Daf Ditty Megillah 19: Letter or Scroll?

1
MISHNA: With regard to a resident of an unwalled town who went to a walled city, where the
Megilla is read on the fifteenth of Adar, and conversely, a resident of a walled city who went to
an unwalled town where it is read on the fourteenth, the following distinction applies: If he is
destined to return to his original place, he reads it according to the halakha governing his own
place, and if not, i.e., if he is not destined to return to his place, he reads with them, the residents
of his current location.

Beginning from where must a person read the Megilla in order to fulfill his obligation? Rabbi
Meir says: He must read all of it. Rabbi Yehuda says: He need read only from

;‫ ָהָיה ְבּשׁוַּשׁן ַהִבּי ָרה‬,‫ ה ִאישׁ ְיהוִּדי‬5 There was a certain Jew in Shushan the castle, whose
-‫ִשְׁמִﬠי ֶבּן‬-‫ ֶבּן ָיִאיר ֶבּן‬,‫ וְּשׁמוֹ ָמ ְרֳדַּכי‬name was Mordecai the son of Jair the son of Shimei the
.‫ִאישׁ ְיִמי ִני‬--‫ִקישׁ‬ son of Kish, a Benjamite,
Esther 2:5

“There was a certain Jew”

Rabbi Yosei says: From

‫ָהָמן‬-‫ ֲאַחְשֵׁורוֹשׁ ֶאת‬k‫ ִגַּדּל ַהֶמֶּל‬,‫א ַאַחר ַהְדָּב ִרים ָהֵאֶלּה‬ 1 After these things did king Ahasuerus
,‫ ֵמַﬠל‬,‫ִכְּסאוֹ‬-‫ ֶאת‬,‫שׂם‬ֶ ‫ַו ְיַנְשֵּׂאהוּ; ַוָיּ‬--‫ַהְמָּדָתא ָהֲאָגִגי‬-‫ֶבּן‬ promote Haman the son of Hammedatha
.‫ַהָשּׂ ִרים ֲאֶשׁר ִאתּוֹ‬-‫ָכּל‬ the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his
seat above all the princes that were with
him.
Esther 3:1

“After these things”

2
GEMARA: Rava said: They taught the mishna that one who is destined to return to his own
place reads according to the halakha governing his own place only with regard to one who is
destined to return to his own place on the night of the fourteenth of Adar. But if he is not
destined to return on the night of the fourteenth, although he does intend to return to his own
place eventually, he reads with the residents of his current location. Rava said: From where do
I say this? As it is written:

,(‫ֵכּן ַה ְיּהוִּדים הפרוזים )ַהְפּ ָרִזים‬-‫יט ַﬠל‬
‫ֹעִשׂים ֵאת יוֹם‬--‫ַה ֹיְּשִׁבים ְבָּﬠ ֵרי ַהְפּ ָרזוֹת‬
‫ ִשְׂמָחה וִּמְשֶׁתּה‬,‫שׂר ְלֹחֶדשׁ ֲאָדר‬ ָ ‫ַא ְרָבָּﬠה ָﬠ‬
.‫ ִאישׁ ְל ֵרֵﬠהוּ‬,‫ַח ָמנוֹת‬ƒ‫ְויוֹם טוֹב; וִּמְשׁ‬
19 Therefore do the Jews of the villages, that dwell in
the unwalled towns, make the fourteenth day of the
month Adar a day of gladness and feasting, and a
good day, and of sending portions one to another.
Esther 9:19

“Therefore, the Jews of unwalled towns, who dwell in the unwalled towns, make the fourteenth
day of the month Adar a day of gladness and feasting”

Since it is already written: “The Jews of unwalled towns,” why do I need it to write further,
“who dwell in the unwalled towns”? It comes to teach us this: That one who is in an unwalled
town even for the day is also called one who lives in an unwalled town.

The Gemara asks: We have found proof for a resident of a walled city who is temporarily located
in an unwalled town. But from where do we derive the opposite case, that one from an unwalled
town who is temporarily in a walled city is governed by a similar halakha? The Gemara answers:
It is based on logical reasoning: Since one who is in an unwalled town for the day is called
someone from an unwalled town, so too conversely, one who is in a walled city for a day is
called someone from a walled city.

3
And Rava said further: Someone from a village, where the Megilla is read on the Monday or
Thursday prior to Purim (2a), who went to a town, reads the Megilla with the residents of the
town, even if he had already read it in his own place. He does so in all circumstances, whether or
not he will be returning to his own village.

The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this ruling? This villager should actually have read
at the same time as the residents of the towns, but the Sages showed leniency toward the people
of the villages and allowed them to advance their reading of the Megilla to the previous day of
assembly so that they would be free to supply water and food to their brethren in the cities on
the day of Purim.

This, however, applies only when the villager is in his place, in the village, but when he is in a
town, he is required to read like the residents of the town, and not like the villagers.

Abaye raised an objection to Rava from a baraita: A resident of a walled city who went to an
unwalled town, in all circumstances, whether or not he will be returning to his own city, reads
the Megilla according to the halakha governing his permanent place.

The Gemara first questions the text of the baraita as it is currently worded: Can it enter your
mind that the resident of a walled city always reads in accordance with the halakha governing
his own place, even if he is currently situated in an unwalled town? But doesn’t the matter depend
on whether or not he will be returning on Purim to his hometown, as stated in the mishna?
Therefore, it is clear that the baraita must be emended.

Rather, is it not to be changed to: A resident of a village who went to an unwalled town? The
baraita therefore teaches that a resident of a village who is visiting in a town must read the Megilla
according to the halakha governing his own place, the village, unlike Rava’s teaching.

4
The Gemara rejects this: But did you not emend the reading in the baraita? Since you admit that
the baraita in any event requires revision, change it further and teach: He reads the Megilla with
the residents of the town. This wording in the baraita would then support the opinion of Rava.

§ The mishna teaches that three Sages disagree about the question: Beginning from where must
a person read the Megilla in order to fulfill his obligation? It is taught in a baraita that there is
a fourth opinion as well: Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai says: One must start to read from

-‫ ְלָהִביא ֶאת‬,‫ ָנְדָדה ְשַׁנת ַהֶמֶּל`; ַויּ ֹאֶמר‬,‫א ַבַּלּ ְיָלה ַההוּא‬ 1 On that night could not the king sleep; and
.`‫ ִלְפֵני ַהֶמֶּל‬,‫ ַו ִיְּהיוּ ִנְקָרִאים‬,‫ֵסֶפר ַהִזְּכֹרנוֹת ִדְּבֵרי ַהָיִּמים‬ he commanded to bring the book of records of
the chronicles, and they were read before the
king.
Esther 6:1

“On that night”

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And all of these tanna’im, in arriving at their respective opinions, were
expounding the same verse. As it is stated:

,‫ֲאִביַח ִיל‬-‫ כט ַוִתְּכֹתּב ֶאְסֵתּר ַהַמְּלָכּה ַבת‬29 Then Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail, and
‫ ֵאת‬,‫ ְלַקֵיּם‬:‫ֹתֶּקף‬-‫ָכּל‬-‫ֶאת‬--‫ וָּמ ְרֳדַּכי ַה ְיּהוִּדי‬Mordecai the Jew, wrote down all the acts of power, to
.‫ַהֵשּׁ ִנית‬--‫ִאֶגֶּרת ַהֻפּ ִרים ַהזּ ֹאת‬ confirm this second letter of Purim.
Esther 9:29

“Then Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote about all the
acts of power to confirm this second letter of Purim”

5
The one who said that the Megilla must be read in its entirety interprets “acts of power” as
referring to the power of Ahasuerus, and so the Megilla must be read from the beginning, where
the power of Ahasuerus is recounted.

And Rabbi Ḥelbo said further that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: The Megilla is
referred to as a “book” (Esther 9:32), and it is also referred to as a “letter” (Esther 9:29).

It is called a book, indicating a comparison to the book of the Torah, i.e., to a Torah scroll, to
teach us that if one sewed its parchment sheets together with flax threads the Megilla is unfit,
just as a Torah scroll sewn in this manner is unfit.

And it is called a letter to teach us that if one stitched the Megilla sheets together with only
three threads of sinew, in the manner of a letter, the Megilla is fit for use, as it does not have to
be completely stitched like a Torah scroll. Rav Naḥman said: This is true provided that the
stitches are made in three parts.

Jastrow

6
Summary

Introduction1

The first section of this mishnah deals with a person who travels from a walled city which reads
on the 15th of Adar to a town which reads on the 14th or vice versa. The second section discusses
how much of the Megillah must be read on Purim.

A resident of a town who has gone to a walled city or a resident of a walled city who has gone
to a town, if he is to return to his own place he reads according to the rule of his own place,
and if not reads with them.

1
https://www.sefaria.org/Megillah.19a.4?lang=bi&p2=Mishnah_Megillah.2.3&lang2=bi&w2=English%20Explanation%20of%2
0Mishnah&lang3=en

7
The mishnah states simply that if a person travels from one type of town to another, he retains the
custom of the town of his origin if his intention is not to move to his new town. If his intention is
not to return to his previous town, then he reads with the new place. In the Talmud they explain
that “if he is to return to his own place” means if he is to return there that very night and get there
before the morning. If he goes to another town but returns to his own town in the morning, then he
celebrates Purim with his own town. But if he goes to another town and is there in the morning, he
must celebrate Purim and hear the Megillah on that day. By the way, as someone who lives in
Modiin, which reads on the 14th, and goes to Jerusalem which reads on the 15th, I encounter this
issue pretty much every year.

From where does a man read the Megillah and thereby fulfill his obligation? Rabbi Meir
says: all of it. Rabbi Judah says: from “There was a Jew” (Esther 2:5). Rabbi Yose says:
from “After these things” (3:1).

Today we read the entire book of Esther, but whether this is necessary is debated by the sages.
Rabbi Meir says that one has to read the whole thing. Rabbi Judah says that he only has to read
from 2:5, where Mordecai is first mentioned. Rabbi Yose says he only has to read from 3:1, where
the actual plot by Haman (make a lot of noise when you say this) begins.

Where, From Where, Whom and Getting Hit on the Head2

Beginning with a new Mishna, we learn about what to do should we enter a walled city – or a an
unwalled city – on the 14th of Adar. Like in other similar situations, we are taught that this depends
both upon where we reside (our recitation follows the minhag of our city of residence) and upon
our intention when travelling to or from a place. We are told that when in doubt, we should read
the Megilla in both cities; in the unwalled city on the 14th and in the walled city on the 15th.

Secondly, our Mishna tells us from where the Megilla should be read. I had always assumed as
taught by Rabbi Meir that the full Megilla was recited, as that has been the tradition of my
community. However, the obligation is not as clear. Rabbi Yehuda suggests that we read from
Esther 2:5, “There was a certain Jew…”. Rabbi Yosei tells us to read from Esther 3:1, “After these
things…”.

Our Daf, of course, discusses in depth all of these differences of opinion. During that
conversation, we are introduced to a new phrase: Umachu la hamocha, they hit (the halacha in
question) on its head. This phrase tells us that the rabbis have found a way to create leniencies.

Amud (a) also notes that within the Megilla itself, Megillat Esther is referred to as both a book
(9:32) and a letter (9:29). This is significant in a number of ways, as books and letters imply
different practices. For example, letters cannot be included in the Torah. Thus, Megillat Esther

2
http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/07/

8
must be written either on a separate scroll or with markedly different sizing and stitching that the
other writings in the Torah.

Amud (b) introduces a new and very difficult Mishna. It states, “Everyone is fit to recite the
Megilla except for a person who is deaf, an imbecile, or a minor. And Rabbi Yehuda says that
a minor is allowed to recite the Megilla”. Is the Megilla similar to the Shema and the Birkat
HaMazon, in that it must be heard aloud when read? Does that justify the exclusion of a person
who is deaf? The rabbis suggest that Rabbi Yehuda certainly was speaking of a minor who is
proficient at reciting the Megilla. For the sake of consistency, should those who are deaf or
‘imbeciles’ be included, as well, if they are proficient at reading the Megilla?

We are taught that Rabbi Yosei said in the Jerusalem Talmud, “And you will give ear to his
mitzvot,” (Exodus 15:26). This is a source that justifies the exclusion of those who are
deaf. However, we are reminded that Rabbi Yehuda spoke of those who can speak but cannot
hear. These people were obliged to teruma. Thus, should they be obligated to recite the
Megilla? And can others who hear that Megilla being read rest assured that they have fulfilled the
mitzvah of Purim? The rabbis back up, suggesting that if we have heard such a person recite the
Megilla, certainly we have met our obligation ab initio.

Steinsaltz shares a note that teaches that when we hear a recitation by one who is obliged to recite,
we have met our obligation. However, some people continue to suggest that men have not met
their obligation if they hear the Megilla recited by a woman. Defining the halachot according to
their intended meaning is very different from simply following halacha. We argue that we are
interpreting what the rabbis meant to say. But how does anyone know what was meant? And how
might this help us understand the exclusion of so many Jews from the mitzvot?

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:3

The Mishna states: The resident of a town who went to a walled city or a resident of a walled city
who went to a town, if he will return to his place, he reads the Megillah on the day he usually
would, and if not, he reads with them. From where (which point in the Megillah) does a man read
the Megillah and fulfill his obligation?

Rabbi Meir says: One is required to read the entire Megillah. Rabbi Yehudah says: From the verse
[2:5]: A Jewish man. Rabbi Yosi says: From the verse [3:1]: After these things. (19a) The Mishna
had ruled that a resident of a walled city who went to a town and plans to return to his city reads
on the fifteenth.

Rava states: This is correct only if he intends to return to his city before the night of the fourteenth,
however if he will still be in the town by daybreak of the fourteenth, he must read together with
the townspeople on the fourteenth. Rava said: From where do I derive this ruling? Because it is
written: Therefore, the Jews of the Unwalled cities that dwell in the unwalled towns. Let us see: It
is written: ‘the Jews of the unwalled places.’ Why then should it be further written: ‘that dwell in

3
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Megillah_19.pdf

9
the unwalled towns? This teaches us that one who is in an unwalled place for one day (on the
fourteenth) is called a resident of an unwalled town.
We have proved this for a resident of an unwalled place. How do we know that it applies also to a
resident of a walled town? It is reasonable to suppose the following: since one who is an unwalled
place for one day is called a resident of an unwalled town, it is reasonable to state that a person
who is in a walled place for one day is called a resident of a walled place.

Rava rules: If a villager read the Megillah early on the day of the gathering and he traveled to the
city and was there on the night of the fourteenth; in either case (whether he will remain there on
the morning of the fourteenth, or leave before the morning), he is required to hear the Megillah
again. What is the reason? By rights he ought to read at the same time as the residents of the town,
and it is the Rabbis who made a leniency for the villagers so that they might supply food and drink
to their brethren in the large towns. Now this applies only so long as they are in their own place,
but when they are in the town, they must read like the residents of the town.

Abaye raised an objection to this from the following braisa: If a resident of a walled city has gone
to a town, in either case (whether he will remain there on the morning of the fourteenth, or leave
before the morning), he reads according to the custom of his own place.

Abaye clarifies the braisa: A resident of a walled city, do you say? His rule depends on whether
he will return!? What you must read, then, is ‘a villager’ (who visited a town, and the braisa rules
that he reads on the same day as the people in his village, and he does not repeat the Megillah on
the fourteenth; this is contrary to Rava’s ruling above)!?

The Gemora answers: But must you not in any case (emend the braisa)? Read then: reads (on the
fourteenth) with the rest (of the people of the town).

The Mishna had cited three opinions in regard to the point that one is required to read the Megillah
from in order to fulfill the obligation.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: One must read from the verse [6:1]: It was on that night. Rabbi
Yochanan said: All the different opinions have been derived from the following verse [9:29]: Then
Esther the queen wrote. . .. together with Mordecai the Jew, with all due strength.

