Siman 690

The sages taught in the Mishnah (21a): One who reads the Megillah—standing or sitting. Rashi explained: If he wishes, he stands; if he wishes, he sits. Thus far his words. It is clear that even ab initio one may read while sitting. However, in the Yerushalmi it asks: What, only ex post facto, but not ab initio? And it answers that even ab initio, see there, because the version of the Yerushalmi is: "Standing or sitting—he has fulfilled his obligation," and so wrote the Ran. And this is the version of the Tur, who wrote: One who reads the Megillah standing or sitting—he has fulfilled his obligation, implying ex post facto etc., and in the Yerushalmi it says even ab initio etc. Thus far his words.

The Rambam in the second chapter, law 7, wrote: If one read it standing or sitting—he has fulfilled his obligation, even in public. However, one should not read it sitting ab initio in public, out of respect for the congregation. Thus far his words. And according to this, that which our holy teacher taught us in the Mishnah using the language of ab initio and the language of ex post facto is settled, namely: that not in public it is even ab initio, and in public specifically ex post facto. And so too, Reuven is permitted to read, and Shimon may recite the blessing. And so it is stated in the Yerushalmi there, that Rabbi Meir acted thus, see there. And the reader should not read the Megillah until they say to him "read." But if there is a permanent reader for this—he does not need to wait for the congregation's statement, since he is designated for this. And also two or more can read together. And even though two voices are not heard, nevertheless, because the Megillah is beloved, they pay attention, incline their ears, and hear. And nevertheless, the custom is not so. And the public should be careful to remain silent, and not to assist the reader. For since the public hears by heart or from a Chumash, and not from a kosher Megillah—we are concerned that the listener will hear from him and not from the reader, and he will not fulfill his obligation, as I will write in section 9.

The Rashba wrote in a response (siman 467): The listener must hear every single word from the reader. And anyone who holds in his hand a megillah that is not valid to read from—it is much worse than two people who read it, because he focuses his mind on his reading in that megillah. Thus far his words. That is to say: it is better that he hears by heart from the reader, or that he holds a valid megillah in his hand. For when he holds an invalid megillah, and he also says the words from his invalid megillah—he will not incline an ear to the reader. And it is not similar to two who read it, where one hears from the two—that is because he himself is not reading. This is not the case when he reads himself—he does not focus on the other reader, and behold he is reading from an invalid megillah. Therefore, it is good when holding a Chumash in his hand that he should remain silent, and only hear from the reader. And so wrote one of the early authorities: that when the chazzan reads the megillah—the congregation must remain silent and focus their minds on the reader (Beit Yosef). And one must warn the people about this, and see in section 9.

In the Mishnah (19a) they disagreed as to what is the obligation of the reading of the Megillah: for Rabbi Meir says all of it, and Rabbi Yehuda says from "A Jewish man." And we say in the Gemara: The halakhah is according to the words of the one who says all of it. And even according to the one who says from "A Jewish man" – it must be written in its entirety. And we learned from this that the entire Megillah must be written in completion. And prior to this they said: Our Rabbis taught: If the scribe omitted letters or verses in it and the reader read them... – he has fulfilled his obligation. And it asks from that which was taught: If there were blurred or torn letters in it, if their impression is discernible – it is kosher. And if not – it is invalid. And it answers: This is regarding all of it, this is regarding part of it. That is to say: regarding all of it, if its impression is not discernible – it is invalid, and regarding part of it – it is kosher. And according to this the Rashba asked: for here they said that when part of it is missing – it is kosher, and afterwards they said: it must be written in its entirety. And behold, until "A Jewish man" is a minority, and nevertheless it is invalid? And he answered: that there is a distinction between its beginning and its end and its middle. For at the beginning and the end – even with the omission of its minority it is kosher, and in its middle it is kosher up to its majority.

