And then this matnisin dibra de-yomama to read the Megillah as we do at night and then to study the Megillah to study the Chazals on the Megillah during the day. And then Rabbi Yirmeyah told them no דידי מפשטא לי מהא דחייא בר אבא כגון דאמרי אינשי עבר פרשתא דא ותנייה.
No the lishnota means to repeat. Does not mean from lashon Mishnah to study but rather to repeat to do something once and to be shoneh then to be meshalesh to do it a third time. So it doesn't mean to learn rather it means to repeat. So here the Sha'arei Teshuvah quotes and the Noda BiYehuda says that the חיוב מקרא מגילה ביום is midevrai Kabbalah whereas the chiyuv Megillah at night is only derabbanan. Only derabbanan. That there's no mention to us so it's a different takkanah. How do you stand according to how do you understand let's say until they made this takkanah so how could it possibly occur to anyone that רבי יהושע בן לוי meant that you don't read the Megillah during the day but rather that you learn the Megillah during the day. That's in reading the Megillah during the day is divrei Kabbalah. Divrei Kabbalah. How can the derabbanan at night somehow or other have I don't know transformed the חיוב קריאת המגילה ביום? So meila if everything's derabbanan okay so then it's not such a kashya. Not a kashya. Okay so what is the derabbanan? Maybe the derabbanan is to read the Megillah at night and to learn the Megillah during the day. But if the so what we're going to say now is self-contained. I think it is correct in its own right and perhaps it also it certainly sheds some light on this Gemara and maybe it even is meyashiv the Gemara according to the Noda BiYehuda. Maybe I'm not sure but it's lichora in its own right. Rambam says at the beginning of Hilchos Megillah he quotes the Gemara in Megillah daf gimmel the previous daf that מבטלין תלמוד תורה לשמוע מקרא מגילה. Okay that's a Gemara in daf gimmel. But then the Rambam adds which is not the Gemara קל וחומר לשאר מצוות של תורה שכולן נדחין מפני מקרא מגילה.
If you mevatel talmud Torah for mikra Megillah you certainly mevatel every mitzvah shel Torah mipnei mikra Megillah. So Rav Isser Zalman asks in Even HaEzel what kind of kal vachomer is this? The Rambam himself in perek gimmel Hilchos Talmud Torah quotes the Gemara in Moed Katan that when it comes to עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה so talmud Torah is inferior to all other mitzvos. By all other mitzvos it's always עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה no matter what the second mitzvah is. When it comes to talmud Torah if the other mitzvah is אי אפשר להיעשות על ידי אחרים and any chovas gavra is by definition אי אפשר להיעשות על ידי אחרים so then the din is that mafsikin to be mekayem the mitzvah. So when it comes to עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה so talmud Torah is inferior to other mitzvos. So ebai zei what kind of kal vachomer is it lish'ar mitzvos adaraba adaraba? Maybe you're only mevatel talmud Torah the same way the same way if I'm busy with a certain mitzvah so I don't have to be mevatel that mitzvah for the second mitzvah. But if I'm busy with talmud Torah and I have a chovas gavra I do have to be mevatel the mitzvah for that chovas gavra. So what kind of kal vachomer is it lish'ar mitzvos when on the contrary talmud Torah is kal from other mitzvos when it comes to the din of עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה that even though talmud Torah is the first mitzvah it is nidcheh for other mitzvos? That's the kashya in Even HaEzel. So lichora as follows. Tosafos there in Moed Katan on daf tes quotes the Yerushalmi the famous Yerushalmi which says that one exception to this rule that you're mafsik talmud Torah to do mitzvos according to the Yerushalmi is krias shema. That for someone who toraso umnaso so you're not mafsik. So you're not mafsik, you don't have to be maf... רבי שמעון בר יוחאי וחבריו, I'm not mafsik talmud torah for Krias Shema. זה שינון וזה שינון ואין מפסיקין שינון מפני שינון. What's the peshat? So lechora the Yerushalmi is saying as follows. The Yerushalmi is saying ba-meh devarim amurim that עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה doesn't apply to talmud torah is where the second mitzvah is a non-talmud torah mitzvah. But if the second mitzvah