The one who says that the entire Megillah should be read maintains that the strength refers to
Achasverosh.

The one who says that the Megillah must be read from the verse A Jewish man maintains that the
strength refers to Mordechai.

The one who says that the Megillah must be read from the verse after these things maintains that
the strength refers to Haman.

The one who says that the Megillah must be read from the verse it was on that night maintains
that the strength refers to the miracle.

10
Rav Huna offers an alternative source explaining all of the above opinions. And what (reason) did
they see (to act in this way), and what came upon them (because of this)? He who says that the
entire Megillah must be read interprets as follows: What had Achashverosh seen to make him use
the vessels of the Temple? It was for this reason - that he reckoned seventy years and they had not
yet been redeemed. And what came upon them? That he put Vashti to death.

The one who says that the Megillah must be read from the verse A Jewish man interprets as
follows: What had Mordechai seen that he picked a quarrel with Haman? It was for this reason -
that he made himself an object of worship. And what came upon them? That a miracle was
performed for him.

The one who says that the Megillah must be read from the verse after these things interprets as
follows: What did Haman see to make him pick a quarrel with all the Jews? It was for this reason
- that Mordechai did not bow down or prostrate himself. And what came upon him? They hung
him and his sons on the tree.

The one who says that the Megillah must be read from the verse it was on that night interprets as
follows: What did Achashverosh see to make him order the book of chronicles to be brought? It
was for this reason - that Esther invited Haman with him. And what came upon them? A miracle
was performed for them. Rabbi Chelbo said in the name of Rav Chama bar Guria in the name of
Rav:

The halachah is in accordance with the opinion that holds that the entire Megillah must be read.
And even according to the one who says that we may begin to read it from A Jewish man, he
nevertheless agrees that the entire Megillah must be written.

Rabbi Chelbo said in the name of Rav Chama bar Guria in the name of Rav: The Megillah is called
‘book’ and it is also called ‘letter.’ It is called ‘book’ to show that if it is stitched with threads of
linen, it is not fit for use; and it is called ‘letter’ to show that if it is stitched with three threads of
sinew, it may be used.

Rav Nachman said: This is only on condition that they are trisected (they are evenly spaced
between each other). Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel: One who reads from a Megillah
that was written together with other scrolls has not fulfilled his obligation (the Megillah must be
separate). Rava said that it would be valid if the portions of the parchment where the Megillah is
written on is longer or shorter than the other portion of the scroll.

Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: The above ruling is limited to when
the Megillah is read publicly, but when it is read privately, one may use a Megillah that was written
together with other scrolls.

The Gemora cites three unconnected statements from Rabbi Chiya bar Abba in the name of Rabbi
Yochanan.

11
Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: It is a rule deriving from Moshe at
Sinai that a space should be left unstitched (in a Sefer Torah); but he then hit it on its head (and he
at once qualified the remark) by saying: this rule was established only so that it should not be torn.
Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: Had there been in the cave in which
Moshe and Eliyahu stood (when the Heavenly Presence was before them) a hole no bigger than
the eye of a fine needle, they would not have been able to endure the light, as it says: for man shall
not see Me and live.

Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: What is the meaning of the verse:
And on them (the Tablets) was written according to all the words which Hashem spoke with you
on the mountain? It teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, showed Moshe the fine
interpretations of the Torah, and the fine Rabbinic interpretations, and the innovations which
would be introduced by the Sages (in the future); and what are these? The reading of the Megillah.

The Mishna states: Everyone is eligible to read the Megillah, except for a deaf person, a deranged
person and a minor. Rabbi Yehudah maintains that a minor is eligible to read the Megillah. The
Gemora assumes that one who hears the Megillah from a deaf person does not fulfill his obligation
at all and he must read it again. Which Tanna holds like this? Rav Masna answers: It is the opinion
of Rabbi Yosi. He cites a Mishna in Brochos: One who recites Shema and doesn’t hear his words
has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yosi disagrees and maintains that he has not
fulfilled his obligation. The Gemora questions the initial assumption: Perhaps our Mishna follows
the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, and it is only preferable that a deaf person should not read the
Megillah, but if he does read it, it is valid.

The Gemora answers: Our Mishna cannot follow Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion since the first part of
the Mishna rules explicitly that a minor is disqualified to read the Megillah. The Gemora questions
this proof: Perhaps the first part of the Mishna is referring to a minor that has not reached the age
when he can be trained to perform the mitzva, but once he reached that age, he may read the
Megillah since Rabbi Yehuda stated that a minor is eligible to read the Megillah. The Gemora
proves from a braisa regarding the mitzva of separating terumah that our Mishna cannot follow
the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah.

ARRANGEMENT OF THE MISHNA

The Mishna states: The resident of a town who went to a walled city or a resident of a walled city
who went to a town, if he will return to his place, he reads the Megillah on the day he usually
would, and if not, he reads with them. From where (which point in the Megillah) does a man read
the Megillah and fulfill his obligation?

Rabbi Meir says: One is required to read the entire Megillah. Rabbi Yehudah says: From the verse
[2:5]: A Jewish man. Rabbi Yosi says: From the verse [3:1]: After these things. The Rosh Yosef
asks: Why is this Mishna written in this perek? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate if it was inserted
in the first perek together with the other halachos regarding the days of the Megillah reading for
the walled cities, towns and villages?

12
Furthermore, the Nefesh Chaya asks, what is the connection between the first part of the Mishna
and the second half? He answers that if one would only learn the second half of the Mishna that
there are various opinions as to where one must read the Megillah from, one might think that it
will depend on which location the Megillah is being read. The people residing in Shushan or in
any walled city should read the Megillah from the beginning since it was only the residents of
Shushan that derived benefit from the feast of Achashverosh, and it is the beginning of the
Megillah that discusses Achashverosh’s feast.

The townspeople can begin reading from any of the other points mentioned above. It is for this
reason that Rebbe arranged the Mishna here to illustrate that there is no distinction in the reading
of the Megillah between those residing in a walled city and those residing in the towns; rather it is
a Tannaic dispute.

EXCESSIVE HAMAN BANGING

The Rosh Yeshiva of Gateshead declared immediately prior to the reading of the Megillah: I have
instructed the reader of the Megillah not to have in mind those individuals who disturb the reading
of the Megillah due to excessive noisemaking during the klapping of Haman. One can inquire if
anyone at all fulfilled their obligation of hearing the Megillah. The Rama (581:1) rules that a
chazzan is required to have everyone in mind during his prayers and if he has an enemy and decides
to exclude him, even his friends will not have discharged their obligation of tefillah. The Mishna
Berura (53:57) rules accordingly. If so, how will the remainder of the congregation fulfill their
obligation of hearing the Megillah if the reader intended to exclude several people? Rav Yitzchak
Zilberstein makes the following distinction.

The Chavos Yair (186) explains the ruling of the Rama: The chazzan is an emissary from the
congregation, and he was sent to discharge the obligation for everyone. If he changes and resolves
to exclude an individual, he is no longer considered their agent. Reb Shlomo Kluger cites the
Magen Avraham (53:22) that a chazzan must remove from his heart any jealousy or hatred towards
any individual; if he decides to exclude someone, this indicates that he has not removed the hatred
from his heart and he is disqualified from being a chazzan.

The Rosh Yeshiva has the jurisdiction to decide who should be included in the congregation and
who shouldn’t be. The Chavos Yair’s reason is not applicable here because the reader of the
Megillah is not altering anything and he is doing precisely what he has undertaken to do. Rav
Shlomo Kluger’s reason is also not applicable because here he does not bear any grudge against
anyone at all.

13
 ONE WHO LEAVES TOWN FOR PURIM

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:4

The Mishnah states that when a resident of an unwalled city finds himself in a walled city when
Purim arrives, and when a resident of a walled city finds himself in an unwalled city, he reads the
Megilah like his place of origin "if he plans to return to his place." If he does not plan to return to
his place, he reads on the day on which his host city reads.

The Gemara explains that the Mishnah means that when a resident of a walled city plans to remain
in the unwalled city throughout the night of the fourteenth of Adar, he reads the Megilah on the
fourteenth with his host city even though he comes from a place which reads on the fifteenth. If he
leaves before the end of the night (before daybreak), he reads on the same day as his hometown,
on the fifteenth.

Does this explanation also apply to a resident of an unwalled city who is in a walled city on the
night of the fourteenth? Does the person's status depend on where he finds himself on the night of
the fourteenth or on the night of the fifteenth? If he comes from a walled city and spends the night
of the fourteenth in an unwalled city, and on the night of the fifteenth he is back in his hometown,
when does he read the Megilah?
(a) RASHI says that the Halachah in the two cases is determined by two different dates. Being in
an unwalled city on the night of the fourteenth determines whether one must read on the fourteenth,
while being in a walled city on the night of the fifteenth determines whether he must read on the
fifteenth.

According to Rashi, it is possible that a person could be obligated to read the Megilah on both days
-- such as when he was in an unwalled city throughout the night of the fourteenth, and during the
day he went to a walled city and was there throughout the night of the fifteenth. In such a case, he
would be obligated to read on both days. (The RAN, who agrees with Rashi's explanation, makes
this point, and he cites support from the Yerushalmi.)

(b) The ROSH says that the Halachah in both cases is determined by where the person is on the
night of the fourteenth. If the resident of a walled city is in an unwalled city on the night of the
fourteenth, he not only becomes obligated to read on the fourteenth, but he loses the obligation to
read on the fifteenth even if he returns to his walled city before the night of the fifteenth. If the
resident of an unwalled city is in a walled city on the night of the fourteenth, he loses the obligation
to read on the fourteenth and becomes obligated to read the next day, on the fifteenth.

The RIF adds an important detail. The Halachah does not depend on whether the person
actually stays in the city throughout the entire night of the fourteenth (or fifteenth according to
Rashi). Rather, it depends on whether the person intended to stay in the city. If he intended to leave
the host city before daybreak, he does not become obligated to read the Megilah with that
city even if he ends up staying in the city.

4
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/megilah/insites/mg-dt-019.htm

14
(The TAZ adds that this detail applies only l'Kula, as a leniency. That is, if one intended to leave
the city before daybreak but ended up staying, he does not have to read the Megilah with that city.
However, if one intended to stay in the city past daybreak but he ended up leaving during the night,
his initial intention does not obligate him to read on the day that his host city reads. Rather, he
reads with his hometown.)

What is the Halachah when one arrives in the host city after nightfall? The MISHNAH
BERURAH (OC 688:12) writes that the day he reads is determined by where he intended -- at the
time he embarked for the city -- to be at daybreak of the fourteenth (or fifteenth). He does not read
the Megilah on the day of the host city if -- at the time he embarked for that city -- he intended to
leave before daybreak of the fourteenth, but he does read with that city if he intended -- at the time
he embarked -- to stay their past daybreak.

HALACHAH: The MISHNAH BERURAH cites the opinion of Rashi, that when a resident of an
unwalled city travels to a walled city, the day on which he reads the Megilah depends on where he
plans to be during the night of the fourteenth. When a resident of a walled city travels to an
unwalled city, the day on which he reads depends on where he plans to be during the night of the
fifteenth. The Mishnah Berurah (in Bi'ur Halachah) adds that one should not depend on this ruling
with regard to reciting a Berachah, but he should ask a competent rabbinical authority how to
conduct himself.

HOW TO SEW THE PARCHMENT OF A MEGILAH

The Gemara teaches that when the verse refers to the Megilah as a "Sefer" (Esther 9:32), it teaches
that the parchment may not be sewn with threads of flax (Pishtan) but only with threads of sinew
(Gidin), like a Sefer Torah. When the verse also calls the Megilah an "Igeres" (Esther 9:26, 29), it
teaches that one may be lenient and sew it with "three threads of Gidin."

What exactly is this leniency which is permitted for a Megilah but not for a Sefer Torah?

Most Rishonim explain that the Gemara's leniency refers back to sewing the parchment with
Pishtan (see RA'AVAN). Even though the Gemara said that the Megilah may not be sewn
completely with Pishtan because of its status as a "Sefer," nevertheless if a few threads of Gidin
are used the rest of the seam may be sewn up with Pishtan, even if there are only three threads of
Gidin. The HAGAHOS MAIMONIYOS adds that one should preferably sew the rest with
Pishtan rather than leave the rest without any thread, even though the Megilah would be invalid if
only Pishtan was used. This Halachah is based on the principle of "Hashlamah," which teaches
that when a gap needs to be filled, even an invalid object may be used to fill the gap (Sukah 17a).
This is also the opinion of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Megilah 2:5, according to the Girsa in our
editions).

The ME'IRI says in the name of the RAMBAM that if the Megilah is sewn with three threads of
Gidin, it is valid even if the rest of the width of the parchment is not sewn at all. When one sews
the parchments of a Sefer Torah, he must sew the entire width with Gidin. In contrast, when one

15
sews a Megilah, he may sew only three stitches and leave the rest unsewn. Accordingly, sewing
the rest with threads of Pishtan may be more of a reason to invalidate the Megilah than leaving it
partially unsewn.

The Me'iri's Girsa of the Rambam apparently is the Girsa which appears in the old manuscripts
which read, "Eino Tzarich Litfor" (the rest does not need to be sewn up at all), and not, "Eino
Tzarich Litfor b'Gidin" (which implies that it should be sewn with Pishtan).

THE AGE OF "CHINUCH" FOR A CHILD

The Gemara says that according to Rebbi Yehudah, a minor (Katan) who has reached the age of
Chinuch may read the Megilah on behalf of adults. RASHI says that a child reaches the age of
Chinuch at the age of nine or ten years old (nine for a more advanced child, ten for an average
child). Similarly, Rashi in Erchin (2b) says that the age of Chinuch for the Mitzvah of blowing the
Shofar on Rosh Hashanah is nine or ten years old.

However, the Gemara in Yoma (82a), which Rashi himself quotes as his source, gives the age of
nine or ten specifically with regard to when a child must be trained to fast part of the day on Yom
Kippur. Why does Rashi extend this age to include other Mitzvos such as Megilah and Shofar?
Moreover, the Gemara in Sukah (42a) gives various ages at which a child must begin to perform
the Mitzvos of Lulav, Tzitzis, Tefilin, and Keri'as Shema. The age of Chinuch clearly depends on
the requirements of that particular Mitzvah and the child's aptitude to fulfill those requirements.
Hence, the same should apply to the Mitzvah of reading the Megilah; the age of Chinuch should
be determined by when the child is able to understand the Megilah. Why does Rashi give a standard
age which seems to be unrelated to the particular requirements of the Mitzvah of Megilah or
Shofar? (TOSFOS to Erchin 2b, DH she'Higi'a)

(a) The MEI'RI in Chagigah (2a) writes that the primary age of Chinuch is nine or ten years old,
as the Gemara says with regard to fasting on Yom Kippur. The other ages given for Chinuch apply
only to Mitzvos which are very easy to do, and thus a child even younger than nine or ten is
obligated, depending on his ability. The child is not obligated (by the requirement of Chinuch) to
perform more difficult Mitzvos until he is nine or ten.

The Me'iri apparently understands that the Mitzvah of reading the Megilah is more difficult for a
child than other Mitzvos because the entire Megilah must be read from a scroll (with no
vowelization or cantillation marks). Similarly, the Mitzvah of Shofar is more difficult than other
Mitzvos because it takes considerable skill and training to blow the Shofar properly. For that
reason, Rashi writes that the age of Chinuch does not begin until nine or ten. (Even though the
Mitzvah is to hear the Shofar and not specifically to blow it, and to hear the Megilah and not
specifically to read it, it is logical to assume that when a child is unable to do the Mitzvah for
himself when no one else is available, he has no obligation of Chinuch for the Mitzvah.)

