְפַל עַל אַנְפֵּיהּ. מַאי טַעְמָא רַב לָא נְפַל עַל אַפֵּיהּ?

The Gemara cited an incident involving Rav, and now it returns to examine the matter itself. Rav once happened to come to Babylonia on a public fast. He stood and read from a Torah scroll. When he began to read, he recited a blessing, but when he concluded, he did not recite a blessing. Everyone else fell on their faces, i.e., bowed down on the floor, during the taḥanun supplication, as was the custom, but Rav did not fall on his face. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rav did not fall on his face?

רִצְפָּה שֶׁל אֲבָנִים הָיְתָה, וְתַנְיָא: ״וְאֶבֶן מַשְׂכִּית לֹא תִתְּנוּ בְּאַרְצְכֶם לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֹת עָלֶיהָ״. ״עָלֶיהָ״ אִי אַתָּה מִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה בְּאַרְצְכֶם, אֲבָל אַתָּה מִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה עַל אֲבָנִים שֶׁל בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ. כִּדְעוּלָּא, דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא: לֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא רִצְפָּה שֶׁל אֲבָנִים בִּלְבָד.

The Gemara answers: It was a stone floor, and it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Nor shall you install any figured stone in your land, to bow down upon it” (Leviticus 26:1), that, upon it, i.e., any type of figured stone, you shall not bow down in your land, i.e., anywhere in your land other than in the Temple; but you shall bow down upon the stones of the Temple. This is in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, as Ulla said: The Torah prohibited bowing down only upon a stone floor.

אִי הָכִי מַאי אִירְיָא רַב, אֲפִילּוּ כּוּלְּהוּ נָמֵי! קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הֲוַאי.

The Gemara asks: If so, why was it specifically Rav who did not bow down? All of the other people present were also prohibited from bowing down on the stone floor. The Gemara answers: The stone section of the floor was only in front of Rav, as the rest of the floor was not paved.

וְלֵיזִיל לְגַבֵּי צִיבּוּרָא וְלִינְפּוֹל עַל אַפֵּיהּ! לָא בָּעֵי (ל)מַיטְרַח צִיבּוּרָא. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַב פִּישּׁוּט יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם הֲוָה עָבֵיד, וְכִדְעוּלָּא. דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא: לָא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא פִּישּׁוּט יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם בִּלְבַד.

The Gemara comments: If so, Rav should have gone to where the rest of the congregation was standing and fallen on his face there. The Gemara responds: He did not want to trouble the congregation to make room for him. And if you wish, say the following: Rav would stretch out his arms and legs and fully prostrate himself on the ground, whereas the others would merely bend their bodies as a symbolic gesture but would not prostrate themselves on the ground. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Ulla, as Ulla said: The Torah prohibited bowing down upon a stone floor only when it is done with outstretched arms and legs.

וְלִיפּוֹל עַל אַפֵּיהּ, וְלָא לֶיעְבֵּיד פִּישּׁוּט יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם! לָא מְשַׁנֵּי מִמִּנְהֲגֵיהּ.

The Gemara challenges this response: Rav should have fallen on his face without stretching out his arms and legs. The Gemara answers: He did not want to change his usual custom of full prostration, and where he was standing he could not fully prostrate himself in his usual manner because there the floor was of stone.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אָדָם חָשׁוּב שָׁאנֵי, כִּדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵין אָדָם חָשׁוּב רַשַּׁאי לִיפּוֹל עַל פָּנָיו אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נַעֲנֶה כִּיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ קוּם לָךְ [וְגוֹ׳]״.

And if you wish, say a different reason as to why Rav did not fall on his face: An important person is different, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said: An important person is not permitted to fall on his face in public unless he knows that he will be answered like Joshua bin Nun in his time, as it is written: “And the Lord said to Joshua: Get up; why do you lie upon your face?” (Joshua 7:10). It is a disgrace for a distinguished person to fall on his face and have his prayers unanswered. Consequently, Rav did not prostrate himself in public.