And ostensibly his difficulty is not understood: for what is the connection between one and the other? For certainly an entire matter that is missing—it is invalid even in its minority, and regarding this they said it must be written in its entirety. And that which they said that in its minority it is valid—this is regarding omissions of words or verses, or blurs or tears. And the term "omission" is not applicable to an entire matter, such as many verses one after another, for regarding this it is appropriate to say "deficiency," and in this it must be written in its entirety. But regarding one verse here and one verse there—to this the term "omission" is applicable, and all the more so regarding missing letters and blurs. And so it is explained from the words of the Rambam in the second chapter, see there. And it appears that the intent of the Rashba was also similar to this, that the term "omission" is not applicable at the beginning and at the end, only in the middle is the expression "omission" applicable. And at the beginning and end the expression "deficiency" is applicable. However, I say that even in the middle, regarding an entire matter, it is a deficiency and not an omission. And at the beginning and end, even in one verse it is a deficiency, and it is invalid. And perhaps in the deficiency of a word at its beginning or its end it is called an omission and not a deficiency, and it requires further study. And one must deliberate on this.

The Tur has another approach in this matter, as he wrote, and this is his wording: One must read it in its entirety, and from the writing. If one read it by heart – he has not fulfilled his obligation. Therefore, it must be written in its entirety before him. This is specifically ab initio, but post facto, if the scribe omitted words in it, even up to half of it, and the reader read them by heart – he has fulfilled his obligation. But in more than half, even if they are written, but they are blurred and their impression is not recognizable – it is invalid. Thus far his words. The Tur maintains: That which they said, "it must be written in its entirety" – this is ab initio. And that which they said, that when the scribe omitted words or verses up to the majority it is valid – this is post facto. This is the opinion of the Rosh there. (And that which they questioned the Rosh from that which was challenged against Rabbi Helbo – it is not a difficulty at all. See Taz, subsection 3.)

And our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 3 combined all the opinions together, as they wrote: And it must be written entirely before him ab initio. However, ex post facto, if the scribe omitted words in its middle, even up to its half, and the reader read them by heart – he has fulfilled the obligation. But if he omitted its beginning or its end, even a small part – he has not fulfilled the obligation. And even in its middle – specifically where he did not omit an entire matter. But if more than its half, even if they are written, but they are blurred and their impression is not recognizable – it is invalid. Thus far their words.

And now, according to whom do they hold? If according to the opinion of the Rashba, who distinguishes between its beginning and its end versus its middle—behold, he does not distinguish between lekhatchila and bidi'avad, nor between a complete matter and an incomplete matter. And if according to the Rosh—behold, he does not distinguish between its beginning and its end versus the middle, nor regarding a complete matter versus an incomplete matter. And if according to the opinion of the Rambam, who distinguishes between a complete matter and an incomplete matter, as I wrote in section 5—behold, he does not distinguish between lekhatchila and bidi'avad, nor between the beginning and end versus the middle. And it appears to me that they always held the Rashba as the primary view. However, they hold that it is certain that even the Rashba admits that lekhatchila it must all be corrected. And they do not need proof for this, for it is obvious that the hidur of the Megillah is that it be written entirely beautifully and entirely corrected. And also regarding that of a complete matter, which is pasul even in its middle—they hold that the Rashba would admit to this, as I wrote at the end of section 5, because the term "omission" does not apply to it, see there. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 5, and this is its explanation: That the Knesset HaGedolah raised a difficulty like the difficulty of the Taz, that how did the Rashba write that it is impossible to distinguish between lekhatchila and bidi'avad, based on the challenge from Rabbi Helbo regarding writing verse by verse, see there. And his words are puzzling: for here it is the majority, and even bidi'avad it is pasul. And to this the Magen Avraham answers: Who says there is a distinction between a majority and a minority? For in that of Rabbi Helbo this is not clarified, and why does he challenge: let us say this is lekhatchila and this is bidi'avad? And if because of the previous Baraita, where the Gemara distinguishes between all of it and part of it—behold, here he does not bring the Baraita. Rather, it is certain that one should not distinguish between lekhatchila and bidi'avad. Nevertheless, it still requires further study, for it is obvious that the Gemara relied on what it said previously adjacent to this. But in truth, the Rashba did not mention lekhatchila and bidi'avad at all, only the Ran explained it so. And it seems to me that the Ran interprets the Mishnah: "If he was writing it, expounding it, or correcting it" not like Rashi, who wrote: "or expounding it," but rather "writing it and expounding it or correcting it," see there in his commentary. And according to this, he would interpret that he already wrote it, but now he is going over it because it was not yet written properly. And according to this it works out well, see there. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