(b) Perhaps there is a difference between a Mitzvah that involves an action and a Mitzvah that is
done passively. When the Mitzvah involves an action, the age of Chinuch for that Mitzvah is when
the child can perform that act. When the Mitzvah involves being passive and does not depend on

16
doing an action, the age of Chinuch for that Mitzvah is when the child has the intellectual maturity
to understand and appreciate the passive, Mitzvah experience.

For example, a child of any age is able (physically) to fast for one hour on Yom Kippur, but since
the child does not appreciate the meaning of the experience, he has no obligation to fast because
of Chinuch. At the age of nine or ten, a child can understand why he is not eating. Similarly, the
Mitzvos of listening to the Megilah and hearing the Shofar are passive acts which depend on a
person's intellectual maturity to be able to appreciate the experience. For this reason, Rashi says
that the Chinuch for these Mitzvos begins when the child is nine or ten years old, like the age of
Chinuch for fasting on Yom Kippur.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

We have already learned that the Megillah is read on two separate days – on the 14th of Adar in
a krah – an ordinary city – and on the 15th of Adar in an ir – a city that was surrounded by walls
from the time of Yehoshua bin Nun. How do we establish whether a given individual is a ben
krah or a ben ir?

The Mishnah teaches that someone who travels from one type of city to another becomes obligated
according to his new city, assuming that he does not plan to return. If he plans to return, however,
then he retains his original status and reads according to the tradition of the place that he is from.

In the Gemara, Rava teaches that planning to return refers to the individual’s plans for the day
of Purim itself, specifically, does the person from a krah, where the Megillah is read on the 14th,
plan to return the evening of Purim, i.e. on the 14th? If he does, his obligation remains that of a ben
krah; if he does not, he becomes obligated to read on the 15th like a ben ir.

Rava’s ruling is not as simple as it appears, and there are two main positions taken on how to
understand it. Rashi understands it to refer to both a ben krah and a ben ir, and the question is
whether the individual anticipates returning to his primary location by the time the Megillah will
be read there. Thus, a ben ir who is visiting a krah on the 14th will not be obligated to hear
the Megillah with the people of that town, assuming that he intends on returning home by the time
that his ir will read the Megillah on the 15th. The Rosh disagrees, arguing that the crucial time is
the 14th for everyone. We judge a person’s obligation by his position on the 14th when the basic
obligation of keri’at Megillah begins. According to him, a ben ir who is visiting a krah on the 14th
will be obligated to read on that day.

Another possibility that is raised by the poskim, based on the Talmud Yerushalmi, is that a person
can find himself obligated on both days, or, perhaps, not obligated at all, if he travels between
cities on the 14th and 15th.

5
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_megillah1622/

17
The Rishonim (Rashba, Ritva, and Ramban) ask why it is necessary for the Gemara to derive the
laws of writing the Megilla from a special when the Megilla itself is
called a ‫ )ספר‬as we find later in our Gemara— ‫( בספר ונכתב‬and a Sefer Torah must be written with
indelible ink in order to be kosher (Shabbos 103b)?6

The general approach is that the Megilla is referred to as a ‫ — ספר‬a book, but it is also called an
‫אגרת‬, a letter. This teaches us that in certain areas, the Megilla is to be treated as a formal text, just
as a Sefer Torah, while in other regards its laws are more lenient.

Ritva explains, in the name of his rebbe, that the body of the text is to be as a Sefer Torah. The
parchment must be processed, lines must be scraped along its surface (‫)שרטוט‬, and it must be
written with ink.

These halachos are each learned from separate ‫דרשות‬, and without these lessons we would not
know whether to treat the Megilla in any particular regard as a sefer or as a letter. However, the
reading is done as a letter. The reader can be either standing or sitting, and we do not break up the
reading with different aliyos.

The ‫ הלוי ז “גרי‬in his Chiddushim to Megilla (2:9) notes that once we know that a Megilla is as one
of the books of Tanach (see 7a), it should be understood that it must be written on parchment and
with ink Nevertheless, he explains that there are actually two aspects to a Megilla. One is that it
is, indeed, one of the books of Tanach.

Another is that we require that a Megilla be suited to be read in public and enable the community
to fulfill their obligation of publicizing the miracle by hearing the story. Without the lesson as
taught in our Gemara, we might have thought that a Megilla written without all the details of the
parchment and ink of a regular book of Tanach would have been adequate for the mitzvah of
reading. We might have thought that the book itself only need be as a letter/ ‫אגרת‬. This is why we
need the special lesson to teach that a Megilla must be written properly in order to be used for the
reading itself.

The Mishnah in Yoma (1) states that we do not afflict children to fast on Yom Kippur, but we train
them to fast for hours, to accustom them to fasting. Some Poskim (2) note that since it is
specifically in the context of Yom Kippur that this concept is mentioned and not in the context of
any of the other fasts, even Tisha B’Av.

6
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Megilla%20019.pdf

18
It must be that the requirement to train children to fast applies only to Yom Kippur. The reason is
that Yom Kippur is the only fast that is Biblical and the requirement to train children to perform
mitzvos applies only to Biblical mitzvos, not mitzvos that are Rabbinic in origin.

Rav Menacham Azaryah of Fano (3), the Rama MiFano, maintains the same position. Rama
MiFano was asked about the practice of children fasting on the various fast days. He responded
that there is no obligation for children to fast on any fast day other than Yom Kippur since the rest
of the fast days are Rabbinic and the obligation of chinuch does not apply.

As support for his position Rama MiFano writes that the fact that a child may not read the Megilla
for an adult is proof to this position. Seemingly, if the obligation for an adult to read the Megilla
is Rabbinic, and the obligation of a child is Rabbinic why can’t a child read for an adult if they
share the same degree obligation?

It must be, concludes Rama MiFano, that because children do not have an obligation to perform
Rabbinic mitzvos, they may not read for adults who are obligated. Other Poskim (4), however,
pose the same question, namely, what is the reason children may not read the Megilla for adults?

They do not answer as Rama MiFano did, thus indicating that there is an obligation to train children
to perform even Rabbinic mitzvos.

As a practical matter, Poskim (5) assume that there is an obligation to train children even in mitzvos
that are only Rabbinic in origin.

A certain emissary from Tzfas once asked the Chasam Sofer, zt” l, “The Gemara in Megilla states
that even if one is in a town for a single day, and the city bears a wall from the time of Yehoshua
bin Nun, one celebrates Purim on the fifteenth of Adar. If not, he celebrates on the fourteenth.

We learn this from the fact that the verse says ‘‫‘ —’היושבי הפרזות בערי‬those who dwell in the walled
cities.’ However, the Gemara in Sanhedrin 112a in its discussion of the ‫עיר הנדחת‬, the
excommunicated city, and Bava Basra 8a in its discussion of the obligation to pay taxes, both
conclude that a ‫ העיר יושב‬is one who is in the city for at least thirty days.

19
Why don’t we say the same thing here? One who wishes to stay in the city for at least thirty days
should be obligated to fulfill the mitzvos of Purim together with the residents of the city, while
one who plans to return earlier should be obligated to follow the practice of the place from which
he came?”

For this reason,

‫ יושבי בערי הפרזי‬includes anyone staying in the city even for a short while. Once they leave, they
lose this status. For Purim, it matters where you are, not where you live the rest of the year!”

Julie Seltzer writes:7

Today’s daf asks how much of Megillat Esther must be read on Purim to fulfill the mitzvah. It’s
ironic that this is even a question. The phrase “the whole megillah” — or in Yiddish, gantza
megillah — has entered common English, defined by Dictionary.com as “everything; every aspect
or element.” And yet the mishnah on today’s daf records three opinions about how much of the
megillah must be read, only one of which requires all of it. The Gemara adds a fourth.

They are:

Rabbi Meir: One must read the entire Megillah from beginning to end. We’ll call this the gantza
megillah option.

Rabbi Yehuda: One must read from Chapter 2, Verse 5, which begins: “There was a certain Jew”
— i.e. Mordechai.

Rabbi Yosi: One must read from Chapter 3, Verse 1, which begins: “After these things.”

Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai: One must read from Chapter 6, Verse 1, which begins: “On that
night.”

7
Myjewishlearning.com

20
What the rabbis are really asking here is: What is the essence of the story? What pivotal moment
of the plot is necessary in order to understand its essence? If I arrive late to the movie and don’t
see the tornado hit Dorothy’s house, have I missed the key to The Wizard of Oz?

In the Gemara, Rabbi Yochanan explains that all four opinions are actually based on a single verse
from the megillah itself. It’s just that — surprise! — the four rabbis interpret that verse differently.
The verse in question is Esther 9:29: “Then Esther the queen, the daughter of Avihail, and
Mordechai the Jew, wrote about all the acts of power to confirm this second letter of Purim.”

The rabbis understand that acts of power are the central piece of the “second letter of Purim” — i.e.
the megillah — without which one hasn’t fulfilled the obligation of reading it. But which acts of
power are we talking about?

According to Rabbi Meir, the acts of power refer to King Ahasuerus, and thus the first chapter —
which gives context to his reign – must be read. According to Rabbi Yehuda, they are Mordechai’s
power, and therefore we must read from Mordechai’s first appearance in the story in Chapter 2.
According to Rabbi Yosi, they refer to Haman, and therefore we must read from the beginning of
Chapter 3, when the king promotes him to be his top advisor. And Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai
maintains that the acts of power are about the miracles that lead to the reversal of the king’s decree
against the Jews, which begins in Chapter 6 when Ahasuerus recalls that Mordechai was never
rewarded for saving his life from an attempted coup.

Rav Huna agrees with Rabbi Yochanan that all four sages are looking to a specific verse to
determine how much of the megillah must be read, but he disagrees about which verse it is.
According to Rav Huna, it’s from Chapter 9: “Therefore, because of all the words of this letter,
and of that which they saw concerning this matter, and that which had befallen them, the Jews
ordained that they would keep these two days.”

The Gemara goes on to flesh out which specific events are referred to by the phrases “this matter”
and “that which had befallen them.” Was it the Babylonian exile? Haman making himself an object
of worship? Mordechai’s refusal to bow to him? Or was it Esther inviting Haman and the king to
a banquet, leading to her revelation that she is Jewish and consequently, the saving of the Jewish
people?

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what “the matter” is — at least halachically. The law as it’s observed
today goes according to Rabbi Meir, which means that we are obligated to read the megillah in its
entirety. Interestingly, the Talmud points out that even those who think we only need to read part
of the megillah agree that the megillah must be written in its entirety, with ink on parchment. In
this sense, at least, everyone is on the same page — or shall we say pages — of the gantza megillah.

21
Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:8

The Mishna (Megillah 2:3) in our daf (Megillah 19a) records a debate between Rabbi Meir, Rabbi
Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi about the quantity of the Megillah text which must be read to fulfil the
religious duty of ‫מקרא מגילה‬.

According to Rabbi Meir, the entire text of the Megillah must be read. According to Rabbi Yehuda,
as long as the reading begins from Esther 2:5 (‫)ִאישׁ ְיהוִּדי ָהָיה ְבּשׁוַּשׁן ַהִבּיָרה‬, one has fulfilled their
duty. According to Rabbi Yosi, as long as the reading begins from Esther 3:1 (‫)ַאַחר ַהְדָּב ִרים ָהֵאֶלּה‬,
one has fulfilled their duty. Beyond this, the Gemara later cites a Beraita recording a fourth opinion
of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai who states that as long as the reading begins from Esther 6:1 ( ‫ַבַּלּ ְיָלה‬
‫)ַההוּא‬, one has fulfilled their duty.

Overall, each opinion seems to be making the argument that, given that the essence of reading the
Megillah is all about ‫( פרסומי ניסא‬publicizing the Purim miracle), then which section of the Megillah
is truly essential in conveying the miracle of Purim? According to Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, the
essential section begins once Achashverosh honours Mordechai for previously saving his life
which occurs after Esther’s first banquet. According to Rabbi Yosi, it is once Haman is promoted
and when Mordechai refuses to bow down to him. According to Rabbi Yehuda, it begins once we
are introduced to Mordechai and Esther. While according to Rabbi Meir, the miracle of Purim
begins from the first verse of the story where we read about the banquet of Achashverosh’s
banquet. Significantly, we are subsequently informed that the halacha follows Rabbi Meir.

Yet, as Rav Soloveitchik asks (as recorded in ‘MiPeninei HaRav’ p. 366), the insistence of
requiring that we read the entire Megillah is perplexing - for what possible importance can there
be in reading the section of the story about a drunken king who makes a banquet, and what possible
lessons can be drawn from this part of the story?

Rav Soloveitchik answers by explaining that the miracle of Purim is neither explicit nor sudden.
Instead, it takes place through the divine coordination of natural events over a period of time during
which various seemingly insignificant events slowly come together to bring about a remarkable
outcome. On this basis, he explains that by insisting that we follow the position of Rabbi Meir, we
learn that when it comes to hidden miracles, even the smallest of details make a difference.

In terms of the application of this message to our own lives, we often fall into the trap of thinking
that the small things that we are doing isn’t making a big difference, and in some instances, this
feeling can even lead us to the decision to stop trying. But what we often don’t understand in the
moment is that even the smallest of things that we do can lay the foundation towards a remarkable
outcome. In fact, it was in this spirit that – just yesterday – I contacted someone who is doing
important work in our community but who I suspected was in need of some chizuk in light of the
events of the past week, and simply let them know how much I respect, admire and appreciate the
work that they do.

8
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

22
Given all this, the lesson I draw from our Mishna is that it is important to remember that what we
do can matter, what we do does matter, and that even the seemingly smallest of our actions have
the potential of contributing to story – to be told in the future - of our salvation and redemption.

The Sefer Habris

Rabbi Hershel Schachter writes:9

On the last day of his life, Moshe Rabbeinu completed the writing of the original sefer Torah.
He gave that Torah to the kohanim and instructed them to place it in the kodesh
ha'kodoshim near the luchos which were in the aron. At maamad Har Sinai there was a
national kabbolas haTorah, which required reading from a "sefer ha'bris." Rashi (in his
commentary on Parshas Mishpatim) quotes the Mechilta saying that the "sefer ha'bris" was
the Torah from Parshas Bereishis until Parshas Mishpatim. At the end of the forty years in
the midbar, Moshe Rabbeinu told B'nai Yisroel that from now on the sefer ha'bris consists of
the entire chamisha chumshei Torah. The Gemorah (Gittin 60a) tells us that kavod
hatzibbur demands that when we read keri'as haTorah in shul we must use a complete sefer
Torah which includes the entire chamisha chumshei Torah. Although leining from a klaf that
included an entire chumash (e.g., Devarim) would be considered keri'a mitoch haksav (as
opposed to b'al peh), nonetheless, because the bris was made with the tzibbur on the entire
Torah, whenever we lein b'tzibbur we require a complete sefer ha'bris, i.e., a klaf that includes
the entire chamisha chumshei Torah.

Chazal tell us (Shabbos 88a) that a second national kabbolas haTorah took place after the
occasion of neis Purim. The sefer ha'bris for that second kabbolas haTorah was Megillas
Esther. The Gemorah (Megillah 19a) tells us that if you have a Megillas Esther written
on klaf together with other sifrei kisuvim, although the reading is considered mitoch ha'ksav,
even the Megillas Esther section does not have the status of sefer ha'bris since the
other seforim included therein do not have the status of sefer ha'bris. Similarly, the

9
https://torahweb.org/torah/2018/parsha/rsch_vayelech.html

23
Rambam[1] writes that if one combines Torah, Nevi'im, and Kesuvim on one klaf, since
the Nevi'im and Kesuvim do not have the status of sefer ha'bris, even the Torah section loses
its status of sefer ha'bris. Therefore, if a tzibbur leins from such a Tanach, although it would
certainly be considered keri'a mitoch haksav it will constitute a violation of kavod hatzibbur.
If one reads the Megillah without a minyan it would be perfectly acceptable to read from
a klaf that includes other seforim as well; only betzibbur, out of kavod hatzibbur, do we
require that the Megillah we read from should have the status of a sefer ha'bris[2].