-Megillah 22b

Turgemans (translators/explainers into Aramaic) are taken as read so much, it's notable to me that they say here that not all places do them:

וְהֵיכָא דְּלָא סָלֵיק עִנְיָינָא לָא? וְהָאָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא: זִמְנִין סַגִּיאִין הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְכִי הֲוָה קָרֵינַן עֲשָׂרָה פְּסוּקֵי, אֲמַר לַן: אַפְּסִיקוֹ! מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ תּוּרְגְּמָן שָׁאנֵי. דְּתָנֵי רַב תַּחְלִיפָא בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין תּוּרְגְּמָן, אֲבָל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ תּוּרְגְּמָן - פּוֹסֵק.

The Gemara asks: But is it true that where the topic is not completed, we do not read fewer than twenty-one verses? Didn’t Rav Shmuel bar Abba say: Many times I stood before Rabbi Yoḥanan as a translator, and when we had read ten verses he would say to us: Stop. This indicates that a haftara need not be twenty-one verses. The Gemara answers: In a place where there is a translator, who translates each verse into Aramaic and adds additional explanation, it is different. In that case, it is not necessary for the haftara to consist of twenty-one verses, so as not to overburden the congregation, as Rav Taḥalifa bar Shmuel taught: They taught that twenty-one verses must be read from the haftara only in a place where there is no translator; but in a place where there is a translator, one may stop even before that.

-Megillah 23b

There was someone famous who used this to get out of leining at some point. I think????? Or leading davening???? I WAS ONCE INFORMED OF SOME SHENANIGANS ON THIS SUBJECT.

אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: חֵיפָנִי וּבֵישָׁנִי - לֹא יִשָּׂא אֶת כַּפָּיו. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אֵין מוֹרִידִין לִפְנֵי הַתֵּיבָה לֹא אַנְשֵׁי בֵּית שְׁאָן וְלֹא אַנְשֵׁי (בֵּית) חֵיפָה וְלֹא אַנְשֵׁי טִבְעוֹנִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקּוֹרִין לָאַלְפִין עַיְינִין וְלָעַיְינִין אַלְפִין.

Apropos the previous discussion, Rav Asi said: A priest from Haifa or Beit She’an may not lift his hands to recite the Priestly Benediction, as he does not know how to properly pronounce the guttural letters. This is also taught in a baraita: One may not allow the people of Beit She’an, nor the people of Beit Haifa, nor the people of Tivonin to pass before the ark in order to lead the service because they pronounce alef as ayin and ayin as alef, and they thereby distort the meaning of the prayers.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי: אִלְמָלֵי אַתָּה לֵוִי - פָּסוּל אַתָּה מִן הַדּוּכָן, מִשּׁוּם דַּעֲבֵי קָלָךְ. אֲתָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ לַאֲבוּהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אֵימָא לֵיהּ: כְּשֶׁאַתָּה מַגִּיעַ אֵצֶל ״וְחִכִּיתִי לַה׳״, לֹא נִמְצֵאת מְחָרֵף וּמְגַדֵּף?!

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ḥiyya once said to Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: If you were a Levite, you would be disqualified from singing on the platform in the Temple courtyard because your voice is thick. Offended by this remark, Rabbi Shimon went and told his father, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, what Rabbi Ḥiyya had said. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Go and say to him: When you study and reach the verse: “And I will wait upon [veḥikkiti] the Lord” (Isaiah 8:17), will you not be a maligner and a blasphemer? Rabbi Ḥiyya, who was from Babylonia, was unable to differentiate between the letters ḥet and heh, and he would therefore pronounce the word veḥikkiti as vehikkiti, which means: And I will strike.

-Megillah 24b

This seems fairly clear. "The innkeepers can't demand payment." *someone whispers "then why would they bother having inns in the first place, and we need them to have inns"* "Please give generous host gifts!"

וְהַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר לֹא נִתְחַלְּקָה יְרוּשָׁלַיִם לִשְׁבָטִים. דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין מַשְׂכִּירִים בָּתִּים בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָן שֶׁלָּהֶן. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר (בַּר צָדוֹק) אוֹמֵר: אַף לֹא מִטּוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ, עוֹרוֹת קָדָשִׁים - בַּעֲלֵי אוּשְׁפִּיזִין נוֹטְלִין אוֹתָן בִּזְרוֹעַ.

And this other tanna holds that Jerusalem was not apportioned to the tribes, as it is taught in a baraita: One may not rent out houses in Jerusalem, due to the fact that the houses do not belong to those occupying them. Rather, as is true for the entire city, they are owned collectively by the nation. Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok says: Even beds may not be hired out. Therefore, in the case of the hides of the renter’s offerings that the innkeepers take in lieu of payment, the innkeepers are considered to be taking them by force, as they did not have a right to demand payment.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אוֹרַח אַרְעָא לְמִישְׁבַּק אִינָשׁ גּוּלְפָּא וּמַשְׁכָּא בְּאוּשְׁפִּיזֵיהּ.

Apropos the topic of inns, the Gemara reports: Abaye said: Learn from this baraita that it is proper etiquette for a person to leave his wine flask and the hide of the animal that he slaughtered at his inn, i.e., the inn where he stayed, as a gift for the service he received.

-Megillah 26a

Abaye is always full of helpful tips.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְהָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן דַּהֲוָה מְסַדַּר מַתְנְיָתָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מִי שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת מַאי ״דּוּכְסוּסְיָא״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: פָּרָשָׁא דְמָתָא.

Abaye said to one of the Sages who would arrange the Mishna before Rav Sheshet: Did you hear anything from Rav Sheshet with regard to what the meaning of the term dukhsusya is? He said to him: This is what Rav Sheshet said: It is the town horseman who would serve the townspeople as a sentry and for public dispatches.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הִלְכָּךְ, הַאי צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן דִּשְׁמִעַ לֵיהּ מִילְּתָא וְלָא יָדַע פֵּירוּשַׁאּ, לִישַׁיְּילַהּ (קַמֵּיהּ) [לְמַאן] דִּשְׁכִיחַ קַמֵּי(ה) רַבָּנַן, דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ מִן גַּבְרָא רַבָּה.

The Gemara introduces a parenthetical comment: Abaye said: Accordingly, one can learn from this incident that with regard to this young Torah scholar who has heard something and does not know the meaning of it, he should inquire of its meaning before somebody who is frequently before the Sages, as it is impossible that such a person did not hear something about it from some great man.

-Megillah 27a

So I include this for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's retort but also because I clicked on R' Yehoshua ben Korcha's name on sefaria to see what their mini-bio on him is, and it says "Some claim that R. Yehoshua b. Korcha was R. Akiva's son", so I have questions.

שָׁאַל רַבִּי אֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה: בַּמָּה הֶאֱרַכְתָּ יָמִים? אָמַר לוֹ: קַצְתָּ בְּחַיַּי? אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, תּוֹרָה הִיא וְלִלְמוֹד אֲנִי צָרִיךְ. אָמַר לוֹ: מִיָּמַי לֹא נִסְתַּכַּלְתִּי בִּדְמוּת אָדָם רָשָׁע. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָסוּר לְאָדָם לְהִסְתַּכֵּל בְּצֶלֶם דְּמוּת אָדָם רָשָׁע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לוּלֵא פְּנֵי יְהוֹשָׁפָט מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה אֲנִי נוֹשֵׂא אִם אַבִּיט אֵלֶיךָ וְאִם אֶרְאֶךָּ״.

In a similar incident, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi once asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa: In the merit of which virtue were you blessed with longevity? He said to him: Why do you ask me, are you wearied of my long life? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: My teacher, it is Torah and so I must learn it. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said to him: In all my days I never gazed at the likeness of a wicked man, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is prohibited for a person to gaze in the image of the likeness of a wicked man, as it is stated that the prophet Elisha said to Jehoram king of Israel: “Were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat, the king of Judea, I would not look toward you, nor see you” (II Kings 3:14).