And we have already written that one who holds in his hand a megillah that is not kosher—he should not read along with the reader, but rather he should listen and remain silent, because we are concerned that another will hear from his mouth and not from the reader, and even he himself will not incline his ears to hear from the reader. And there is one who says that he himself is able to hear (Magen Avraham, subsection 6). And it is a wonder: Is it to say that another cannot hear from the shaliach tzibbur, but rather that it is possible that he will not hear from the shaliach tzibbur? And here too regarding himself. And that which the poskim stated the reason: "because of others," this is its explanation: that even if he himself says that he is certain that he will hear from the reader, nevertheless he should not do so because of others. But certainly he himself should also not do so, even if there is no other, such as where the reader is reading only for him—he should remain silent and listen. And so too, no person should assist the reader by heart. Therefore, those verses that the congregation reads, such as "A Jewish man," "And Mordechai went out"—the reader must read them after the congregation has finished, for by heart they have not fulfilled the obligation, and they must hear from the reader from a kosher megillah. (And according to what I have written—so it is in the Responsa of the Rashba that we brought in section 3.)

If one read it intermittently, that is: with interruptions, such that he read a little and paused, and read and paused, and read from the place where he stopped, even if the interruption was large, for several hours—he has fulfilled the obligation, and even if he spoke in the meantime. And they only rebuke him for his conversation, as I will write in siman 692. However, regarding the reading of the Megillah—he has fulfilled the obligation. And this is regarding the one who reads. But the one who hears, when he spoke in the meantime, and in the process did not hear some words from the reader—certainly he has not fulfilled the obligation. And he must read it another time from the place where he interrupted until its end. And if he was forced to interrupt, there are those who hold regarding the reading of Shema that he must return to the beginning when he paused for a duration sufficient to finish all of it, as I wrote above in siman 65. And it appears that also in Megillah the law is so. Or perhaps Megillah, since it is called a "letter"—even in such a case he does not need to return to the beginning, just as they were lenient for this reason when it was not written according to its halachic requirement. And it requires further study. And regarding the essence of this law, we explained there with the help of Heaven that according to the Rif and the Rambam, even due to a forced accident—he does not return to the beginning, see there.

But one who reads in reverse order has not fulfilled the obligation regarding the Megillah. This means: if he read the first verse, skipped the second, and read the third, and afterward read the second and the fourth—he has not fulfilled the obligation even if he read it all. It is as if he did not read it at all, and he must return and read from the third verse until its end, as it is written: "according to their writing and according to their appointed time"—just as their appointed time cannot be in reverse, for the fifteenth will never be before the fourteenth, so too their writing shall not be in reverse. And so it is written, "and these days are remembered and performed": just as performance cannot be in reverse, for if one makes the Purim feast, and mishloach manot, and gifts to the poor before the fourteenth, it is nothing; so too the remembrance of the Megillah in reverse is nothing (17a). Therefore, if he omitted one verse, such as the second verse, and began with the third—he must return to the second, and read from there in order the third and the fourth until its end. And it has already been explained that one must read it all from the writing, and if he read it by heart, he has not fulfilled his obligation. Therefore, if he read the second verse by heart, and afterward read the third from the Megillah—he has not fulfilled the obligation, and he must return and read from the Megillah from the second verse in order until its end. (And this is the intention of the Beit Yosef in section 7 who wrote this law once again. And the Magen Avraham in subsection 8 was astonished, and his resolution is difficult. However, his intention is as I have written, and it refers to the previous section. Examine closely and you will find it simple.)