The simple reading of the chumash might imply that for the purpose of
the mitzvah of hak'hel a special sefer azarah had to be used. Some rishonim[3] state this
explicitly. Some[4] write that on Yom Kippur as well thr special keri'as haTorah that
the kohein gadol read in the Beis ha'mikdosh had to be from the sefer azarah.
The Mishna (Sotah 32a) tells us that although, strictly speaking, on all other occasions one
may recite the berochos on an aliyah in translation, for the keri'as haTorah of hak'hel and
that of the kohain gadol on Yom Kippur, the berochos had to be recited in the original
Hebrew. These two instances of keri'as haTorah are clearly Biblical mitzvos and therefore
were singled out by the Mishna with respect to their berochos.

This Sifrei comments on the possuk, "me'ona Elokei Kedem" (Devarim 33:27) that at one
point there was a question regarding the reading of the word: is it "mo'on" or "me'ona"?
The Chachomim checked into three seforim in the azarah. Two of them read "me'ona" and
the third read "mo'on", and they decided to follow the majority and established that the correct
spelling of the word should be "me'ona". Why didn't the Chachomim check all of
the sifrei Torah in the world to establish the correct spelling? Why did they only check the
three seforim which were in the azarah? Rav Soloveitchik explained that it would appear that
the halachic role of the sefer azarah is to preserve the accurate text of the chamisha chumshei
Torah[5]. For that reason, only the three sifrei azarah were checked into and not all the sifrei
Torah in the whole world. Just as the Rambam felt that the Aleppo Codex of Ben Asher was
the official accurate text of the sefer Torah during his lifetime, the halacha considers the sifrei
azarah as the official text.

The Rambam[6] quotes from the Tosefta that when you have a melech and he has a mitzvah to
write a second sefer Torah, that sefer Torah should be copied from the sefer azarah.
Apparently any sefer Torah which is copied from the sefer azarah becomes itself a sefer
azarah. It could well be that when the issue came up regarding the spelling of the work
"me'ona" the original sefer azarah that was written by Moshe Rabbeinu was already
in sheimos and the three sifrei Torah that they did check with were all copies of that sefer
azarah.

This season of the year is a most auspicious time for each of us to recommit ourselves to
upholding the Torah in its entirety and in a most authentic fashion, without distortions or
misrepresentations. The best way to latch on to the authentic version of Torah is to become
a talmid of one who has a masorah from someone else who in turn has a masroah etc., just as
any sefer Torah copied from a sefer azarah gains the status of a sefer azarah, for the sake of
preserving the authenticity of the Torah.

[1] Hilchos Sefer Torah, end of Chapter 7

24
 [2] This is discussed further, at length, in sefer Ikvei Hatzon, chap. 23

[3] Rashi and Shita Mekubetzes, Bava Basra 14b

[4] Rashi ibid, and see Tosafos ibid 14a

[5] See Yalkut Shimoni on Parshas Vayelech, that Moshe Rabbeinu was concerned that in the future the Torah would be
distorted

[6] Hilchos Melachim, beginning of chapter 3

Scroll of Esther, 19th century. Jewish Historical Museum

Rav Moshe Taragin writes:10

The Megilla is referred to as being both a sefer (book - Esther 9:32) and an iggeret (letter

10
https://etzion.org.il/en/holidays/purim/megillat-esther-patterned-after-sefer-torah

25
- Esther 9:26). The gemara our daf in masekhet Megilla (19a) notes this paradox when exploring
the manner by which the various leaves or scrolls of a Megilla are sown together. The first term
evokes a parallel to a halakhically prepared scriptural work (as opposed to printed matter), which
would require binding by sinews from kosher animals only. The latter term suggests a more
informal status, with no particular stipulation for binding materials.

The compromise struck by the gemara demands that a Megilla contain a minimum of three
sinews of a kosher animal, since it is considered a sefer. However, the rest of the Megilla may be
bound by cloth straps or strings since it is also referred to as an iggeret - a name which downplays
the comparisons to scriptural documents. There is some debate amongst Rishonim as to the exact
placement and function of these three sinews from a kosher animal, yet it is clear that a minimum
number of sinews is sufficient to capture the flavor of a sefer. The remaining pages may be
attached with other materials, since a Megilla is basically a letter (iggeret) rather than a formal
scriptural scroll.

This is the basic reading of the gemara - one which views a Megilla as a generic text with
certain scripture-like applications and conditions. In fact, the same gemara demands inks and
parchments typically employed for scriptural preparation (deyo as ink and kelaf or gevil as
parchment). These laws are derived from a separate source, thereby adding to the list of
“scriptural” requirements for a Megilla. Given its inclusion within the canon of Scripture and the
requisite halakhot of Scripture which apply to Megillat Esther, it is only natural that it be prepared
in the same fashion that Scripture is prepared. Given its reference as iggeret, a slight compromise
is struck allowing binding with different materials.

PARTIAL SEFER TORAH STATUS

The Ramban develops a different principle, endowing Megillat Esther with a partial status
of SEFER TORAH. The Ramban takes the word “sefer” as an allusion to a Sefer Torah and views
the Megilla as a cross between a Sefer Torah and an iggeret. The fact that the gemara demands
proper inks and parchments merely reinforces his notion that a Megilla possesses a partial Sefer
Torah status. A gemara in Megilla (16b) convinces him of this concept: the gemara demands that
a Megilla text be “graphed” with engraved outlines known in Halakha as sirtut (literally, engraved
indentations in the actual parchment indicating the division of lines). The gemara derives this rule
from a phrase in Megillat Esther (Esther 9:30) which refers to the Megilla as “divrei shalom ve-
emet,” striking a comparison between a Megilla and “amitah shel Torah” (the Truth that is
Torah). Just as a Sefer Torah (according to most Rishonim) must have engraved outlines,
similarly, must a Megilla. This further convinces the Ramban that a Megilla possesses a quasi-
Torah status.

The Ramban establishes a litmus test to determine whether the Megilla should conform to
standards of a Sefer Torah. Internal or structural elements should be patterned after a Sefer Torah:
the materials of writing, engraved outlines and manner of binding separate pages should all
resemble a Sefer Torah. Nevertheless, the actual execution of the mitzvah - READING
the Megilla - is NOT patterned after a Sefer Torah. For example, the reader from the Torah must
stand, whereas the reader of a Megilla may sit. Similarly, the Ramban believes, a Megilla is not
read as a scroll but rather as an unfolding text - similar to a letter or any other large informal

26
text. Yet another area of discrepancy between a Sefer Torah and Megilla is the manner of
reading. Whereas Torah text is read carefully, with proper sentence punctuation, an iggeret or
letter - and consequently a Megilla too - is read without concern for punctuation. Even if the
musical cadence ceases before the actual sentence concludes, the reading is valid since this mirrors
the informal manner of reading a letter.

In fact, the Ramban cites the Rambam who believes that a Megilla parchment does not
have to be prepared with kavana lishmah (appropriate intent) as a Sefer Torah’s parchment
requires. The lishmah demand mandates a level of cognitive intent to instill kedusha during
parchment preparation. As this addresses the type of PARCHMENT and not the actual TEXT, the
fidelity to Sefer Torah is suspended. The actual text must resemble a Sefer Torah, but both the
manner of reading as well as the type of background parchment deviate from the strict standards
of a Sefer Torah (to capture the role of letters and letter-writing in the story of the Megilla). The
Ramban himself disagrees with the Rambam, arguing that the parchment may be considered
intrinsic to the actual text and would warrant preparation in a manner similar to the preparation of
a Sefer Torah.

FULL SEFER TORAH STATUS

A more extreme stance is adopted by various other Rishonim. They take the analogy
to Sefer Torah literally and impart the full range of Sefer Torah laws to Megillat Esther. The most
prominent is Rabbenu Tam, cited by the Mordechai and the Rif. One consequence of this analogy
is the invalidation of a Megilla upon which illustrations or berakhot were drawn. Many
communities had a custom to decorate the Megilla by drawing Megilla-related scenes on the
margins. Similarly, the berakhot recited prior and subsequent to the recital were also reproduced
on the Megilla scroll. Even though the Rashba allows this practice (further highlighting the
informal iggeret-like nature of the Megilla), the Mordechai - presumably operating under the
influence of Rabbenu Tam - prohibited such additions, for they would compromise the requisite
status of Sefer Torah within the Megilla.

The Shibbolei Ha-Leket likewise asserted the full comparison to Sefer Torah and
demanded several sub-textual elements necessary in a Sefer Torah. For example, the letters of
the Megilla must be autonomous and unattached to adjacent letters (mukaf gevil), while the classic
crowns affixed to specific Torah letters must also be incorporated in a Megilla. These textual
features assure a full status of Sefer Torah! Presumably, according to Rabbenu Tam, the
parchment of a Megilla would be prepared with lishmah intention similar to the parchment of
a Sefer Torah (see the Beit Yosef Orach Chayim 691).

Yet another similarity between Megilla and a Sefer Torah is developed by the Maharik,
who requires that a Megilla be written by verbally reading a word from an extant Megilla and
proceeding to transcribe the word. A Sefer Torah must be written in this manner and evidently,
according to the Maharik, so must a Megilla since it resembles a Sefer Torah in every detail -
intrinsic and extrinsic.

27
 Esther, Chapter nine and ten: Purim, holiday of the book
Gidon Rothstein writes:11

Because I miscalculated, I didn’t get to all the chapters of Ester, and here I am, Purim day, trying
to get this out before the end of the holiday (if you were waiting breathlessly for the conclusion to
the story).

What They Saw, and What It Led To

11
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/ester-chapter-nine-and-ten-purim-holiday-of-the-book/

28
Megillah 19a records a debate about how much of the Megillah we have to read on Purim. R. Huna
suggested the various views disagreeing about whom 9;26 was referencing when it said, ‫ומה ראו‬
‫על ככה ומה הגיע עליהם‬, what they saw (that fueled their actions) and what resulted. For one view, the
question was what led Achashverosh to use items from the Temple at his feast; the answer was
that he came to believe Yirmiyahu’s prophecy that the Temple would be rebuilt in seventy years
had proven untrue. For his “seeing” that, Vashti was killed.

Other possibilities are that Mordechai saw the need to resist Haman’s setting himself up as a form
of alien worship) and a miracle came of it, Haman saw Mordechai wouldn’t bow to him and
decided to take on the Jews, leading to him and his sons being hanged, and Achashverosh bringing
the Book of Memories to be read, and the miracle that came of it.

This is all brought up to explain various answers to a halachic question, how much of the Megillah
to read. R. Huna is suggesting that we choose how much of the Megillah to read based on whose
vision we are interested in remembering. Especially since we read the whole Megillah, we end up
seeing all the possibilities, being shown that what we do or don’t see, and the results we get, is a
central question of Purim.

Making a Book and a Holiday

It’s not only complicated to see ahead of time how our actions will turn out, the Gemara gives us
ample reason to see that it’s also not easy to see in retrospect. When Ester asks to be included in
Tanach, the Bavli, 7a, has the Sages first protest that it will cause tension with the non-Jews around
them, but Ester points out that she’s made it into the Persian history books. Then they argue that a
verse in Mishlei implies that the Jewish battle with Amalek is only supposed to be written three
times (twice in the Torah, once in I Shmuel), not four.

They eventually find a source to expand that to include a mention in Ketuvim as well, and the book
is included. But the Gemara’s presentation of the back and forth reminds us of both that Purim is
seen as a flareup of the ongoing battle with Amalek, and that the leaders of the Jewish people
weren’t immediately certain of how to respond to this event.

Putting it in a book, for Rava, then shaped much of our experience of the Megillah. First,
in Megillah 18a, he notes that the Megillah refers to remembering these days (‫)והימים האלה נזכרים‬,
using the same verb as for our need to remember the wiping out of Amalek. Just as Hashem tells
Moshe to write that in the Book, the memory of these days also has to be taken from a book.

That book also has to be read in the right order, according to Rava, because the Megillah says these
days are “‫נזכרים ונעשים‬, remembered and done.” Just as “doing” happens in order (time’s arrow
only goes one way, in our experience), so “remembering” has to be in order.

It seems to me that Rava is telling us that it’s not enough to know what happened on Purim, not
enough to remember the story, not even enough to remember the whole story. One of the points of

29
putting it in a book, included in Tanach, was to show us that we need to remember the story in a
particular way, reading it from a text that gives it a permanence oral transmission can never match,
and reading it as given, not shaping our memory of it to our own purposes.

If I can go out on a limb, that might connect to Rava’s view, on 19a, that we read Megillah in an
open or walled city based on where we are for Purim. While we usually define residence by where
a person generally resides, for Purim purposes, all that matters is where we spend that holiday.
Since Rava holds that our Purim experience is shaped by the reading of the Megillah, it makes
sense that wherever we are for that reading is where we reside for that holiday’s purposes.

The Whiff of the Redemption

The distinction between cities that do or don’t have walls is oddly timed to the era of Yehoshua,
despite the miracle having happened in Shushan. In the Yerushalmi, R. Yehoshua b. Levi says that
it was dated to then to give honor to the desolate Land of Israel. Torah Temimah adds that
Yehoshua was the first to battle Amalek and was also the one who set the borders of Israel
(establishing which cities had walls for other purposes as well, such how long a homeowner has
to buy back a house sold within a walled city).

To me, that implies that Chazal set the definition of walled cities to place this event in the larger
picture of Jewish history, which started with Yehoshua. Our national experience of Purim is
structured to remember this event and relate it to Yehoshua’s original battle with Amalek, which
then led to the conquest and settling of the Land of Israel, including dividing cities between those
that are like fields and those that are walled.

This linking of this event to our other redemptions comes up again in 6b’s discussion of when we
should read the Megillah in years (like this one) where there’s a second Adar. We follow the
opinion of R. Shimon b. Gamliel, whom R. Yochanan sees as having read the Megillah’s words
“in every year” to mean that we should always read the Megillah in the Adar closest to Pesach, to
link the two redemptions to each other. We should always experience Purim in the context of
Pesach, a smaller redemption in the light of the larger one, a reminder that redemption isn’t
complete until we get to what Pesach was about, bringing us to Israel and the full restoration of
our national life, on the Land, in observance of the Torah and service to Hashem.