-Megillah 28a

Another important Tana of that time was Rabbi Joshua ben Korcha. Talmudic commentators such as Rashi, Rabenu Gershom Meor Hagolah and Rashbam claim that he was the son of Rabbi Akiba, who was nicknamed “Kereach” (the bald) because of the statement of Ben Azai who said that all Jewish scholars are worth no more than the skin of garlic except the bald one (referring to Rabbi Akiba). As a result of this Rabbi Joshua came to be called Ben Korcha, the son of the bald one.16)בכורות נ״ח א׳. But Tosaphoth argues that this could not be the case and that Ben Azai’s reference to Rabbi Akiba as “the bald one” did not suffice to justify Rabbi Joshua’s appellation of Ben Korcha instead of ben Rabbi Akiba. The chronological order of the generations is also against such an assumption. When Rabbi Joshua was dying, the Nasi, Rabbi Jehudah, asked him for a blessing and Rabbi Joshua said: “I wish that you may live at least half as many years as I did”.17)מגלח כ״ח א׳. Had Rabbi Joshua been the son of Rabbi Akiba this blessing would have been meaningless.
-The Jewish Spiritual Heroes by Gershom Bader

"The other guy is more important than me", a common trope. Notable perhaps because the daf today started with "I don't care if he's a kohen gadol, he's not more important than a Torah scholar in his own home". (I wonder, idly, about minhagim regarding who leads benching because all I've ever seen is you don't do it at your own house, you always push it on a guest.)

וּמַסְפִּידִין בָּהֶן הֶסְפֵּד שֶׁל רַבִּים. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי הֶסְפֵּידָא דְרַבִּים? מַחְוֵי רַב חִסְדָּא: כְּגוֹן הֶסְפֵּידָא דְּקָאֵי בֵּיהּ רַב שֵׁשֶׁת. מַחְוֵי רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: כְּגוֹן הֶסְפֵּידָא דְּקָאֵי בֵּיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא.

The baraita continues: And one may offer a eulogy inside them for a Torah scholar if the public attends the eulogy. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a eulogy for the public? Rav Ḥisda depicted a case: For example, a eulogy for a Torah scholar at which Rav Sheshet is present. Owing to his presence, many people will come. Rav Sheshet himself depicted another case: For example, a eulogy at which Rav Ḥisda is present.

-Megillah 28b

Brackets indicate a versioning issue, so I gather there is a dispute about who tried to kick out the angels.

בְּבָבֶל הֵיכָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּבֵי כְּנִישְׁתָּא דְּהוּצָל, וּבְבֵי כְּנִישְׁתָּא דְּ״שַׁף וִיתֵיב״ בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא. וְלָא תֵּימָא הָכָא וְהָכָא, אֶלָּא זִמְנִין הָכָא וְזִמְנִין הָכָא. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תֵּיתֵי לִי, דְּכִי מְרַחַיקְנָא פַּרְסָה, עָיֵילְנָא וּמְצַלֵּינָא הָתָם. אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל [וְלֵוִי] הֲווֹ יָתְבִי בִּכְנִישְׁתָּא דְּשַׁף וִיתֵיב בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא. אֲתַאי שְׁכִינָה, שְׁמַעוּ קוֹל רִיגְשָׁא [קָמוּ וּנְפַקוּ.

The Gemara asks: Where in Babylonia does the Divine Presence reside? Abaye said: In the ancient synagogue of Huzal and in the synagogue that was destroyed and rebuilt in Neharde’a. And do not say that the Divine Presence resided here and there, i.e., in both places simultaneously. Rather, at times it resided here in Huzal and at times there in Neharde’a. Abaye said: I have a blessing coming to me, for whenever I am within a distance of a parasang from one of those synagogues, I go in and pray there, due to the special honor and sanctity attached to them. It was related that the father of Shmuel and Levi were once sitting in the synagogue that was destroyed and rebuilt in Neharde’a. The Divine Presence came and they heard a loud sound, so they arose and left.