A Megillah may be read in any language, provided that one understands that language and it is written in that language. For if it was written in Hebrew and he read it in a foreign language—behold, he is reading by heart. However, regarding the script, one need not be exacting as to which script it is written in. Therefore, if it was written in a translation, or in another language from the languages of the nations—only one who knows that language has fulfilled his obligation by reading it. And if it was written in Hebrew script, and he read it in the Aramaic language for those who understand Aramaic—he has not fulfilled the obligation, for behold, this is like one who reads by heart. And since the reader has not fulfilled the obligation—it follows that the one who hears from him has not fulfilled his obligation. And there is room to doubt: if the reader has already fulfilled his obligation, and he reads to fulfill the obligation for another from a Megillah written in a foreign language, and the listener understands the foreign language but the reader does not understand it, has the listener fulfilled the obligation or not? And it appears to me that he has fulfilled it, for in this case it is not relevant to say: since it is not effective for himself, how can it be effective for others through his reading? For certainly it would also have been effective for himself had he understood the language. And the absence of knowledge is not an essential deficiency in the reader such that he is unfit for this, for it is in his power to know when he learns the language.

And specifically in a foreign language, they must understand the language. However, an unlearned person who hears the Megillah written in the Holy Tongue, even though he does not understand the Holy Tongue at all – he fulfills his obligation by hearing it word for word, when the Megillah was written according to the law of sacred writings, according to the laws that will be explained in the next siman. And in the Gemara (18a) they brought proof for this: For if you do not say so, do we ourselves know the meaning of "ha'achashteranim bnei haramachim"? Rather, the mitzvah is reading and publicizing the miracle, and if so, even one who does not understand at all – also fulfills his obligation. And one should not say: If so, how is it possible to fulfill the obligation with a Megillah written in a foreign language for one who understands that foreign language? For it is impossible to translate into a foreign language "ha'achashteranim bnei haramachim," since we do not know what they are. And it must be said: That he shall write these words themselves without translation (see Beit Yosef). And even though according to this the writing is in two languages – we have not found a disqualification in this. And know that the Rambam validates one written in Greek like the Holy Tongue. And many disagree with him. However, even the Rambam himself in the first chapter of Tefillin wrote that the clear Greek language has already been lost and forgotten, see there. And it is simple that a Megillah in a foreign language must be written according to the grammar of that language, and on parchment, and with valid ink, and all the details that will be explained in the next siman.

From the Yerushalmi it is clarified that this matter of fulfilling the obligation in a foreign tongue for one who knows the language—is specifically when he does not understand the Holy Tongue. However, one who understands the Holy Tongue—does not fulfill the obligation in a foreign tongue. For it says there: A reader who knows the Holy Tongue and knows a foreign tongue—what is the law regarding him fulfilling the obligation for others who only know the foreign tongue? And it ruled there from the principle that anyone who is not obligated in a matter—cannot fulfill the obligation of the public. For since he himself would not fulfill the obligation in such a manner—he cannot fulfill the obligation for others either. And thus ruled the Ramban and the Rashba, of blessed memory. However, from the words of Rashi and the Rambam it is clarified that he has fulfilled the obligation. And the Ran lengthily questioned the words of the Ramban and the Rashba. And in the Responsa of the Rivash (siman 390), the Ran, of blessed memory, lengthily reconciled the words of the Yerushalmi according to Rashi and the Rambam. And in truth, there are variant versions in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of the second chapter of Megillah and the seventh chapter of Sotah regarding this matter, see there. And if it were written in two foreign tongues—one who understands both languages has fulfilled the obligation. But if he understands only one—he has not fulfilled the obligation, for that which is written in the second language is considered as missing for him.

And all this is according to the essential law. But in practice, it is entirely impossible to fulfill the obligation with a megillah written in a foreign language. In our days we have never heard of this, and it is nearly impossible. And it is not only necessary according to the one who holds that one who knows the holy tongue does not fulfill the obligation in a foreign language, but even without this the matter is difficult. For it must be written according to the grammar of that language, and if not—it is invalid. Furthermore: what shall he do with "ha-achashteranim bnei ha-ramachim"? For to translate them is impossible, as I have written, and to write them as they are in the megillah—behold, it is certain that ab initio one should not write in two languages. And even though in the megillah there are some expressions of Aramaic translation—this is not two languages, for the Aramaic translation is close to the Hebrew language. Furthermore: how is it possible ab initio to write in another language? Behold, it is certain that ab initio one must read it with the cantillation marks, and this is only in the holy tongue.