30
 WHY IS “LETTER-WRITING” SO IMPORTANT IN THE
MEGILLAH? 12

As the miracle of Purim develops, letters play an important role in the unfolding drama. All told,
five letters are composed and dispatched. The first two letters frame the odious plot: the first letter
which establishes Men as masters of the home and the second letter which decrees the
extermination of the Jews. As the tide turns letters continue to drive the narrative: the 3rd letter
authorizes Jewish self-defense while the final two letters enshrine the days of Purim as national
and historical holidays.
In fact, the authors and deliverers of these letters achieve an almost celebrity-like status.
Throughout the Megillah we encounter the sofrei hamelech or the royal scribes while we also
witness their partners – the “achastranim bnei haramachim” whose exact identity is vague but who
in general acted as couriers. The gemara in Megillah (18a) acknowledges that we read about these
strange achastranim without fully understanding their true identity. As long as we possess a general
sense of their function our reading is valid. Reading about letter couriers without fully
understanding who they were, merely stresses the prominence of these letter transporters. Even
though we can’t accurately identify these couriers they still dominate the storyline!!
Based on the literary centrality of “letters” in Megillat Esther, the gemara in Masechet Megillah
(19a) concludes that a scroll of Megillat Esther can be crafted in a less “formal” fashion that an
actual sefer Torah. Since Megillat Esther is referred to as a letter (igeret) it can be produced in a
less conventional and less formal manner. Typically, parchments of a sefer Torah are woven
together with sinews from kosher animals (giddin). By contrast, a Megillah can be woven with
synthetic threads as long as the overall book has at least three kosher sinews. To retain the informal
status of a “letter” the Megillah can be manufactured in a more lenient fashion than a sefer torah.
Elaborating upon this gemara, the Ramban (17a) allows certain leniencies in the actual reading of

12
https://jewishvues.com/articles/torah-from-israel-why-is-letter-writing-so-important-in-the-megillah/

31
the Megillah opposed to a more rigid reading from a sefer Torah. For example, the Megillah reader
may pause in mid-sentence without preserving the actual sentence structure. Similarly, Megillat
Esther is folded rather than rolled into a formal scroll!! The status of Megillat Esther as a ‘letter’
impacts the halachot of its construction as well as its recital. Evidently, the halachik identity of
Megillat Esther as an informal letter reflects the importance of letters and letter-writing in this
actual narrative of the Book of Esther.
To fully gauge the miracle of Purim it mustn’t be evaluated in a historical vacuum. Though its
exact date is unclear, our Chazal place it firmly within an interesting 18-year window of history.
70 years after the initial destruction of Yerushalyim, but only 52 years after the final demolition,
Koresh the Persian monarch authorized the rebuilding of the Beit Hamikdash. Though the project
was launched with much fanfare, it met with very stiff resistance from antagonistic local
inhabitants opposed to Jewish expansionism. Facing anti-Jewish pressure, Koresh suspended his
authorization and the project lay dormant until 18 years later when Darius II re-authorized the
mission. Within this 18-year period of “stalled redemption” the miracle of Shushan occurred. The
miracle in Shushan provided a second national thrust and completed a stalled redemptive process.
The miracle of Purim doesn’t occur in a historical bubble but participates in the national recovery
from the tragic exile some 60-70 years earlier.
When the Jews were expelled from Jerusalem, they forfeited more than just their Mikdash. They
lost sovereignty, land, army, culture and Jewish identity. One vital aspect of human identity is
language, and the Jews suffered a linguistic “denaturing”. As the Jewish people were no longer
relevant, their language became insignificant and even obsolete. For this reason, the entire book
of Daniel and the first half of Ezra are written in Aramic because the Hebrew language had lost
relevance. The books of Tanach which describe the Jewish decline are written in a foreign
language!
The irrelevance of Hebrew during this period is punctuated by the letter-writing of the Megillah
story. The first two letters of Megillat Esther are translated into every language imaginable – except
for one. It was crucial that the entire kingdom of 127 provinces understand the domestic status of
the husband as well as the genocidal decree against the Jews. To ensure universal comprehension
these letters were interpreted by vast teams of scribes and translators. However, these letters
weren’t translated into Hebrew because the language and the culture which had produced this
language seemed irrelevant. Jews had sunken into worthlessness and their “national plight” is
mirrored by their “linguistic plight”. At their darkest moment the Jews have no future and no
language.
Suddenly, events transform and HKB”H intervenes on their behalf. As they are redeemed, their
hopes rise, and their future becomes ascendant. Now that the Jews have national “horizons” their
culture once again is relevant, and their language is restored. The 3rd letter of redemption
authorizing Jewish self-defense are translated into every language INCLUDING Hebrew: v’el
hayehudim kichtavam v’chilshonam (Esther 8;9). As the nation arises their language once again
becomes relevant and the translation of letters into Hebrew signals that surge.
The cultural impact of translating letters into Hebrew should not be underestimated. Letters and
letter-writing very much represented the pulse of the burgeoning Persian empire. The previous two
centuries had witnessed the emergence of the first multi-regional empires stretching across vast
tracts of land and including different cultures and ethnicities. The Assyrians stretched their empire
across the entire Levant while The Babylonians extended their regime to Egypt in the south and to

32
modern-day Saudi Arabia in the east. Of course, the Persians greatly extended the global sweep of
their empire of 127 provinces from Hodu to Kush.
To maintain these vast empires by conveying royal decrees, letters and missives had to be
dispatched. No longer could personally messengers travel across a kingdom to verbally convey the
royal wishes. Letter writing became essential to maintaining authority and the letter writers became
an important part of the political establishment. Nevuchadnezar, who would ultimately dominate
the entire ancient world began his career as a courier in the Assyrian army. Evidently, the
appointments of letter-writing and letter-delivering were so prestigious that they were inherited. A
person could only function as an achastrun if he were the son of a ramach!! Interestingly, in
response to Esther’s plea to rescind his heinous letter of genocide, Achashverosh claimed that once
a letter is issued it cannot be rescinded. The royal authority of letters and written decrees must
remain impregnable and unassailable so that subjects of an empire scattered across the globe would
strictly and unconditionally adhere to any royal command. Rescinding a letter would topple the
long-distance authority which was necessary to maintain an extensive empire.
Letter writing was the ‘tech’ of that day and those who drove this rising field became cultural
icons. When belligerent letters are translated into every language but Hebrew it is obvious that
Jewish identity has become impotent. The Divine redemption spurs a revival of Jewish language
and the first stages of reconstructing Jewish identity. To capture this drama – the original absence
of Hebrew translation and the eventual revival of Hebrew- the Megillah stresses the letters and the
letter writing.
Upon his final return, Ezra ultimately reworks the Jewish language by switching the original fonts
of the Torah with new fonts knows as ketav ashuri (our current-day Torah fonts). Ezra – who
himself was a scribe- had a keen sense that the return to Israel must be accompanied by a revival
of the Hebrew language. This renewal demanded a reconstruction of the fonts of the Hebrew
language.
Returning to our homeland and to our history entails a complete rebuilding of Jewish culture and
identity. As language is essential to identity the restoration of the Hebrew language is key to the
revitalization of Jewish identity.

33
 The Megilla13

Megilat Esther is considered holy writ; therefore, it must be written in the way a Torah scroll is
written, in black ink on parchment. If it is written using something other than ink, or on paper, it
is invalid, and one who reads from it has not fulfilled his obligation. The hide from which the
parchment is made must be tanned for the sake of writing a Megilla. The individual sheets of
parchment must be sewn together with threads made of sinews. One must etch out the lines using
a stylus before commencing to write on the parchment, so that the words come out straight.
Furthermore, it must be written by hand, and the scribe must be mindful of the sanctity of
the Megilla.[10]

When writing a Torah scroll, we make sure that all of its letters are written according to their exact
configurations, that no letters touch each other, and, of course, that no letters are omitted or added
unnecessarily. A scribe should likewise be careful about all these things when writing
a Megilla. Be-di’avad, however, there is a difference between a Torah scroll and Megilat Esther:
one may not recite the berakha over reading the Torah if the scroll contains a mistake in even one
letter, but one may read from, and recite a berakha over, a Megilla that is missing some of its
letters, if a perfectly kosher scroll is unavailable. For example, if a scribe mistakenly omitted
several letters from a Megilla or wrote them incorrectly – or if he originally wrote the scroll
properly, but some of its letters faded over time – one may still use it to perform the mitzva, as
long as the main part of it is written properly. The reason for this is that the Megilla is called a
“letter,” indicating that its purpose is to tell the story from a written document, but it does not need
to be as precise as a Torah scroll must be. We learn from here that one fulfills his obligation as
long as the essentials of the Megilla are written properly, and on condition that one fills in the
missing words by reading them from a printed Megilla or by reciting them by heart.[11]

Technically, one may write a translation of the Megilla, with ink on parchment, for someone who
does not understand Hebrew, and by reading this translation, he can fulfill his obligation to read
the Megilla. For example, one who knows only English may acquire an English translation of
the Megilla, written in ink on parchment, and read from it (sa 690:8-11). We do not follow this
ruling in practice, however, since we do not know how to translate the words precisely. Rather,
one fulfills his obligation by hearing the Megilla in Hebrew even if he does not understand it, as
long as he has the intention to fulfill the mitzva of Megilla reading (sa 690:8, mb ad loc. 32, ahs ad
loc. 15).

[10]. A Megilla has the same status as a Torah scroll, as is clear from the Mishna and Gemara in Megilla 17a and 19a. One may
write a megilla on a gevil (roll of parchment) or on klaf (split parchment), but it is customary to write it on klaf. According to
Rambam, one does not need to tan the hide for the sake of the mitzva, but Rosh and most poskim rule that one must tan the hide
for the sake of the mitzva (Beit Yosef and sa 691:1). The Aĥaronim debate whether a woman may write a Megilla. Birkei
Yosef, Mateh Yehuda, and Pri Megadim posit that since a woman must read the Megilla, she may write one. R. Akiva Eger, Avnei
Nezer, and others maintain that she is invalidated from writing a megilla, just as she is invalidated from writing a Torah
scroll. Lishkat Ha-sofer 28:7 (by R. Shlomo Ganzfried, author of Kitzur sa) brings a support for those who permit women to write
a Megilla from the verse “Then Esther wrote” (Esther 9:29), the source from which Megilla 19a derives the law that a Megilla must

13
https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/05-15-09/

34
be written like a Torah scroll. He concludes that le-khatĥila, one should use a Megilla that was written by a man, in order to satisfy
all opinions. Be-di’avad, however, when the only available Megilla was written by a woman, one may read from it and even recite
the berakhot over it.

[11]. The rule is that one fulfills his obligation, be-di’avad, if he reads from a Megilla of which at least half is written properly,
provided that no part of the story is entirely missing and that the beginning and end are intact (sa 690:3).

Some maintain that if some of the words are written in a different language, the Megilla is invalid, because it is like a document
that is self-evidently counterfeit. Mateh Yehuda and R. Shlomo Kluger maintain that a Megilla is disqualified from use if letters
are missing or added in a way that changes the meaning of a verse, because it, too, is like a self-evidently counterfeit document. In
practice, though, most authorities maintain that mistakes do not invalidate a Megilla any more than erased letters do, as explained
in mb 691:6, 14. See also bhl 690:8, regarding the alternative opinion, and Ritva.

One should not write vowels, cantillation marks, or berakhot in the Megilla, but be-di’avad, when no other scroll is available, one
may read from such a Megilla and even recite a berakha over it (sa 691:9). A Torah scroll, however, is invalidated if vowels and
cantillation marks are written inside (sa, yd 274:7). There is a stringency regarding the public reading of the Megilla: If one reads
from a Megilla that is written together with other books of the Writings (Ketuvim), one does not fulfill his obligation. This is
because the miracle is not publicized this way, as it looks like one is merely reading from the Writings. An individual, however,
discharges his obligation when reading from such a Megilla (sa 691:8).

Some rule very leniently and allow one to read from an invalid Megilla (like the ones children use, which open like a scroll) with
a berakha, if no kosher Megilla is available (Roke’aĥ, Orĥot Ĥayim). According to most poskim, however, under no condition may
one recite a berakha on such a Megilla. Nonetheless, it is proper to read from it without a berakha (sa 691:10). mb ad loc. 26 adds
that even if the only Megilla one has is a printed book, he should still read from it, so as to remember the story.

Unrolling Megillah, folding like a letter

35
Rabbi Yaakov Goldstein writes:14

Unrolling the Megillah and folding it like a letter prior to the reading:[1]

The custom of all Jewry is that the reader unrolls the Megillah and folds it like a letter.[2]

When is the Megillah to be folded like a letter?

The Megillah is to be unrolled and folded like a letter prior to the start of the reading.[3] This is to
be done prior to the blessings that are said before the reading.[4]

When is the Megillah to be rolled back up?[5]

The Megillah is to remain [completely[6]] folded until the end of the reading. After completing
the reading, one is to roll up the entire Megillah and then say the after blessing of ‫[רב את ריבנו‬while
the Megillah is still lying in front of him[7]].[8] [Some Poskim[9] however rule that one may
choose to leave the Megillah folded while reciting the blessings and then roll it up after the blessing
is completed. Practically the Chabad custom is to say the blessing before rolling up the
Megillah.[10]]

How is the Megillah to be folded?

The Megillah is to be folded like a letter[11], [into three parts[12]].

Are also the listeners to fold their Megillahs?

The above law of folding the Megillah only applies to the Megillah of the Baal Korei and not to
the individual Megillah of a listener.[13] Nevertheless many listeners have the custom to also fold
the Megillah.[14] [Practically the Chabad custom is that also those listening to the reading of
the Megillah fold their scroll like a letter, into three parts.[15]]

Making sure the Megillah does not touch the floor:

One must beware that the unrolled Megillah does not touch the floor.[16] Furthermore one is to
prevent the unrolled Megillah from hanging over the side of the table over the floor.[17]

14
https://shulchanaruchharav.com/halacha/unrolling-megillah-folding-like-a-letter/

36
Summary:

The Megillah is to be unrolled and folded into three parts like a letter prior to
beginning the blessings over the Megillah. It is to remain completely folded until
the reading is complete. The Chabad custom is to begin rolling it back up only
after the after blessing has concluded.

[1] 690/17

[2] Michaber ibid; Admur in Siddur; based on Rav Haiy Gaon brought in Tur and so was custom in Spain, France and Germany,
and so ruled Rif, Rosh and Rambam.

Other Opinions: Rav Neturaiy Gaon [brought in Tur] writes that in two Yeshivos in Baval they would roll the Megillah like a Sefer
Torah.

[3] Bach; Taz 690/10; Admur in Siddur; Drashos Maharil [Hilchos Purim]; Teshuvas Maharil 56; Levush; Shiyurei Knesses
Hagedola 690/5; Peri Chadash; Elya Raba 690/12; Chayeh Adam 151/23; P”M 690 M”Z 10; M”B 690/56; Kaf Hachaim 690/102.

Other Opinions: The above is based on the Tur; Bach and other Poskim ibid that rule according to Rav Haiy Gaon one is to
completely unroll it before the start of the reading. However, many other Poskim rule that according to Rav Haiy Gaon one is to
begin with a rolled Megillah and unroll it as he goes along, leaving the read area unrolled. This is also clearly implied in the words
of the Michaber ibid which writes “The reader is to read and unfold…”. [Taz 690/10 in understanding of Michaber ibid] Practically
the Bach; Taz ibid and all Poskim ibid conclude the custom is to completely unfold it before the reading.

[4] P”M 690 M”Z 10; M”B 690/56; Kaf Hachaim 690/103; Admur in Siddur

The reason: The reason for this is because unrolling it between the blessing and the start of the reading would constitute an
interval. [ibid]

[5] Michaber ibid

[6] Otzer Minhagei Chabad Purim 87; See there that the Rebbe did not roll up the Megillah as the reading went along. This is unlike
Teshurah Chasunah 1995 that understood from a certain picture that the Rebbe rolled up the Megillah as he went along, and so
wrote Hiskashrus 36 p. 14 that it was a onetime occurrence. However, in truth after looking at a clearer picture of that incident it
comes out that the Megillah was not rolled at all and the end of the Megillah looks a bit rolled and hence they thought the Rebbe
rolled it as the reading went along. [Otzer ibid]

[7] Drashos Maharil Purim; Mateh Moshe 1005; Levush; M”A 690/19; Elya Raba 690/10; Chayeh Adam 154/25; M”B 690/57;
Kaf Hachaim 690/105

[8] The reason it is rolled before the after blessing: The reason for this is because it is a belittlement towards the Megillah to leave
it unrolled while the blessing is being said. [Drashos Maharil ibid; Elya Raba ibid; Chayeh Adam ibid; M”B ibid] Alternatively the
reason is because the after blessing is a mere custom and is not required due to the letter of the law. Hence in order to emphasize
the difference in Halachic weight of the two blessings we roll the Megillah before the after blessing. Alternatively, the reason is so
people do not think that the blessings are written in the Megillah. This is similar to the law regarding closing the Torah scroll while
the blessings are recited. [Rebbe in edited Sicha of Purim 1956 printed in Shevach Hamoadim 127; Shulchan Menachem 3/317]

37
If one already began saying the blessing: If one did not yet say Hashem’s name and simply said Baruch Ata, then he is to stop and
roll up the Megillah and then restart the blessing. [Drashos Maharil ibid; Mateh Moshe ibid; Elya Raba ibid; Chayeh Adam ibid;
M”B ibid]

[9] M”A 690/20 based on Shiyurei Kneses Hagedola 692; Seder Hayom; Beir Heiytiv 690/13; Ashel Avraham Butchach 692 [there
he writes that the listeners are specifically to roll up their Megillah after the blessing and the above law was only said regarding the
reader.]