רַב שֵׁשֶׁת הֲוָה יָתֵיב בְּבֵי כְּנִישְׁתָּא דְּשַׁף וִיתֵיב בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא, אֲתַאי שְׁכִינָה] וְלָא נְפַק. אֲתוֹ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת וְקָא מְבַעֲתוּ לֵיהּ. אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, עָלוּב וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ עָלוּב, מִי נִדְחֶה מִפְּנֵי מִי? אֲמַר לְהוּ: שִׁבְקוּהוּ.

It was further related that Rav Sheshet was once sitting in the synagogue that was destroyed and rebuilt in Neharde’a, and the Divine Presence came but he did not go out. The ministering angels came and were frightening him in order to force him to leave. Rav Sheshet turned to God and said before Him: Master of the Universe, if one is wretched and the other is not wretched, who should defer to whom? Shouldn’t the one who is not wretched give way to the one who is? Now I am blind and wretched; why then do you expect me to defer to the angels? God then turned to the angels and said to them: Leave him.

-Megillah 29a

"What the fuck does this word mean?"

"What is this question? It means what it obviously means."

"IT'S GREEK TO ME." (alas that they don't retort that, but, uh, it sounds Greek to me? Anyway, here's what Jastrow has to say about it.)

אֵין עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ קַפֶּנְדַּרְיָא מַאי ״קַפֶּנְדַּרְיָא״? אָמַר רָבָא: קַפֶּנְדַּרְיָא כִּשְׁמָהּ. מַאי כִּשְׁמָהּ? כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: אַדְּמַקֵּיפְנָא אַדָּרֵי, אֵיעוּל בְּהָא.

The mishna teaches that even if a synagogue fell into ruin, it may not be made into a kappendarya. The Gemara asks: What is meant by kappendarya? Rava said: A shortcut, as implied by its name. The Gemara clarifies: What do you mean by adding: As implied by its name? It is like one who said: Instead of going around the entire row of houses [makkifna addari] to get to the other side, thereby lengthening my journey, I will enter this house and walk through it to the other side. The word kappendarya sounds like a contraction of makkifna addari. This is what Rava meant by saying: As implied by its name.

-Megillah 29a, the translation is not making it clear that Rava's response uses the exact word that they're trying to define, as if that makes it any clearer; Rava's response is "kappendarya is exactly like it says, duh".

Read Parshas Shkalim, got it! ...which one is Shkalim?

Featured also for the blink-and-what that some folks did an every-three-year cycle on Torah readings, not an annual cycle. I got this as the first google result, and like, ah, yes, today's daf showing up as a source there, very nice, uh. (yes, I'm aware of the current existence of triennial cycles, which was why I was Confused As Fuck to see it suddenly show up. I'd thought it was modern.)

Hebcal has spoilers on what's read on Shabbos Shkalim.

מַאי פָּרָשַׁת שְׁקָלִים? רַב אָמַר: ״צַו אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם אֶת קׇרְבָּנִי לַחְמִי״. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: ״כִּי תִשָּׂא״.

The Gemara clarifies which passage is read: What is this portion of Shekalim? Rav said: It is the portion of “Command the children of Israel, and say to them: My offering, the provision of My offerings made by fire” (Numbers 28), which details the daily and additional offerings. And Shmuel said: It is the portion of “When you take the count” (Exodus 30:11-16).

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״כִּי תִשָּׂא״, הַיְינוּ דְּקָרֵי לַהּ פָּרָשַׁת שְׁקָלִים - דִּכְתִיב בַּהּ ״שְׁקָלִים״. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״אֶת קׇרְבָּנִי לַחְמִי״, הָכָא מִידֵּי ״שְׁקָלִים״ כְּתִיבִי הָתָם? אִין, טַעְמָא מַאי - כִּדְרַבִּי טָבִי.