is another form of talmud torah, a particular form of talmud torah, meaning until now I was learning Bava Kamma and now it's zman Krias Shema, so now what am I being asked to do? I'm being asked to interrupt Bava Kamma and to read Parshas Va'etchanan, Parshas Eikev, Parshas Shlach, so then the din is, then you don't have to be mafsik talmud torah for other mitzvos. What's the, what's the sevara? So the sevara is pashut. How do you know in the first place that you have to be mafsik, that the din of עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה shouldn't apply fully to talmud torah? Why should ad raba, תלמוד תורה כנגד כולם? He-yitachen, why should talmud torah, why should talmud torah be inferior to other mitzvos when it comes to עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה? So the Gemara here in Moed Katan quotes pesukim from Mishlei. But lechora the Gemara doesn't mean that this is the real, the real makor. Because עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה is a din de-oraisa, right? The Gemara in Sukkah and Brachos darshens. And here the Gemara is just quoting pesukim from Mishlei. וכל חפציך לא ישוו בה, וכל חפצים לא ישוו בה.
It's hard to say that the Gemara really means that this is the makor. So what is, what is the makor then that עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה doesn't apply to talmud torah the way it applies to other mitzvos? So lechora the answer is very pashut. That talmud torah has to be al mnas la'asos, right? Mishnah in Pirkei Avos. Talmud torah has to be al mnas la'asos. If the talmud torah is not al mnas la'asos, so it's a chisaron in the talmud torah gufa. It's a chisaron in the talmud torah gufa. So now the Gemara says a simple sevara. The Gemara says a simple sevara. Ba-meh devarim amurim the Torah tells us עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה, ptur de-Rabbi Yosef. Because I'm busy with hashavas aveidah I don't have to be mekayem mitzvah tzdakah. We're neglecting mitzvah, not attending to mitzvah tzdakah doesn't, doesn't undermine my mitzvah of hashavas aveidah because they're independent mitzvos. But what happens if by neglecting the second mitzvah it undermines the first mitzvah? So then the sevara no sense is not going to be a din of עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה in such a case. So by talmud torah where the chiyuv is al mnas la'asos, so if a person will neglect all mitzvos, will neglect mitzvos because he's osek in talmud torah, so then that'll be a chisaron in the talmud torah gufa. And therefore the din of עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה doesn't apply to talmud torah the way it applies to other mitzvos. Okay. So ba-meh devarim amurim, ba-meh devarim amurim, talmud torah has to be al mnas la'asos. But where it's just talmud torah, one part of talmud torah versus another part of talmud torah, so then we come back to the klal that עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה that you're not mechuyav to switch from one shinun to another shinun. That's the Yerushalmi's yesod. Lechora the Rishonim have this Yerushalmi in mind when the Rif in Megillah says, Tosafos in Brachos quotes it, the Gemara in Brachos on daf ches says that during Krias Shema רב ששת הוה מהדר אפיה וגריס. During Krias HaTorah Rav Sheshes would be הוה מהדר אפיה וגריס. אמר אנן בדידן ואינהו בדידהו. So the Rishonim all ask that the Gemara in Sotah says how could Rav Sheshes, how could he do this? How could he continue learning during Krias HaTorah and he even turned his back to the Sefer Torah when the Gemara in Sotah says כיון שנפתח ספר תורה אסור לספר אפילו בדבר הלכה? So there are a few answers in the Rishonim. One of the answers is that Rav Sheshes was toraso umnaso. That's the answer of the Rif which Tosafos in Brachos endorses. So the question is so what that toraso umnaso, but עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה doesn't apply to talmud torah. So why, Rav Sheshes should have been mechuyav to interrupt his talmud torah for Krias HaTorah? So lechora the answer is with this yesod of the Yerushalmi. With this yesod of the Yerushalmi, dehaino that since Krias HaTorah... It is certainly what? Just Talmud Torah in another form. It's a specific form of Talmud Torah. So עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה does apply to what? It does apply to Talmud Torah. Now if we'll say that the chiyuv Kriyat HaMegilla is betorat Talmud Torah, so then the Rambam's kal vachomer would be very good. Because if the chiyuv Kriyat HaMegilla is betorat Talmud Torah, Megilla is part of Kitvei HaKodesh, it's part of Tanakh. If the chiyuv Megilla is betorat Talmud Torah, so then really what would we have expected? If a person is osek baTorah, does he have to be mevatel, does he have to be mafsik for Kriyat HaMegilla? The answer should have been no, the same way he doesn't have to be mafsik for Kriyat HaTorah, the same way according to the Yerushalmi he doesn't have to be mafsik for Kriyat Shema. Ela mai, the halakha is what? Halakha is that he has to be mafsik anyway. He has to be mafsik what he's learning to read the Megilla. So if that's the case, if really the din of עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה should have applied to Talmud Torah in this case, because it's Talmud Torah versus another form, a specific form of Talmud Torah, and nevertheless the din doesn't apply, so that's a קל וחומר לשאר מצוות של תורה. That would be a קל וחומר לשאר מצוות של תורה. So now that would be good pshat in the Rambam. It would also if it's correct, if what we're saying is correct, it would also give us a perspective on the famous Bahag. Famous Bahag who says that nashim cannot be motzi'ot anashim because nashim chayavot b'shmiah and anashim chayavim b'kriya. So the question is meikha tesei, why should it be, if there's a chiyuv Megilla on anashim v'nashim, so meikha tesei that there should have been this distinction drawn that one have a chiyuv kriya, the other have a chiyuv shmiah? It's a very strange thing. It's a very strange thing. Ela mai lidvareinu it's takeh very good because if the chiyuv kriya for anashim is betorat Talmud Torah, so then nashim are never metzuvot in Talmud Torah. Nashim are never metzuvot in Talmud Torah. Beneichem velo benoteichem, so al korkhakha the chiyuv nashim is going to be different. If the chiyuv anashim in mikra Megilla has nothing to do with Talmud Torah, it's coincidental that as it were that mikra Megilla is that the Megilla is Kitvei HaKodesh, v'khulu v'khulu, but it's not betorat Talmud Torah. So then I don't know, it's takeh tzarikh iyun what the reason is that there should be, I mean there are other answers, but what the reason is that there should be a difference between what the chiyuv anashim is versus the chiyuv of nashim. However lich'she'timtza lomar that the chiyuv of anashim is betorat Talmud Torah, so again that formulation was clearly not applicable to nashim. So nashim have to have a different basis for their chiyuv. So anashim chayavim b'kriya, nashim chayavot b'shmiah. משל למה הדבר דומה what the Gemara says in Chagiga by Hakhel. So as anashim ba'im lilmod, that nashim is ba'ot lishmo'a, and taf is litein skhar l'mevi'eihen. Litein skhar l'mevi'eihen. So l'chora there too you have the same discrepancy of lilmod versus lishmo'a, and l'chora there too the p'shat is the same. That for anashim it's a chiyuv Talmud Torah. So the Torah as it were is extending the chiyuv Talmud Torah and saying that now we're telling you on this particular day at this particular time what you should learn. Ordinarily the Torah doesn't tell us what to learn when. Torah tells us to learn. But now the Torah is coming and telling us that on Yud Daled Adar, the Torah divrei kabbala m'drabbanan is telling us that on Yud Daled Adar we should study bedafka we should begirsa d'askata, that should be our Talmud Torah. So clearly again that chiyuv can't include nashim even if nashim because of אף הן היו באותו הנס are going to be chayavos, of course it has to be a different geder, geder hachiyuv. And be'emes it would be exactly parallel to what you find in Chagiga legabei mitzvas Hakhel. Okay. Be that as it may, so before we come to the kasha on the Noda B'Yehuda, just in the Gemara per se, even if the whole thing is just drabbanan, so be'emes the hava amina is forgetting the Noda B'Yehuda, the hava amina in the Gemara is very strange. What was the hava amina? That it's two totally different mitzvos, that there's one mitzvah at night and there's another mitzvah during the day. It's very strange. I