The reason behind their ruling: It is not a belittlement towards the Megillah to leave it open during the blessings as the blessings
are in relation to the reading. Likewise, there is no need to emphasize the difference in Halacha between the before and after
blessing just like this is not done by the before and after blessings of Hallel. Likewise, the same way we allow the Megillah to be
open during the before blessings, without worry that people may think the blessings are written in the Megillah, so too by the after
blessings. [Rebbe in edited Sicha of Purim 1956 printed in Shevach Hamoadim 127; Shulchan Menachem 3/317; See Shaareiy
Halacha Uminhag 5/94]

Other Opinions: Many Poskim argue on this ruling of the M”A and Seder Hayom. [Drashos Mahril ibid; Mateh Mohe ibid; Elya
Raba ibid; Gr”an ibid; Kaf Hachaim 690/105]

[10] Rebbe in edited Sicha of Purim 1956 [printed in Shevach Hamoadim 127; Shulchan Menachem 3/317; See Shaareiy Halacha
Uminhag 5/94; Hiskashrus 1025 footnote 43] See Otzer Minhagei Chabad 106 that in conclusion the Rebbe directed the
congregation to roll the Megillah after the blessing in order to draw down extra Divine light of the Megillah into the blessings.

Opinion of Admur in the Siddur: Admur in the Siddur does not state when it is to be rolled up, despite the fact he mentions unrolling
it before the reading. This implies that Admur rules like the M”A that one can roll it up after the blessing. [Rebbe ibid]

The Rebbe’s personal custom: Some years the Rebbe began rolling up the Megillah immediately after the reading, as soon as
the after blessing began. He continued rolling it during the blessing and then stopped to say Shoshanas Yaakov and then
finished the rolling. [Otzer Minhagei Chabad 107] This is not a directive to the public. [Hiskashrus 1025]

[11] Michaber ibid

[12] Sefer Haminhagim [English] p. 170; Reshimos 177/4 in name of Rebbe Rayatz

Other Opinions: Many Poskim rule it is to be folded one page [Yeria] over the other. [M”B 690/56; Chayeh Adam 154; Ben Ish
Chaiy Tetzaveh 4; Aruch Hashulchan 690/22

[13] Bach; Elya Raba 690/12; Chayeh Adam 154/23; M”B 690/55

[14] P”M 690 A”A 18; Shaar Hatziyon 690/50; Kaf Hachaim 690/104 based on Drashas Mahril that if one is reading from his
Megillah to fulfill his obligation then he is to fold it [even if he is reading along with the reader] and certainly if he is reading
without a Minyan. However, see Likkutei Maharich that there is no need to fold it when one is reading it alone.

[15] Sefer Haminhagim [English] p. 170; The Rebbe there [footnote 683] mentions in footnote that perhaps the reason is because
one who has Kosher Megillah is to read along with the reader in order, so he does not miss one word, as rules P”M 689. [This is
similar to the inference of the Kaf Hachaim ibid from the Mahril.]

[16] Peri Chadash; Elya Raba 690/12; P”M 690 M”Z 10; M”B 690/56; Kaf Hachaim 690/103

[17] P”M 690 M”Z 10; M”B 690/56; Kaf Hachaim 690/103

38
The reason: As this is a belittlement for the Megillah. [ibid]

Writing and sewing Megillat Esther15

1. The Megillah is to be written with ink, on gevil or klaf. All the lines must be scored, as for a
sefer Torah. The hide does not need to be processed lishmah, although some say it does; it is
proper to be stringent (Magen Avraham).

2. The rules for the letter forms, being surrounded by blank klaf, and ḥak tokhot are all just as for
a sefer Torah; the custom is to add taggin as for a sefer Torah also. It is necessary to be precise
about the spellings (although post facto this does not invalidate it, as we know that if the sofer
omitted words from the middle and the reader supplied them from memory, the reading was
valid. If one found an extra hey in “la-yehudim” after the vav – see 12:2), and the lines must line
up straight down the egdes of the columns. One must write from a copy and say each word aloud
before writing it, as for a sefer Torah.
3. One must leave enough blank klaf at the beginning to wrap around the roll. The custom is not
to put it on rollers at either the beginning or the end.

4. All the paragraphs are setuma, and it is invalid if any of them are made petuḥa, although some
say it is valid.

15
https://www.hasoferet.com/halakha-for-scribes/keset-ha-sofer/chapter-28/

39
5. It is the custom in these lands to write the ten sons of Haman on a special page, with “Ish” at
the beginning of the top line and “Ve-et” at the end, with a space between, and then
“Parshandata” at one side, “Ve-et” at the other, and so on, with “Vayzata” at one side of the last
line and “Aseret” and the end. One must elongate the vav of “Vayzata,” and its head is bowed,
but straightened a little so as to slant upwards (Or Zarua, Peri Megadim) (and some say the
reader should dwell on it).

6. The custom of writing the ten sons of Haman in big letters is not fundamental, as there is not
an authoritative tradition to this effect. They do it because people generally write the Megillah in
long columns, but the ten sons occupy only eleven lines and must occupy the whole column, so
either one must leave a long gap at the bottom, or must leave large spaces between the lines, and
so they write in large letters to fill up the column. There isn’t a received tradition for using larger
or smaller letters in the other columns, but even so, this is different, because the ten sons are
written in a special column by themselves, so we shouldn’t be troubled if this column is in large
letters and all the other columns are in small letters. Nevertheless, if the sheets aren’t tall and the
form of the column wouldn’t be adversely affected by his using an average-size script like in the
other columns, it’s better to use average script (Sha-arei Ephraim, 6:55).

7. Where the Name is spelled out by the first or last letters of words, some scribes have the
custom to make those letters larger. They should be discouraged from this, but it does not
invalidate it, and it may be read from in all circumstances.

8. If a Megillah has vowels or musical notation or has blessings or liturgical poems before the
first column, it is not invalid, but one shouldn’t really put them in in the first place (Levush). If
the reader doesn’t know the music very well, and there is no-one there who knows how, he may
write the musical notation in or read it without music (Magen Avraham).

9. If a Megillah was written with the left hand, or by a woman or child, some say it is invalid and
some say it is valid.

10. The sheets are sewn together with sinews as for a sefer Torah, and we leave an unsewn space
at top and bottom as for a sefer Torah. If one doesn’t have enough sinew to sew the whole thing,
it is valid provided he can make three threefold stitches in each seam. There are many different
interpretations of “threefold,” so one must satisfy all of them: he must make three stitches at the
top, and three stitches at the bottom, and three stitches in the middle, and one stitch in the fourth
division on each side and may sew the rest with linen.

40
 Like a Scroll or Like a Letter
A Pictorial Note about Hilchot Sefer Torah in Contrast to Hilchot Megillah

Michael J. Broyde writes:16

One of the more interesting halachic discussions in the laws of megillah is the requirement that
when the megillah is read in public, it is to be read not as a scroll, but as a letter. As the Shulchan
Aruch states (Orach Chaim 690:17), “It is the universal practice of the Jewish people that the
reader spreads out the megillah and reads it like a letter.” The Eliya Rabba notes (as do many
others) that what this means is that one has to unroll the megillah from its scroll-like mode and
fold it over, one page over another like a letter. Any of us who has seen this done during the reading
of the megillah knows how awkward and unnatural a use of a scroll this is.

Click here to read more One who looks in the Rishonim sees almost no evidence that this is in fact
what was meant by the custom to read megillah as a letter. The practice is essentially unexplained
in terms of its mechanics by the Rishonim. The requirement is taken verbatim from the Geonim,
who use the phrase ‫( פושטה כאיגרת‬poshetah ke-iggeret) as if we clearly understand that phrase
intuitively; see for example Machzor Vitri 247; Shibolei ha-Leket, Purim 198; Rokeach, Purim
238; Taz, Orach Chaim 690:10. Even Mishnah Berurah (690:56) merely notes that the megillah
should not be rolled. He writes: “[The megillah] should be entirely spread out and not left rolled
up, but rather folded one column over another.”

16
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2008/03/like-scroll-or-like-letter.html

41
However, if one looks at the laws of a Sefer Torah in Orach Chaim 143:2, one finds an
interesting halacha. Mechaber writes that “If one writes a whole book of the Torah alone, even as
a scroll like a Sefer Torah, one may not read from it until all five books are bound as one.” Rama
adds: “Only if they [all five volumes] are written in the form of a scroll like a Sefer Torah; but
with our chumashim, even with all five volumes together, one may not recite a blessing on them.”
The reason advanced by the Mishnah Berurah and others for not using “our chumashim” is that
since they are not formed as a scroll, not tied with gidin, not written on parchment, and not written
according to all the rules of a Torah, they may not be used. This explanation—clearly directed at
explaining why our printed books known as chumashim may not be used—is absolutely true.
However, after having seen a very rare megillah, I am now convinced it is not the correct
explanation of the Rama.

The Mishnah Berurah cannot conceive of a Torah written according to all the requirements of a
Sefer Torah—written on parchment, by hand, with deyo, tied with gidin, etc.—save that it is not
rolled as a scroll. But a Torah in such a form could certainly exist. I recently saw an old megillah
that made this clear to me. It is written on parchment, ke-halacha, but folded accordion-style and
can be placed inside a folded cover, which the manuscript librarians at Emory tell me is known as
interleave folding of a scroll. Two photographs are reproduced below:

The advantage of such a format is obvious, particularly for a reference text. The interleave folding
makes flipping from one part to another much more convenient than using a Torah scroll, which
must be rolled from one part to another. (Of course, there may be disadvantages as well: In a Sefer
Torah, the written text faces a smooth, clean parchment surface, while with interleave folding, the
inked “pages” face each other, allowing for the possibility of rubbing or transfer.)

It is thus clear to me that Rama is dealing precisely with a work written by hand, on parchment,
and consistent with all the other halachot of a Sefer Torah, except that it is bound in book form.
Indeed, when one examines the Rishonim from where this halacha is derived (and one can find an
excellent synopsis in the Darkei Moshe on Tur, Orach Chaim 143 as printed in the back of the

42
Machon Yerushalayim edition), the crucial factor they speak of in invalidating such a chumash is
that it is not rolled like a Torah even if it written by hand, with deyo, on parchment. If it is not in
the form of a scroll, according to these many Rishonim, it may not be read from in public, even as
all other requirements of a Sefer Torah are met.

I also think that this halacha with regard to a Sefer Torah allows us to understand what is really
meant by the word ‫( כאיגרת‬ke-iggeret) in the context of megillah. A megillah need not be in the
form of a scroll to be kosher, but a Torah must be.

Thus, the megillah pictured above is indeed kosher. But were a Torah to be written in such a
fashion, it would be pasulaccording to Rama. Even if all the other halachot are followed, Rama
and many Rishonim maintain that a Torah must be in the form of a scroll which is rolled from
location to location in the text and does not have pages that can be turned. A megillah, however,
need not; indeed, when read in public, it must not, according to our common custom.

I further suspect that the Mechaber and Rambam disagree with the Rama in regard to a Torah and
maintain that a Sefer Torah written on a proper parchment surface otherwise consistent
with hilchot sefer torah that is merely folded in the inter-leave matter is in fact kosher for public
reading. That is why Mechaber does not quote this halacha, and also why (as is widely assumed
based on the omission of such in Hilchot Sefer Torah 10:1) Rambam denies the need for atzei
chaim on a Torah as a matter of actual halacha, rather than logical convention. A Torah scroll
folded as a book does not need such rollers. (For more on the dispute as to whether a Torah
needs amudim, see Yoreh Deah 278:2 and the comments in Pitchei Teshuva 278:3.)

These pictures provide an insight into what the Rishonim actually had in mind, I suspect, when
they spoke about megillah as a scroll, and what Ramban, Mordechai, Raavan and Rama intend to
prohibit when they insist that a Torah must be a scroll.

43
 Sefer and Iggeret: The Dual Nature of Megillat Esther

Rabbi Dr David Horwitz writes:17

17
https://download.yutorah.org/2016/1053/853831/sefer-and-iggeret-the-dual-nature-of-megillat-esther.pdf

44
45
46
47
 Purim of Walled Cities
Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir writes:18

The book of Esther relates that while all the Jews of the empire venged themselves of their enemies
on the thirteenth of Adar and made a feast on the fourteenth, the Jews of Shushan were granted an
additional day of requital and celebrated on the fifteenth. Therefore, the holiday for future
generations was also split between the two days. (Esther 9:18-21.) Purim thus has the unique status
of being on different days in different cities; this year, the fifteenth falls on Shabbat and so the
“walled cities” celebrate Purim over a three-day period.

The Megilla contrasts Shushan with “the unwalled cities”, suggesting that what was special about
Shushan was its wall. So, it would have been logical to make Purim on the fourteenth of Adar in
all cities which were unwalled at the time of the miracle, and on the fifteenth in cities which had a
wall, or even to distinguish between cities that are unwalled and walled in each generation.
However, the Purim story took place when Yerushalaim and its wall were in ruins. Such a ruling
would have given Yerushalaim and the land of Israel a status inferior to that of the walled cities of

18
https://outorah.org/p/20494/

48
Persia, or those of each era! So, our Sages gave a special importance to the land of Israel and ruled
that “walled cities” which celebrate Purim on the fifteenth of Adar are those which had walls when
Yehoshua led the Jewish people into the land of Israel. (Yerushalmi Megilla 1:1.) Practically
speaking, this gives a special status to Yerushalaim, the one city which has historical continuity
from the time it was walled at the time of the conquest.

Even though the entire Purim story takes place in the diaspora, and the land of Israel and
Yerushalaim are barely mentioned, our Sages read into the story an undercurrent of concern for
the holy land and city:
• The megilla tells of “varied utensils” which were used at Achashverus’s public feast; the Midrash
tells us that this included utensils looted from the Temple. (Megilla 19a.)

• Achashverus tells Esther that she may have any request “up to half the kingdom”; our Sages say
that “half the kingdom” was Yerushalaim, hinting to her that he would not agree to a request to
rebuild the Temple. (Megilla 15b.)

• The megilla tells of the rivalry between Mordekhai and Haman; the Midrash extends the rivalry,
explaining that Mordekhai lobbied to have the Temple rebuilt and Haman fought his initiative.
(Midrash Panim Acherim, second version, Esther 1:1.)