Granted, according to the one who said that it is the portion of “When you take the count,” this is the reason that it is called the portion of Shekalim, for the obligation to give half-shekels is written in that portion. However, according to one who said that it is the portion of “My offering, the provision of My offerings,” why should that portion be read? Is there anything written about the half-shekels here? The Gemara answers: Yes. What is the reason that they are collected in Adar? As per the explanation of Rabbi Tavi, the half-shekels are collected to be used for the coming year’s daily and additional offerings. Therefore, reading the portion concerning those offerings will serve well as a reminder for people to donate.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״צַו אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ - מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיבִי ״קׇרְבָּנוֹת״ הָתָם, כִּדְרַבִּי טָבִי. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״כִּי תִשָּׂא״, ״קׇרְבָּנוֹת״ מִי כְּתִיבִי? שְׁקָלִים לָאֲדָנִים כְּתִיבִי!

Granted, according to the one who said that it is the portion of “Command the children of Israel: My offering, the provision of My offerings,” it is logical to read that portion, because the offerings that will be purchased with the half-shekels are written there, as per the explanation of Rabbi Tavi. However, according to one who said that it is the portion of “When you take the count,” why should that portion be read? Is anything about the offerings written in that portion? The collection of half-shekels for use in the construction of the sockets of the Tabernacle are the only thing written in that portion. What does that have to do with the collection of half-shekels for the purchase of offerings that is held in the month of Adar?

כִּדְתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: שָׁלֹשׁ תְּרוּמוֹת הֵן. שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְשֶׁל אֲדָנִים לָאֲדָנִים, וְשֶׁל בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת.

The Gemara answers: The selection of that portion is in accordance with the explanation of the portion that Rav Yosef taught: The three instances of the word: Contribution, in that portion teach that there were three contributions of half-shekels: The contribution of the altar is for the purchase of communal offerings to be sacrificed on the altar; and the contribution of the sockets is for constructing the sockets; and the contribution of the Temple maintenance is for the Temple maintenance. Therefore, according to Rav Yosef, it is understandable why the portion of “When you take the count” is read. It deals explicitly with the collection of half-shekels.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״כִּי תִשָּׂא״, הַיְינוּ דְּשָׁנֵי הַאי רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ מִשְּׁאָר רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים,

The Gemara asks further: Granted, according to the one who said that it is the portion of “When you take the count,” this is what is different about this New Moon of Adar and other New Moons when they occur on Shabbat. On the New Moon of Adar, “When you take the count” is read because it describes the collection of half-shekels. On other New Moons, when they occur on Shabbat, the portion of “Command the children of Israel” is read because it mentions the additional offerings brought on Shabbat and the New Moon.

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״צַו אֶת קׇרְבָּנִי״, מַאי שָׁנֵי? שָׁנֵי, דְּאִילּוּ רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים קָרוּ שִׁיתָּא בְּעִנְיָינָא דְיוֹמָא וְחַד בִּדְרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ, וְאִילּוּ הָאִידָּנָא - כּוּלְּהוּ בִּדְרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ.

However, according to the one who said that “Command the children of Israel, and say to them: My offering,” what is different about the portion read on the New Moon of Adar and the portion read on other New Moons when they occur on Shabbat, for the same portion is read in all cases? The Gemara answers: They are different: For on other New Moons, when they occur on Shabbat, six people read from the regular weekly portion of the matter of the day and one reads from the portion for the New Moon, whereas now, on the New Moon of Adar, if it occurs on Shabbat, all seven read from the portion of the New Moon.

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְסֵדֶר פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת הוּא חוֹזֵר.

The Gemara asks: This answer works out well according to the one who said that when the mishna states that on the fifth Shabbat, we resume the regular order of readings. The intention is that one resumes the regular weekly order of Torah portions. This implies that on the previous four Shabbatot, the regular portion was not read at all. Rather, only the special portions delineated in the mishna were read. Therefore, it makes sense to say that all seven people read from the special portion.