mean the pasuk which רבי יהושע בן לוי quotes about אלקי אקרא יומם ולא תענה ולילה ולא דומיה לי, so how is this pasuk an asmachta for having Megilla at night and in the day? So Rashi says זכר לנס שהיו צועקין בימי צרתם יום ולילה. So even the pasuk suggests that the night and the day should be basically the same performance, right? What's the smach, the asmachta in the pasuk is what? Is that hayu zo'akin day and night. Hayu zo'akin day and night. So it's very strange that they should have understood רבי יהושע בן לוי to say that based on that we have asmachta for the fact that m'drabbanan you read the Megilla at night and you study the Megilla in the day. Two totally different mitzvos. Ella mai, if you say like the Rambam l'chora is saying that at night when you read it, it's also betoras Talmud Torah. By Torah she-b'chsav, by Torah she-b'chsav so the Rav says and the Shulchan Aruch HaRav says that by Torah she-b'chsav there's a kiyum Talmud Torah even if a person doesn't understand. If a person reads any part of Tanach, since the words themselves are Torah by Torah she-b'chsav, not just the ideas but the very words themselves, so a person has a kiyum hamitzvah of Talmud Torah even if he doesn't understand the words. Even if he doesn't understand the words. So then it's very good that according to the hava amina, no the hava amina is not wild at all. The hava amina is very logical. חייב אדם לקרות המגילה בלילה בתורת what? Betoras Talmud Torah. And then the Talmud Torah continues in the day, how? By studying it. Not just by reading it, now by studying it, be'iyun, with the drashos Chazal to understand it. No, kama shma lan it's the same Talmud Torah. The same Talmud Torah at night it should be the same in the day. But the hava amina is a very, very reasonable one because it's not that we're totally changing the mitzvah because the mitzvah when it's kriya also represents Talmud Torah. And finally maybe, again this part I'm not sure about, but maybe that also helps us understand the Gemara according to the Noda B'Yehuda, that the chiyuv divrei kabbala of Megilla is Talmud Torah. So maybe what the sovar mina held was that you can be yotzei that Talmud Torah either betoras kriya or betoras limud, either בתורת קריאה שהמגילה or betoras limud haMegilla. It's clear that in the day there's a chiyuv m'divrei kabbala of Megilla and there's no way a din drabbanan at night could in any way undermine that or could in any way undercut that. Ella mai, the chiyuv Megilla in the day is what? Is a chiyuv Talmud Torah. So maybe that chiyuv Talmud Torah can be fulfilled also through limud, not just through kriya, and if that's the case once having read it at night betoras kriya, maybe aderaba maybe what רבי יהושע בן לוי is telling us is that we bedafka should, should do it betoras limud during the day, kama shma lan no, that's not the p'shat at all. Okay, I don't know about the last, the last step. But the rest l'chora is So Tosfos, it's interesting, Tosfos justifies the Shehecheyanu purely on in the day purely on the basis of Mikra Megillah, right? We're accustomed to, you know, someone gives a clap because as mentioned that the Shehecheyanu in the day is also justified by the Shalach Manos and the Matanos L'evyonim which we didn't do at night. But Tosfos doesn't introduce that. Tosfos justifies the Shehecheyanu purely on the basis of the kriya in the day, and they say that the kriya in the day is ikkar. What does it mean? It means like this: it means that we would have thought there's no Shehecheyanu in the day. How you going to make a Shehecheyanu? I just did the same mitzvah 12 hours ago. Kamaschma lan no, what you did 12 hours ago is a pale comparison to what you're doing now, because the ikkar mitzvah is bayom. Ikkar mitzvah is bayom. And Tosfos quotes rayas to it. They give a comparison to Sudas Purim, nizkorim v'naasim, מה עיקר עשייה ביום אף זכירה כן. L'chora, I don't know why Tosfos doesn't quote it, but l'chora at least according to the Gemara has in daf yud tes, the Mishnah and Gemara have in daf yud tes, the way Rashi understands the din is as follows. The Mishnah says, בן עיר שהלך לכרך ובן כרך שהלך לעיר אם עתיד לחזור למקומו קורא כמקומו ואם לאו קורא עמהן. אמר רבא לא שנו אלא שעתיד לחזור בלילי י"ד אבל אין עתיד לחזור בלילי ארבעה עשר קורא עמהן.