• The Tikkunei Zohar, explaining that Yom Kippurim is “a day like Purim”, points out striking
parallels between Esther’s approach to Achashverus and the Kohen Gadol’s service in the Temple
on Yom Kippur: On the one hand the fasting Queen Esther, dressed in special garments, entering
the King’s inner chamber at the risk of her life in order to bring salvation to the Jewish people; on
the other hand the fasting Kohen Gadol, dressed in special white vestments, entering the normally
off-limits inner sanctum of the Temple at the risk of his life (our Sages say that the danger was so
great that a rope was tied around the Kohen Gadol’s waist to drag him out if anything happened to
him) in order to bring us forgiveness (Tikkunei Zohar Tikkun 21).
This hidden theme of the Purim story has both historical and educational importance. It reminds
us that the Temple was ever in the consciousness of the Jewish exiles, even as they were immersed
in the court intrigues of Persia; and it induces us to view the Purim story in the perspective of the
larger currents of Jewish history, which while it encompasses exile and destruction is ultimately
based on the ideal of return and redemption, with Yerushalaim and the Mikdash at the center of
our national life.

49
 Reading and Carnival: On the Semiotics of Purim

Harold Fisch writes:19

19
Poetics Today, Spring, 1994, Vol. 15, No. 1, Purim and the Cultural Poetics of Judaism (Spring, 1994), pp. 55-74

50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
Scroll of Esther, Morocco, 18th century, The Magnes Collection

64
 Megillat Esther Confronts the Jewish People with their Past

Although the book of Esther seems to have “forgotten” important Jewish themes

like God, a closer look reveals that memory and biblical allusions play

an important role in how the book tells its story.

Dr. Orit Avnery writes:20

The Two-Part Structure of Megillat Esther

The composition history of the book of Esther, known in Jewish circles as the megillah (the scroll),
is a matter of scholarly debate.[1] Some scholars believe that the book of Esther combines two
sources: a liturgical text about Esther aimed at describing the Jewish attitude to non-Jews and
explaining the origin of Purim, and a historical text concerning the palace intrigues of Mordecai
and the persecution of the Jews in Shushan.[2]

Other scholars view Esther as a unified literary work with a concentric structure: the first part of
the work (ch. 1–5), in which Haman gains ascendency and the Jews are in danger, is undone by
the second, inverse, part of the work, in which the Jewish heroes, Esther and Mordechai, prevail
(ch. 6–10).[3]

However, it was composed, the book of Esther as we have it now has a clear point of transition:
chapter 6, in which the fate of the Jews begins to change.[4]

20
https://www.thetorah.com/article/using-memory-megillat-esther-confronts-the-jewish-people-with-their-past

65
Memory in the Megillah’s Pivotal Scene

Chapter 6 describes the night when King Ahasuerus was sleepless and requested that the “ ‫ֵסֶפר‬
‫( ”ַהִזְּכֹרנוֹת ִדְּבֵרי ַהָיִּמים‬book of remembrances, annals), be read to him. This book is called by this
name only here; in chapter 2 verse 23, it is called “the book of annals” (‫)ְבֵּסֶפר ִדְּבֵרי ַהָיִּמים‬. Nor is
“‫( ”ֵסֶפר ַהִזְּכֹרנוֹת ִדְּבֵרי ַהָיִּמים‬book of remembrances, annals) used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible.

Why is this unusual term, “book of remembrances,” used here? Moreover, how might bringing in
the book of remembrances alleviate the king’s sleeplessness?

Other Uses of Memory in the Megillah

The root ‫ר‬.‫כ‬.‫ ז‬appears in the Book of Esther in two other verses, one towards the beginning of the
book and one towards the end.

The King Remembers Vashti

In chapter 2, after Vashti is banished from the king’s presence and demoted from her position as
queen:

Timothy Beal, professor of religion at Case Western Reserve University, discerns in this verse a
sophisticated structure, with the king remembering three different things, each introduced by the
Hebrew word ʾet, in ascending order of length: first one word, then two words, and finally three.[5]

66
This structure, Beal suggests, emphasizes that Ahasuerus remembers, and that Vashti does not
allow herself to be forgotten. The king is burdened by his memories, and those around him try to
find a solution. Memory is here oppressive, and the rememberer is to trying to blur and obviate the
painful memory.

Remembering the Events of Purim

The root ‫ר‬.‫כ‬.‫ ז‬appears toward the end of Esther as well, concerning the Jewish people’s
establishment of the festivities of Purim:

The Narrative Arc of Memory

The theme of memory thus spans the megillah. In its first appearance, it is King Ahasuerus who
remembers, though he wishes to forget, and his advisors invest effort to help him drown his
loneliness in the search for a new queen.

At the heart of the megillah, in chapter 6, the king awakens (in two senses) and understands that
memory is vital for his continued existence.

By inviting Ahasuerus to a banquet with Haman, and then, instead of saying what was on her mind,
inviting him with Haman to a second banquet, Esther succeeds in arousing the king’s curiosity,
concern, and suspicion. This sequence of events leaves Ahasuerus feeling threatened, uncertain,
and anxious about the developments around him and the stability of his reign. In his anxiety, the
king turns to his book of remembrances to better understand his present situation.

67
Indeed, the opening of the book of remembrances symbolizes the turning point, where reality is
shaken, and the course of events is turned in the opposite direction. The king consults his book of
remembrances to draw strength and inspiration, realizing that the past is the key to deciphering the
present.

At the conclusion of the megillah, it is the Jews who remember and will commemorate the events
of Purim. Having barely defeated their foes, the heroes of the book understand the danger that
what they accomplished may be forgotten, so they establish Purim and its practices.

The Absence of Jewish Memory in the Megillah

The important place memory takes in the story contrasts with the book’s lack of any sign of Jewish
culture or behavior other than Mordechai’s refusal to bow before Haman is “because he is a Jew”
(Esth 3:4).[8] In all other ways, however, the Jewishness of the protagonists is invisible.

Names—The heroes of the story, Mordechai and Esther, are known by Babylonian names.
Although Esther also has a Hebrew name, Hadassah, no one outside the family seems to know it
or use it.

Food—Although Esther lives in the palace and is given “her rations” (‫)ָמנוֶֹתָה‬, no mention is made
of whether the food she eats is kosher. This is starkly different than what we see in the book of
Daniel, in which the opening chapter is all about how Daniel and his friends refuse to eat non-
kosher food:

68
Since Esther told no one, she was a Jew (2:10) she was not fed special food, and the Hebrew text
never hints that this was a problem. The Greek text has Esther claim that she has never “eaten at
Haman’s table…, honored the king’s banquet, nor drunk the wine of libations” (C28).

Marriage—The Jewish heroine, Esther, is married to a non-Jew. Of course, she had no choice in
the matter, but the Hebrew text nowhere intimates that this was problematic. The Greek text has
Esther say to God “you know that I abhor the bed of the uncircumcised one” (C26), while the
rabbis try to alleviate this problem by suggesting that she stayed motionless when in bed.[9] These
imaginative solutions only make the absence of any reflection on this in the Hebrew Esther more
apparent.

God—The name of the God of Israel is never mentioned in the Hebrew text of the megillah.
Traditional and modern commentators have explained this absence in many different ways,[10] but
it fits well with the lack of other Jewish identity markers to the book’s Jewish protagonists.

Prayer—Even when Esther calls for a fast, no mention is made of the need for prayer, which is
surprising since in a religious view of the world, fasting without prayer is meaningless. Contrast
the megillah’s description with that of Joel:

Similarly, the Hellenistic period book of Judith takes for granted that the two activities go hand in
hand:

69
 Not surprisingly, the Greek book of Esther “fixes” this problem by adding prayer into the scene
(C).[11]

Passover—The megillah makes no mention of Passover, even when important events, such as
Esther’s fast, happen on that day. The rabbis were keenly aware of this problem, and they insert
Passover customs into the megillah:

Yehud (Judea)—The megillah describes Jews as people living throughout Ahasuerus’ 127 land.
For example, when Haman gets angry with Mordechai, “Haman plotted to do away with all the
Jews throughout the kingdom of Ahasuerus” (‫;ַו ְיַבֵקּשׁ ָהָמן ְלַהְשִׁמיד ֶאת ָכּל ַה ְיּהוִּדים ֲאֶשׁר ְבָּכל ַמְלכוּת ֲאַחְשֵׁורוֹשׁ‬
Esth 3:6). When Haman wishes to convince Ahasuerus to let him kill all the Jews, he says,

70
Once Esther has secured permission for the Jews to defend themselves, Mordechai writes letters
informing the satraps that “The king has permitted the Jews of every city to assemble and fight for
their lives” (‫ ;ֲאֶשׁר ָנַתן ַהֶמֶּל` ַל ְיּהוִּדים ֲאֶשׁר ְבָּכל ִﬠיר ָוִﬠיר‬Esth 8:11). The Jews, of course, are ecstatic:

Yehud (the Persian province name of Judah) was one of those 127 lands under Ahasuerus’ rule,
yet not once does the text stop to reflect about the unique position of Jews who already returned
from exile and were even then living in Jerusalem.[13]

The absence of Yehud in Megillat Esther contrasts sharply with the biblical book of Ezra-
Nehemiah, which is focused entirely on the fate of Jews in Yehud.[14] Moreover, the one-time
Ahasuerus is referenced in this book, it is to note something specific to Jews living in Judea:

Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther has been widely identified as Xšayāršā, i.e., Xerxes, who reigned
during the years 465–486 B.C.E., some 60 years after the Edict of Cyrus, the return of part of the
nation to its land, and the dedication of the Second Temple in 516 B.C.E. [15] Consequently, the
disregard of the Jewish community in Yehud is especially perplexing.

71
Intertextual References to Biblical Passages

Although memory of Jewish traditions is absent on the surface of Esther, a hidden layer of memory
percolates beneath the surface. In fact, the literary presentation of the megillaharouses many
memories in the reader familiar with the Bible.[16] Literary connections have been found between:

• Esther and Sarah Abducted—The abduction of Esther among the virgins collected for
the palace (Esth 2) and the stories about Sarah’s abduction by foreign kings (Gen 12, 20).[17]

• Mordechai and Esau’s Bitter Weeping—Mordechai’s bitter weeping over the king’s
decree (Esth 4:1) and Esau’s bitter weeping over losing the blessing (Gen 27:34).

• Mordechai and Joseph—Both Mordechai and Joseph refuse daily cajoling to violate their
principles (Gen 39:10, Esth 3:4), and both end up as viziers in a foreign court.[18]

• Vashti and Joseph “refuse”—Vashti’s refusal to appear before the king’s drunken guests
(Esth 1:12) and Joseph’s refusal to sleep with his master’s wife (Gen 39:8).[19]

• Esther and Jacob’s Submission to Fate—Esther’s accepting the necessity of risking

death by appearing before the king unbidden (Esth 4:16) and Jacob’s accepting the
necessity of risking Benjamin’s death by sending him down to Egypt (Gen 23:14).[20]

• Esther and Moses—Both Esther and Moses were adopted, they were both brought into
the household of a foreign king, both of them save the Israelites from an existential crisis,
both of their stories end with immense victories on their side and a yearly festival
commemorating them.[21]

• Rest from Enemies in Joshua—The Jews rest from their enemies in the megillah (Esth
9:16) and the Israelites rest from their enemies in Joshua (Josh 23:1).[22]

72
 • Saul and Vashti Replaced with Someone Better—Ahasuerus’ promise to replace Vashti
(Esth 1:19) echoes God’s promise to replace Saul (1 Sam 15:28).

• Replaying Saul’s Destruction of Amalek—Themegillah’s killing of Haman the Agagite

while not taking from the booty (9:10, 15–16, 24–25) parallels the story of Saul’s taking
booty from Amalek and sparing their king, Agag (1 Sam 15).[23]

• Esther and Abigail/Haman and Nabal—The success of Esther and the fall of Haman
parallels the success of Abigail and the fall of Nabal (1 Sam 25).[24]

• Haman and Solomon’s Dedication of the Temple—When Haman leaves Esther’s first
party he is “‫( ”שֵׂמַח ְוטוֹב ֵלב‬happy and light-hearted; Esth 5:9), which is how the Israelites
are described, “‫( ”ְשֵׂמִחים ְוטוֵֹבי ֵלב‬See 1 Kgs 8:66, also 2 Chr 7:10), when they leave the
celebration of the Temple’s dedication.[25]

• Esther and Abishag—The story at the beginning of 1 Kings about Abishag parallels
Bathsheba and Nathan’s audience with the king.[26]

• Naboth’s Vineyard—The story of Naboth’s vineyard echoes the question of the king’s
responsibility.[27]

The book of Esther supplies the reader with a deluge of references to scriptural stories, much in
keeping with the style of the hyperbolic descriptions throughout the book. The proficient and
attentive reader can try to tie these earlier events into the megillah’s story to enrich its meaning.

Esther as a Book of Remembrances

Intertextuality in scripture and inner-biblical exegesis are certainly not unique to the megillah.
Nevertheless, this large and varied collection of allusions—situated in a composition about a
community of Jews who have been exiled from their land and severed from all trappings of
Jewishness, no less—makes Esther a unique book.

73
Thus, the book of Esther is a “book of remembrances”—not just because it tells the story of Purim
but because it contains so many allusions to other events in Jewish history as recorded in the
Bible.[29] These allusions contrast sharply with the content of the megillah, where all but the
sparsest allusions to Jewish values and practices are entirely absent.

What is the megillah’s goal in offering its readers such a dissonant presentation, focusing on
memory at three strategic points, filling the text with innerbiblical references, while at the same
time implying that the main characters are oblivious to virtually every Jewish practice and mark
of identity?

Memory and Action

To answer this question, we should first return to the three explicit treatments of memory and
commemoration. In each of the three verses where the root ‫ר‬.‫כ‬.‫ ז‬appears in the megillah, it is
juxtaposed to the root ‫ה‬.‫ש‬.‫ע‬. Here too there is a progression and an important process.

In the first instance, the king remembers what Vashti did. At the same time, no reference is made
to what he did, only “what was decreed about her,” as if this all happened without his doing.

The second instance begins with utter passivity on the part of the king—sleep deserts the king; the
book is read, as it were, of its own accord; the events are found to be written. Yet, this shifts once
the king hear the story of Mordechai saving him:

In the third instance, the juxtaposition is more pronounced, because Scripture emphasizes that the
days of Purim “are remembered and done” (‫ !) ִנְזָכּ ִרים ְוַנֲﬠִשׂים‬This is one lesson of the book: Memory

74
must come with action, with involvement, with presence in reality, with practical consequences
for the memories that are to be instilled.

Learning the Importance of Memory

Once the Jewish heroes of the book, Esther and Mordechai, realize that remembering the events
of Purim is crucial, they legislate this by writing them down in a “book of remembrances” and
creating a two-day festival to be celebrated each year on the anniversary of the events.

These characters, who seem otherwise uninterested in Jewish memory earlier in the book, come to
understand the importance of memory only through a long and painful process, which the reader
undergoes together with them. Nevertheless, the megillah hints at this importance throughout its
telling of the story.

Thus, the tension between the content of the megillah and the literary style of the megillah,
contributes to the drama of the story, foreshadowing for the readers the direction the message of
the book will take. But what exactly is the megillah’s message about memory?

Using the Past to Understand the Present and Mold the Future

Megillat Esther cries out that forgetting is impossible. Even if we exert the effort needed to
submerge ourselves into the present only, the megillah reminds us that we will be compelled to
confront our past in one way or another. Our memories will pursue us. It is better, implies
the megillah, to act with wisdom and creativity informed by the past and to turn that past into an
integral part of the present and future in such a way as to enrich our existence—for it is fruitless
to ignore the past.

The megillah expertly captures the complexity with which the past faces us. Remembering the past
is both obligatory and vital. Yet memory calls for action and dynamism, for repeated remingling
of the past in present existence and future challenges. Just as the bygone stories of Scripture cannot

75
be simply copied into the megillah, bygone events cannot be simply copied as they are into present
reality. Nor can they be ignored or forgotten. They must be remembered but transformed. This is
the difficult balance the megillah tackles by highlighting both manifest forgetfulness and subtle
memory.