This is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 11: One must protest against those who read the Megillah for women in a foreign language, even though it is written in a foreign language. Thus far his words. And "for women" is not meant specifically, but rather because such was the custom in a certain place, as the Ribash wrote there. And the reasons are as I have written. And that which the Ran wrote there regarding this is well-stated, and this is his wording: Would not every person of understanding, even in worldly matters, choose the path that is most secure? How then shall we not do so regarding the commandments of the Holy One, Blessed be He? And we must only follow the paths of our holy ancestors. And regarding the likes of this it is said: "Do not forsake the teaching of your mother."

If one read it while dozing, since he did not fall into a deep sleep—he has fulfilled the obligation. And what is the definition of dozing? Drowsy but not asleep, awake but not awake, such that if they call him he answers, but he does not know how to return a logical argument. For even though it is possible that due to the dozing he does not understand well—nevertheless he has fulfilled the obligation as I have written, for even if he does not know the meaning—he has fulfilled the obligation. But one who hears while he is dozing—has not fulfilled the obligation, because he will certainly miss several words in his hearing. And it has already been explained that even if he missed a single word—he has not fulfilled the obligation. And there is no distinction regarding dozing between the beginning of sleep and the end of sleep (Taz subsection 8), unlike those who make such a distinction.

If he was writing the Megillah, meaning: he has a kosher Megillah before him, and he reads a verse from it and copies it into the Megillah he is writing, and likewise with every verse until its end; if he directed his heart to fulfill his obligation – he has fulfilled it. And even though he pauses with writing between verse and verse – we have no concern with it, for we have already written that he fulfills his obligation with pauses. And this is specifically when the Megillah from which he is copying is written entirely according to its law. But if he did not direct his heart to fulfill it – he has not fulfilled it, for even if mitzvot do not require intention, nevertheless, he requires the intention of its reading, for if not so, it is as if he did not read at all. And likewise, if there was an uncorrected Megillah before him, and he reads it to correct it – he has fulfilled it when he directed his heart to fulfill it. For even though it contains errors – it is not a hindrance in a Megillah, as I have written, for even if letters or words are missing – it is kosher if it is less than half of it. For therefore it is called an "epistle," and it is not similar in this to a Sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot, where even one letter is a hindrance. And likewise, if he reads the Megillah, and reads a verse and expounds it and explains it – he has fulfilled it when he directed his heart to fulfill it, and all is for the reason that has been explained. However, he should not pause during it with other matters when he expounds it, for it is forbidden ab initio to pause with other matters.

One who reads the Megillah must intend to discharge the obligation of the listener, and the listener must intend to fulfill his obligation through the reading of this person. And he should be careful to hear it in its entirety. If he missed hearing even a single word – he has not fulfilled his obligation. It is sufficient to intend to fulfill the obligation at its beginning, and he does not need to intend to fulfill it with every word. Also, if he did not intend the meaning – it is of no concern, as I have written. And that which the reader must intend to discharge the obligation of the listener – this is when he reads in a house before certain men or women, for then he must intend that all these listeners – he intends to discharge their obligation. But a sheliach tzibbur who reads in the beit knesset – even without explicit intent, his intention is for all the listeners, and even those standing outside behind the beit knesset, for to this end he was designated to be a sheliach tzibbur, for all the listeners to fulfill their obligation. And so we learned in Rosh Hashanah (27b): And likewise, one who was passing behind a beit knesset, or whose house was adjacent to a beit knesset, and heard the sound of the shofar or the sound of the Megillah, if he directed his heart – he has fulfilled his obligation, etc. But the intention of the sheliach tzibbur to discharge his obligation – is not necessary. And that which we said that the reader must intend to discharge their obligation – is because we hold that mitzvot require kavanah, as I wrote in siman 589 regarding shofar (Beit Yosef). And it is necessary to ask regarding this: according to the one who holds that regarding rabbinic mitzvot everyone agrees they do not require kavanah (Magen Avraham siman 60, subsection 3), and is not Megillah rabbinic? And it must be said that since it is from the Hagiographa – words of tradition are like words of Torah regarding this matter. However, according to what I wrote above in siman 60, section 6, that there are some of the Rishonim who said that regarding a mitzvah of speech everyone agrees that it requires kavanah, see there – it works out well with simplicity.