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְסֵדֶר הַפְטָרוֹת הוּא חוֹזֵר, וּפָרַשְׁתָּא דְיוֹמָא קָרֵינַן, מַאי שָׁנֵי?

However, according to the one who says that the mishna’s intention is that one resumes the regular order of concluding readings from the Prophets [haftarot], and on the previous Shabbatot one also reads from the regular portion of the matter of the day, then the original question stands: What is different about the portion read on the New Moon of Adar and the portion read on other New Moons when they occur on Shabbat?

שָׁנֵי, דְּאִילּוּ רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים קָרוּ שִׁיתָּא בְּעִנְיָינָא דְיוֹמָא וְחַד קָרֵי בִּדְרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ, וְאִילּוּ הָאִידָּנָא - קָרוּ תְּלָתָא בְּעִנְיָינָא דְיוֹמָא, וְאַרְבְּעָה קָרוּ בִּדְרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ.

The Gemara answers: They are different: For whereas on other New Moons, when they occur on Shabbat, six people read from the regular weekly portion of the matter of the day and one reads from the portion for the New Moon, now, on the New Moon of Adar, if it occurs on Shabbat, three people read from the regular weekly portion of the matter of the day and four read from the portion for the New Moon.

מֵיתִיבִי: רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת קוֹרִין בְּפָרָשַׁת שְׁקָלִים, וּמַפְטִירִין בִּיהוֹיָדָע הַכֹּהֵן. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״כִּי תִשָּׂא״, הַיְינוּ דְּמַפְטִירִין בִּיהוֹיָדָע הַכֹּהֵן - דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״כֶּסֶף נַפְשׁוֹת עֶרְכּוֹ״,

The Gemara raises an objection from the Tosefta (Megilla 3:1): When the New Moon of Adar occurs on Shabbat, they read the Torah portion of Shekalim, and they read as the haftara the story involving Jehoiada the priest (II Kings 12:1-17). Granted, according to the one who said that Shekalim is the portion of “When you take the count,” this is the reason that they read as the haftara the story involving Jehoiada the priest: Because it is comparable in content to the Torah reading, as it is written in the story of Jehoiada: “The money of his assessment of persons” (II Kings 12:5), which is referring to his collection of the half-shekels, and the haftara should always contain a theme similar to the Torah reading.

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״אֶת קׇרְבָּנִי לַחְמִי״, מִי דָּמֵי? דָּמֵי, כִּדְרַבִּי טָבִי.

However, according to the one who said that “My offering, the provision of My offerings” is read as the portion of Shekalim, is the haftara comparable to that portion? It is comparable, as per the explanation of Rabbi Tavi: It is appropriate to read the portion about offerings because the collection of half-shekels is for that purpose.

מֵיתִיבִי: חָל לִהְיוֹת בַּפָּרָשָׁה הַסְּמוּכָה לָהּ, בֵּין מִלְּפָנֶיהָ וּבֵין מִלְּאַחֲרֶיהָ - קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ וְכוֹפְלִין אוֹתָהּ.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If the New Moon of Adar occurs on the Shabbat on which the portion to be read for the regular weekly reading is adjacent to the portion read as Shekalim, whether on the Shabbat preceding the Shabbat on which Shekalim will be read as part of the weekly reading or following it, then they read and repeat Shekalim on both Shabbatot, one time as the special portion Shekalim and the other as part of the regular order.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״כִּי תִשָּׂא״ הַיְינוּ דְּמִתְרְמֵי בְּהָהוּא זִימְנָא.

Granted, according to the one who said that the portion of “When you take the count” is read as Shekalim, this is how it is possible: That portion could occur at that time in the yearlong cycle of the order of readings. In the regular order of reading, “When you take the count” is often read during the beginning of Adar.

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״צַו ... אֶת קׇרְבָּנִי״, מִי מִתְרְמֵי בְּהָהוּא זִימְנָא? אִין - לִבְנֵי מַעְרְבָא דְּמַסְּקִי לִדְאוֹרָיְיתָא בִּתְלָת שְׁנִין.

