Siman 689

It was taught in the Tosefta of Megillah (chapter two): Everyone is obligated in the reading of the Megillah: Kohanim, Levites, Israelites, emancipated slaves, chalalim, netinim, mamzerim, a man-made eunuch and a natural eunuch, one with crushed testicles or a severed member—all of them are obligated, and they fulfill the obligation for the public… Women, slaves, and minors are exempt, and they do not fulfill the obligation for the public. Thus far its words. And we hold that women are also obligated, even though it is a time-bound commandment, because they too were part of that miracle. And the wording of the Tosefta is also not correct, for since they are exempt—it is obvious that they do not fulfill the obligation for the public. Therefore, it appears that it should say: they are obligated, but they do not fulfill the obligation for the public. Our teacher, the Tur, wrote thus in the name of the Bahag, and it is written thus in the Shulchan Aruch in the name of "there are those who say." And the reason: because this is not in keeping with the dignity of the congregation, just as with a Sefer Torah—a woman does not read in public because of the dignity of the congregation (see Magen Avraham, subsection 5). And another reason for this will be explained in section 5.

And all of these: chalalim..., a saris..., a petzua daka... – it is not understood what the novelty is in this, and what logic there would be that they should be exempt from the reading of the Megillah, such that it informs us that they are obligated. And perhaps because it is written regarding the Megillah: "The Jews established and accepted upon themselves and upon their seed," and I would have said that the obligation is only upon those who have seed, and according to this, a saris, and a petzua daka, and a kerut shofcha, who are not fit for seed—are exempt. And likewise I would have said that we require valid seed, to exclude chalalim, netinim, and mamzerim, who are invalid seed. It informs us that this is not a requirement. And the obligation of emancipated slaves is because it is written: "and upon all those who joined themselves unto them." And therefore converts as well (in ancient times) are obligated in Megillah. And slaves who are not emancipated—their law is like a woman in the entire Torah. And the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch wrote "emancipated," and it implies that those not emancipated—are exempt. However, it can be said that these are included in the category of women. (In the Magen Avraham, subsection 2, and in the Machatzit HaShekel he wrote: that according to the explanation that "they too were in that miracle," that the miracle was performed through them—slaves are not obligated. And if it is from the perspective that they too were in danger—they too are obligated. See there, and see the Bach.)

And since women are obligated, therefore virgins who have reached twelve years and one day are obligated to hear the reading of the Megillah. And every man must read in his home before the women and the virgins, or they should go to the women's synagogue. And in the Yerushalmi it is brought that Rava Yehoshua ben Levi would gather the members of his household and read before them. And from here they are accustomed in some places to bring male and female minors to the reading of the Megillah (Tur). Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 6 wrote that it is a beautiful custom, see there. But they should be careful not to bring very young children, for they disturb the concentration of the listeners, and also to warn them that they should stand in their place, and listen and remain silent. And a minor who has reached the age of chinuch—the father is obligated by law to train him. The Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch wrote: And we train the minors to read it, see there. And it is simple that this is not meant literally, and the intention is that they should hear the reading of the Megillah. (And it is possible that the intention is actual reading, so that they will be proficient in it.)

Whether one who reads, or one who hears from the mouth of the reader – he has fulfilled his obligation, provided that he hears it all from beginning to end. And specifically when he hears from the mouth of a reader who is obligated in its reading, for then even if he already read it and fulfilled his obligation – he can read for others as well; according to the law of all blessings of the mitzvot, that even though he already fulfilled [the obligation] – he may discharge [the obligation of others]. But one who hears from someone who is not obligated in the matter, such as from the mouth of a deaf-mute, an insane person, or a minor – the one who hears from them has not fulfilled [his obligation]; for anyone who is not obligated in the matter – cannot discharge the obligation of one who is obligated in the matter. And there is one who permits in the case of a deaf-mute (Bach), and it is not the primary [view]. Rather, even ex post facto it is invalid (Taz subsection 1; and from Magen Avraham subsection 3 it implies that he agrees with the Bach, and one should be stringent). And specifically one who is completely deaf. But one who is hard of hearing, and does not hear except by means of a loud voice, or by means of a tube – he discharges [the obligation of others] with his reading, and he also fulfills [his obligation] even though he did not make it audible to his ear (Sha'arei Teshuva in the name of Shevut Yaakov and Pri Chadash, see there).