Postscript

Our Two Powers

Berl Katznelson (1887–1944), one of the intellectual founders of Labor Zionism, aptly described
this internal oscillation between memory and forgetfulness:

76
Footnotes

1. In this article, I am discussing only the Masoretic text of Esther. For the Greek text, see Aaron Koller, “A More Religious

Megillat Esther,” TheTorah.com (2014); Jean-Daniel Macchi, Le Livre D’Esther [The Book of Esther] (Geneva: Labor

et Fides, 2016), 14–123, as the Greek versions have a number of expansions and are quite different. Concerning the

different theologies the different recensions suggest, see Elsie Stern, “Megillat Esther: A Godless and Assimilated

Diaspora,”TheTorah.com (2014).

2. For some versions of this approach, see, Elias Bickerman,Four Strange Books of the Bible: Jonah, Daniel, Koheleth,

Esther (New York: Schocken, 1967), 171–240; Albert Baumgarten, “Scroll of Esther,” Encyclopedia Judaica 14:1053;

Christoph Levin, The Old Testament: A Brief Introduction, trans. Margaret Kohl (Princeton: Princeton University Press,

2005), 161–164; Sarah Japhet and Zev Farber, “Unraveling Megillat Esther: How the Story Was

Developed,” TheTorah.com (2016). This theory has been widely criticized. See, e.g., Carey A. Moore, Esther, Anchor

Bible 7b (Garden City: Doubleday, 1971), 51; Edward L. Greenstein, “A Jewish Reading of Esther,” in Judaic

Perspectives on Ancient Israel, ed. Jacob Neusner, Baruch A. Levine, and E. S. Frerichs (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987),

225–243 [237–238]; Sidnie Ann White, “Esther: A Feminine Model for Jewish Diaspora,” in Gender and Difference in

Ancient Israel, ed. Peggy L. Day (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989), 161–177 [163].

3. See Jon D. Levenson, Esther, Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 7–9; Yehudah T.

Radday, “Chiasm in Joshua, Judges and Others,” Linguistica Biblica 3 (1973): 27–28; Jonathan Grossman, ‫ מגילת‬:‫אסתר‬

‫[ סתרים‬Esther: Scroll of Secrets] (Jerusalem: Maggid, 2013), 8–12.

4. On the structure of the book, see also Sandra B. Berg, The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes and Structure (Missoula, MT:

Scholars Press, 1979), 106–113.

5. Timothy K. Beal, Esther, Berit Olam (Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1999), 17–18.

6. According to Radday’s division, these two appearances of the root are located precisely at two parallel points in

the megillah.

7. Concerning the ungainly conclusion and the repetitions within it, see Orit Avnery, ‫עומדות על הסף שייכות וזרות במגילות רות‬

‫[ ואסתר‬Liminal Women: Belonging and Otherness in the Books of Ruth and Esther] (Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman

Institute, 2015), 113–114, 147–148.

8. Even this statement is unclear, since bowing before Haman does not seem to violate any obvious Jewish law or principle.

This explains why the answers offered in rabbinic interpretation are so diverse. For more on this, see Rachel

Adelman, “Why Did Mordechai Not Bow Down to Haman,”TheTorah.com (2015).

77
 9. “Esther was [motionless] like the ground of the earth” (‫)אסתר קרקע עולם היתה‬, b. Sanhedrin 72b.

10. Traditional exegesis identified allusions to the presence of God and explained God’s apparent absence by reference to

the secular nature of the megillah. Others have sought to learn from the absence of the divine name that the megillah did

not originate as a religious work. A third approach is that the absence of the name of God is a means of expressing a

theological position. In the reality of exile, where there is no direct revelation, faith becomes complicated. The story of

the megillah is the story of religious ambiguity: a person must choose to see and to feel the presence of God in his lived

reality. For a broader discussion and additional references, see Avnery, Liminal Women, 158; Stern, “Megillat Esther: A

Godless and Assimilated Diaspora.”

11. See Koller, “A More Religious Megillat Esther.”

12. A more expansive version of this midrash appears in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 49:

”,‫” אמרה לו “לך כנוס את כל היהודים הנמצאים בשושן וצומו עלי ואל תאכלו ואל תשתו שלשת ימים לילה ויום‬,‫“ותאמר אסתר להשיב אל מרדכי‬

.‫ואלו הן י”ג בניסן י”ד בניסן ט”ו בניסן‬

“Esther told Hatach to take back to Mordecai the following reply”—She said to him: “Go, assemble all the Jews who

live in Shushan, and fast in my behalf; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day”—and these are they: the thirteenth

of Nisan, the fourteenth of Nisan, and the fifteenth of Nisan.

‫ ואם אין ישראל לעשות‬,‫ אמרה לו זקן שבישראל ואתה ראש לסנהדרין ואתה אומ’ דבר זה‬,‫אמר לה מרדכי והלא יום שלישי הוא יום ראשון של פסח‬

,‫הפסח למי הוא פסח‬

Mordechai said to her: “But is the third day not the first day of Passover?!” She said to him: “Elder of Israel, head of the

Sanhedrin—yet you say this?! If there are no Israelites to observe Passover, then for whom is Passover?”

‫ מה הוא לשון ויעבור‬,‫ שנ’ ויעבור מרדכי ויעש ככל אשר צותה עליו אסתר‬,‫ושמע מרדכי את דבריה והודה לה מרדכי ועשה לה כל אשר צותהו‬

”‫ מלמד שעבר יום ראשון של פסח בלא אכילה ושתיה‬,‫מרדכי‬

Mordecai listened to what she said, and Mordecai deferred to her and did all that she had commanded him, as is said: “So

Mordecai passed along and did just as Esther had commanded him.” What is the sense of the diction “Mordecai passed

along”? This teaches that he passed the first day of Passover without eating or drinking.

78
13. Most scholars date Esther to the close of the Persian Period or the beginning of the Greek Period; see Adele Berlin,Esther,

in The Jewish Study Bible, 2nd ed., ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014),

1621; Lawrence Wills, “Rejoicing on Purim with a Jewish Novel,” TheTorah.com (2014).

14. Editor’s note: For more on this contrast, see Sara Japhet,“Survival and Revival: Megillat Esther and Ezra-

Nehemiah,”TheTorah.com (2015).

15. Editor’s note: For more on the identification of Ahasuerus with Xerxes, see part 1 of Mitchel First, “If Achashverosh Is

Xerxes, Is Esther his Wife Amestris?,” TheTorah.com (2016). For an overview of Persian history, see Zev Farber, “The

220-Year History of the Achaemenid-Persian Empire,”TheTorah.com (2017).

16. For a general discussion of this, see Jonathan Grossman, “‘Dynamic Analogies’ in the Book of Esther,” Vetus

Testamentum 59 (2009): 394–414; Jonathan Grossman, Esther: The Outer Narrative and the Hidden Meaning, Siphrut 6

(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011).

17. On Esther and Sarah, see Yair Zakovitch, ‫[ מקראות בארץ המראות‬Through the Looking Glass: Reflection Stories in the

Bible], ‫[ ספריית הילל בן חיים‬The Hillel ben Haim Library] (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1995), 65–67.

18. For these and other parallels between the Joseph story and the megillah, see Esther and the story of Joseph: see, Moshe

Gan, “‫[ ”מגילת אסתר באספקלריית קורות יוסף במצרים‬The Book of Esther in the Light of the Story of Joseph in

Egypt], Tarbiz 31 (5722 [1961]), 144–149; Berg, The Book of Esther, 123–142; Grossman, Esther: Scroll of Secrets,

257–259. The beginnings of this equation can be found as early as midrashic literature; see Esther Rabbah 7–8.

19. David Silber with Ben Zion Ovadia, ‫ השתקפויות מקראיות במגילת אסתר‬:‫[ אם לעת כזאת‬For Such a Time as This: Biblical

Reflections in the Book of Esther] (Jerusalem: Maggid, 2016), 54–55.

20. Silber, For Such a Time as This, 192.

21. Gillis Gerleman, Esther, Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982); Charles E. Hambrick-

Stowe, “Ruth the New Abraham, Esther the New Moses,” Christian Century, December 7, 1983, 1130-1134.

22. Arie C. Leder, “Hearing Esther After Joshua,” in The Book of Joshua, ed. Ed Noort, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum

Theologicarum Lovaniensium 250 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 267–279.

23. Esther and Saul: Moore, Esther, 37; Ariella Deem-Goldberg, “‫[ ”התשתית האמנותית במגילת אסתר‬The Artistic Foundations

of the Scroll of Esther], ‫[ ביקורת ופרשנות‬Criticism & Interpretation] 11–12 (5738 [1978]): 285–297; Beal, Esther, 25; Marc

Zvi Brettler, “Megillat Esther: Reversing the Legacy of King Saul,” TheTorah.com (2017).

24. Yitzhak Berger, “Esther and Benjaminite Royalty: A Study in Inner-Biblical Allusion,” Journal of Biblical

Literature 129 (2010): 625-644 [641].

25. The only other verse that makes use of these two terms is Deuteronomy 28:47:

.‫ ְבִּשְׂמָחה וְּבטוּב ֵלָבב ֵמֹרב ֹכּל‬ž‫ַתַּחת ֲאֶשׁר ל ֹא ָﬠַבְדָתּ ֶאת ְי־ֹהָוה ֱא•ֶהי‬

79
 Because you would not serve YHWH your God in happiness and light-heartedness over the abundance of everything.
This, however, is not adjectival, nor is it part of a story. Also, when Haman is commanded to honor Mordechai, King

Ahasuerus says ‫“ ַאל ַתֵּפּל ָדָּבר ִמֹכּל ֲאֶשׁר ִדַּבּ ְרָתּ‬let nothing you have said drop” (Esth 6:10). This formal phrasing is reminiscent

of what King Solomon says about God after building the Temple, ‫ְכֹּכל ֲאֶשׁר ִדֵּבּר ל ֹא ָנַפל ָדָּבר ֶאָחד ִמֹכּל ְדָּברוֹ ַהטּוֹב‬, “according to

all that he said, not one thing was dropped from all of his good words” (1 Kgs 8:56). See Amos Frisch, “ ‫בין מגילת אסתר‬

‫[ ”וספר מלכים‬Between the Book of Esther and the Book of Kings], Mehqerei Hag 3 (5752 [1992]): 25–35.

26. Yitzhak Berger, “Esther and Benjaminite Royalty: A Study in Inner-Biblical Allusion,” Journal of Biblical

Literature 129 (2010): 625–644.

27. Jonathan Grossman, “‫[ ”גזרות המן וכרם נבות‬The Edicts of Haman and the Vineyard of Naboth], Megadim 30 (5759 [1999]):

49–66.

28. Memory, as noted by Avi Sagi, has an active function. Avi Sagi, The Present Age: Looking at Jewish Thought

Today (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University; Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman Institute, 2017), 185.

29. It is not amiss to note that in this book of remembrances, God is “forgotten.”

30. Berl Katznelson, “‫אכזב‬-‫[ ”מקורות לא‬Sources Unfailing], in ‫[ כתבי ברל כצנלסון‬The Works of Berl Katznelson], 11 vols.

(Israel: Miphleget Poalei Eretz Yisrael, 1945–1950), 6:389.

80
 The Secret of The Whole Megillah
Mordechai Schiller writes:21

Yiddish is the mameloshen — mother tongue — of Jewish mothers, whose watchword is “Ess, ess,
mein kind — Eat, eat my child.” So, it’s only natural that Yiddish should be the most hospitable
of languages.
Journalist Charles Rappaport said, “I speak 10 languages — all of them in Yiddish.” Yiddish has
become as American as bagels and lox.
Maven, chutzpah, shmooze, and a pushcart-load of other Yiddish words got their American papers
and became full citizens of the English language.
But, somehow, the English expression “the whole megillah” lost its original meaning of scroll
and Megillas Esther.

21
https://hamodia.com/columns/secret-whole-megillah/

81
The first entry for the word megillah (no italics) in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is
traditional: “Each of five books of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Song of Solomon, Ruth,
Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther) appointed to be read on certain notable days, esp. the book
of Esther, read at the festival of Purim.”

Then the OED gives the slang definition: “(With allusion to the length of the megillah.) A long,
tedious, or complicated story; freq. in a whole megillah (after Yiddish a gantse megile). Also, the
whole megillah: the whole business, the whole thing.”

William Safire analyzed this new irreverent sense. “We deal here with the language’s attempt to
cope with totality. The whole is evidently never enough; colorful speech demands a whole
something.”
He compared “the whole megillah” to the whole shebang, the whole shootin’ match, the whole kit
and caboodle, and the whole enchilada.
(My kids used to say, “the whole entire thing.” Garner’s Modern English Usage called such
redundancy a “linguistic pitfall.” Who am I to disagree? I thought of it as a tautology, but Garner
nailed that as just another word for redundancy. You can’t be too careful.)

With characteristic self-deprecation, Safire wrote, “The Book of Esther is one of the detailed
megillahs, which drew yawns from some scholars, whose irreverent friends expanded the term’s
coverage to prolix prose and ultimately to anything too long and complicated: the Yiddish gontzeh
megillah is ‘the whole megillah,’ now ensconced in English and sometimes used by impatient
readers of this column to describe its exhaustive research.”

But what made megillah fall into the melting pot … and emerge with only a hint to its original
meaning? I have a hunch (somewhere between a notion and a theory) that it’s more than just
irreverence.
In a section of the Kedushas Levi called Arba Kedushos, Harav Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, zy”
a, gives a detailed analysis of the four mitzvos of Purim: the reading of the Megillah, mishloach
manos — sending gifts of food, matanos la’evyonim — gifts to the poor, and the seudah — the
festive meal.

Megillah, Rav Levi Yitzchak says, goes to the heart of what Purim is all about — revealing the
hidden miracle. The word Megillah itself means megaleh — uncover. Reading the Megillah
— seeing all the events leading up to Purim in context — connects the dots and reveals its true
nature as a miracle of cosmic proportions.

But why did it need to be revealed? Why was it hidden, different from other miracles?
The Talmud (Chullin 139b) asks a puzzling question: “How do we know about Esther from the
Torah?” And, without saying why we should even expect the Torah to mention Esther, who was
born centuries later, the Sages give an even more enigmatic answer: They quote the verse
(Devarim 31:18), “v’Anochi hastir astir Panai bayom hahu — And I will surely hide My Face on
that day.”

82
OK, so “hastir astir” sounds like “Esther.” But, unlike Mordechai Schiller, the Talmud doesn’t
give answers purely for the pun of it.

What does it mean?

The name Esther means to conceal. It symbolizes her crucial role — going undercover in the court
of Achashverosh to save her nation.
But in this story, where even G-d’s name is hidden, we have to dig still further for an answer.
The Be’er Mayim Chaim (Bereishis 12:15) says that by asking how we know Esther from the
Torah, the Sages are really asking, what is the source in the Torah that tells us G-d may conceal a
miracle within the forces of nature? And they answer that “I shall surely hide My Face” refers to
G-d hiding the “revealed miracle,” i.e., “My Face.”

From the sublime to the delicious, there’s a custom to eat “hidden” foods on Purim: kreplach
(dough filled with ground meat) or holeptses (stuffed cabbage). So, what about hamantashen, you
ask? I would say they reveal too much.
My brother Rabbi Nota Schiller, Rosh Yeshivah of Ohr Somayach, discusses the saying of the
Sages (Eruvin 65a) “When wine goes in, secrets come out.”

There is a fundamental difference between children and adults:

“Children are authentic the whole year and masquerade on Purim; adults masquerade the whole
year and are authentic on Purim!”
On Purim, we come out of hiding … and we get the whole Megillah.

83