However, according to the one who said that the portion of “Command the children of Israel, and say to them, My offering” is read as Shekalim, does that portion ever occur at that time of the year? That portion usually occurs much later in the year, in the summer. The Gemara answers: Yes, it sometimes occurs that this portion is read during the beginning of Adar, for the people of the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, who complete the cycle of reading the Torah not in one year but in three years.

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת, קוֹרִין ״כִּי תִשָּׂא״ וּמַפְטִירִין בִּיהוֹיָדָע הַכֹּהֵן.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: When the New Moon of Adar occurs on Shabbat, they read the portion of “When you take the count,” and they read as the haftara the story involving Jehoiada the priest.

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא: רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת - מוֹצִיאִין שָׁלֹשׁ תּוֹרוֹת, וְקוֹרִין בָּהֶן אֶחָד בְּעִנְיָינוֹ שֶׁל יוֹם, וְאֶחָד בְּשֶׁל רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ, וְאֶחָד בְּ״כִי תִשָּׂא״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא: רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ טֵבֵת שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת - מְבִיאִין שָׁלֹשׁ תּוֹרוֹת, וְקוֹרִין בָּהֶן אֶחָד בְּעִנְיָינוֹ שֶׁל יוֹם, וְאֶחָד בִּדְרֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ, וְאֶחָד בַּחֲנוּכָּה.

Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said: When the New Moon of Adar occurs on Shabbat, the congregation takes out three Torah scrolls from the ark and reads from them. From the first one, they read the portion of the regular weekly reading of the matter of the day; and from the second one they read the portion for the New Moon; and from the third one they read Shekalim, which begins with “When you take the count.” And Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa further said: When the New Moon of Tevet, which always falls during Hanukkah, occurs on Shabbat, they bring three Torah scrolls and read from them. From the first one, they read the portion of the regular cycle of reading of the matter of the day; and from the second one, they read the portion for the New Moon; and from the third one, they read the portion for Hanukkah.

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָא - בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, אֲבָל בְּהָךְ - כְּרַב סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר פָּרָשַׁת שְׁקָלִים ״אֶת קׇרְבָּנִי לַחְמִי״, וּבִשְׁתֵּי תוֹרוֹת סַגִּי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa to state the halakha in both cases, as, if it had been stated only with regard to the New Moon of Tevet, one could have mistakenly thought that only with regard to that case does Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa state that three Torah scrolls are used. But with regard to the New Moon of Adar, one might think that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who said that the portion of Shekalim is the portion of “My offering, the provision of My offerings,” and two Torah scrolls will therefore suffice, since the same portion is used both for the portion for the New Moon and for the portion of Shekalim. Therefore, he teaches us that three Torah scrolls are used even on the New Moon of Adar.

וְלֵימָא הָא וְלָא בָּעֲיָא הָךְ! חֲדָא מִכְּלַל חֲבֶירְתָּהּ אִיתְּמַר.

The Gemara asks: But, based on that logic, let Rabbi Yitzḥak just say the halakha with respect to this case of the New Moon of Adar, and there would be no need to state that case of the New Moon of Tevet. The Gemara answers: Indeed, one was stated from the other by inference, i.e., Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa stated the halakha explicitly only with regard to the New Moon of Adar, and it was inferred that the same is true of the New Moon of Tevet.

-Megillah 29b

I have nothing to say about this statement specifically, I just enjoy the Yannai quote train:

אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי סָבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי רַבָּה: מוּטָב תִּיגָּלֵל הַמִּטְפַּחַת וְאַל יִגָּלֵל סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה.

Rabbi Yannai, son of Rabbi Yannai the Elder, said in the name of Rabbi Yannai the Great: It is proper that the cloth cover of a Torah scroll be rolled around the scroll, while holding the scroll stationary, and one should not roll the Torah scroll itself in the cloth in order to cover it.

-Megillah 32a

This entry was originally posted at https://lannamichaels.dreamwidth.org/1236826.html.