So according to Rashi, which is what it says in Shulchan Aruch, the Gemara means as follows. You have someone who lives in Yerushalayim, right? So in Yerushalayim Purim is on Tes Vav. And he goes to Tel Aviv where Purim is on Yud Daled, or vice versa. So when does he observe Purim? When does he observe Purim? So the Mishnah says as follows: if the guy from Tel Aviv, well, let's take the other case. If the guy from Yerushalayim goes to Tel Aviv, so does he observe Purim on the 14th or not depends upon whether or not he is planning on leaving before the morning of the 14th, right? אמר רבא לא שנו, meaning that a בן כרך שהלך לעיר observes his own Purim, meaning the Yerushalmi who's visiting in Tel Aviv still observes Purim on the 15th, is לא שנו אלא שעתיד לחזור בלילי י"ד. He's going to be leaving Tel Aviv to go back to Yerushalayim in the night of the 14th. אבל אין עתיד לחזור בלילי ארבעה עשר, but if he's not planning on leaving Tel Aviv until the morning of the 14th, so then korei imahen, even though what? Even though he's... it doesn't matter where he's going to be on the 15th. So again, the Yerushalmi who's visiting in Tel Aviv, so it depends upon whether or not his plans are to leave Tel Aviv before amud hashachar of yud daled. That's what it's talyu on. If his plans are to still be in Tel Aviv amud hashachar of yud daled, so then he's chayav in Megillah on yud daled, k'din ben ir. If his plans are to have left Tel Aviv before amud hashachar, so then even though he's there the entire night of yud daled, so nevertheless he's not chayav in Megillah and he'll read the Megillah on tes vav. Similarly, what happens if you have a ben... if you have the guy from Tel Aviv who's visiting in Yerushalayim? So there too Rashi says it will depend upon where he's planning to be the 15th in the morning. If the guy from Tel Aviv who's visiting in Yerushalayim plans on still being in Yerushalayim tes vav in the morning, so then he'll read the Megillah on tes vav. If he's planning on leaving Yerushalayim before tes vav in the morning, so then even though on yud daled he's in Yerushalayim, he'll read the Megillah then. He'll read the Megillah then. So in order to be nidon as a ben krach to read the Megillah on the 15th, you have to be planning on being in the krach not the night of the 15th but the morning of the 15th. And according... and in order to be nidon k'ben ir and to read the Megillah on the 14th, you have to be in the ir the morning of the 14th not the night of the 14th. So l'chora, that's a very, very strong raya for what Tosfos is saying. Why is the koveia the morning rather than the night? And we're talking about Mikra Megillah here, it's not maileh if you would say we're talking gabbei... If anything, the impression you have is that everything else is nigrar basar hamigillah. So why is the morning the kveiya and not the night kveiya? Ella mai, according to Tosfos, no, that's very good, because since the ikar kriya is in the day and the mitzvah at night is that you should read twice, is that you should have a second time. It just so happens that chronologically the second time comes before the first time, as it were. But the ikar kriya is in the day. But the mitzvah at night is again just to have a second kriya, an additional kriya, so then it's very good what the Gemara says here on Yud Tes that in terms of making a kveius, whether or not a person is nidon k'ben ir or k'ben krach, that it's the morning that determines.