And ostensibly, since a woman is obligated, she should also discharge men with her reading. Nevertheless, some say that women do not discharge men. And the reason is due to the honor of the community, as I wrote in section 1. Therefore, she does not discharge even an individual, for they did not differentiate (Magen Avraham, small subsection 5). And there is another reason for this: for behold, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2 that some say if a woman reads for herself, she recites the blessing "to hear the megillah," as she is not obligated in its reading. Thus far his words. And the explanation of the matter: for the Mordechai at the beginning of Megillah brought that the Bahag's version is: women are obligated in hearing the megillah, but not in its reading. And according to this, the Tosefta that we brought in section 1, that women are exempt from the reading of the megillah, is well-settled, because her obligation is only in hearing. And according to this, it is well-settled why they do not discharge men, because they are not obligated in the reading. But the essence of the matter is not understood: for why are they obligated in hearing, but not in reading? And it appears to me that the Bahag holds that it is impossible to say that by virtue of the reason that "they too were in that miracle," there should be a complete obligation like a man. For if so, why do we need for the obligation of matzah for women the juxtaposition of "do not eat chametz" in Pesachim (43b)? Let us say it is by virtue of the reason that "they too were in that miracle" (Tosafot Megillah 4a). Rather, certainly by virtue of this reason it is not a complete obligation like a man for reading, but hearing is sufficient. And also regarding Chanukah one can say so, that their obligation is not in lighting but in seeing the Chanukah candle, unless she has a husband, for she lights on behalf of the husband. And therefore, they do not discharge men with their reading. However, they do discharge women, since their obligation is equal. (See Magen Avraham, small subsection 6, in the name of Midrash HaNe'elam: that even for herself a woman should not read, but should hear from a man. And it must be said that he holds that reading was not instituted for them, and it requires further study. And the opinion of Rashi and Tosafot at the beginning of Arachin is that they discharge even men, and such is the opinion of many poskim and the Rambam.)

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 3: An androgynos may discharge the obligation of his own kind, but not one who is not of his kind. A tumtum, and one who is half-slave—even his own kind he does not discharge. Thus far their words. And the reason is because with an androgynos—they are all equal. This is not the case with a tumtum, as this one could be male and that one female. And so too a half-slave—he does not discharge a full freeman, for the side of slavery does not discharge him. And this law is in the Tosefta at the beginning of Megillah. And it appears that this is only according to the method of the Ba'ag, that women do not discharge men. For if not so, why does an androgynos not discharge one who is not of his kind, and why does a tumtum not discharge another tumtum? And there is one who says that this is worse than a certain female, because we require that it be recognizable whether he is male or female (Beit Yosef). And that which an androgynos discharges his own kind—is because it is recognizable to all that he is a creature unto himself (ibid.). And therefore also a half-slave and half-freeman—does not discharge a freeman, even though he is obligated from both sides, nevertheless since the side of slavery is not recognizable on its own, and the side of freedom on its own—he does not discharge a complete freeman. But for himself—he discharges. For according to the one who holds that a woman does not discharge others—behold even for himself he would not discharge, for the side of slavery cannot come and discharge the side of freedom. And this is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote, that there are those who say that even himself he does not discharge, and he must hear from others. Thus far his words, for this is according to the Ba'ag that a woman does not discharge a man. But that which he does not discharge another freeman, and so too that a tumtum does not discharge another tumtum, and an androgynos does not discharge one who is not of his kind—this is even according to the one who holds that a woman discharges a man (Magen Avraham subsection 8 and subsection 9). But in truth, how forced this is, and it appears more likely that according to Rashi and Tosafot all these laws do not exist. And the halacha is not like the Tosefta according to our Shas (Bach). And there is clear proof for this matter: that the Rambam did not mention these laws at all, see there, because he holds like Rashi and Tosafot that women are equal to men. If so, also a tumtum and an androgynos—discharge certain males, and so too a half-slave whose law is like a woman (so it appears in my humble opinion).

One who hears the Megillah from someone from whom he is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit—he has fulfilled his obligation, for commandments were not given for enjoyment. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: In a place where there is no minyan, if one knows and the others do not know—one discharges the obligation for everyone. But if everyone knows—each one reads for himself. Thus far his words, for he reasons that the fact that everyone fulfills their obligation through hearing, even when they are proficient—this is with a minyan of ten. But not with ten—one does not discharge the obligation of his fellow, unless his fellow is not proficient in reading, for it is like "a scribe blesses and an ignoramus fulfills his obligation." But he does not discharge the obligation of the proficient one. And he compares this to prayer, and not to other blessings of commandments. But there are those who disagree on this, for in any case—one discharges the obligation of his fellow, as it is a commandment like all commandments. And this is not a "matter of sanctity" that would require ten. On the contrary, in such a case it is much better that one should read for everyone, because of "in the multitude of people is the King's glory." Nevertheless, if they wish—each one may read for himself when there are not ten here, but not that it must specifically be so (Magen Avraham subsection 10). And such is the custom.