It is stated in the Yerushalmi in the second chapter: One is not exacting regarding errors. Rabbi Yitzchak and Rav Chananel were sitting before Rav. One read "Yehudim" and one read "Yehudiyim." And he did not make them repeat, even though one certainly erred, for regarding this that which it is called an "igret" is effective. And some say specifically regarding errors where the meaning does not change, such as "Yehudim" and "Yehudiyim." But where the matter changes, such as from "yoshev" to "yashav" and from "nofel" to "nafal," where this is in the past and this is in the present – one makes him repeat. And according to this I say that although it is a simple matter that if he erred in the trop one does not make him repeat, and likewise if he erred in mile'el and milra; nevertheless, in a place where the matter changes, such as "ba'ah lehavi et Vashti... velo ba'ah" which is mile'el as it refers to the past, but "u-vazeh hana'arah ba'ah el hamelekh" and likewise "ba'erev hi ba'ah" is milra as this is in the present, and if he changed it, it is like a change in the matter, and one makes him repeat. However, ex post facto, if they did not make him repeat – it appears that in all of them he has fulfilled the obligation, and even in "yoshev"-"yashav" and "nofel"-"nafal," since he said the primary parts of the words.

It is stated in the Gemara (16b): The ten sons of Haman and the word "ten" – one must say them in a single breath. What is the reason? All of them, their souls departed together. That is to say: even though they were hanged one after the other, nevertheless, by Divine Providence, their spirits expired all at one moment, in the manner of "Let sins cease from the earth, and the wicked be no more; bless the Lord, O my soul, Hallelujah." And it is simple that this is specifically ab initio, but ex post facto, if he paused between them – he has fulfilled his obligation. And ab initio, it is customary to say in a single breath from the beginning of "five hundred men and Parshandatha" until "ten." And "ten" is included, because the ten sons of Haman were captains of fifty over these "five hundred men" (Maharil). And ab initio, he should not pause even between verse and verse except for the duration of a breath. And between section and section he should rest for a few moments, for it must be read like a letter (Magen Avraham, subsection 17). And when he says "On that night [the king's sleep] was disturbed" – he should raise his voice, for there was the essence of the miracle (ibid.). And when he says "this letter" – he should shake the Megillah (ibid.). And in all these matters there is no indispensability, as is understood.

Since it is called a "letter," it is therefore the custom of all Israel that the reader spreads it out before its reading like a letter, to demonstrate the miracle. However, the listener, even if he holds for himself a kosher megillah – does not need to spread it out like a letter, and holds it rolled. And so did the Maharil (ibid. subsection 18). And the reader, after he finishes the reading – returns and rolls it all, and recites the blessing "Who pleads our cause," and this is not an interruption. Furthermore: for the blessing "Who pleads our cause" does not belong to the megillah, but rather it is a blessing of thanksgiving to the Holy One, blessed be He (ibid. subsection 19, and see Machatzit HaShekel). And afterward "Shoshanat Yaakov" is said. And according to the Yerushalmi, one must say there "Cursed is Haman, blessed is Mordechai; cursed is Zeresh, blessed is Esther; cursed are all the wicked, blessed are all the righteous." And one must say "And also Charvona, may he be remembered for good." And even though according to the Midrash, Eliyahu appeared in his likeness, nevertheless since he appeared in the likeness of Charvona – we shall mention him for good. (And as for why "Cursed is Haman" precedes "Blessed is Mordechai," it is because his wickedness was prior, and the matter is like "The memory of the righteous is for a blessing, but the name of the wicked" when they mention "shall rot." And I wonder that in the prayer books they did not print "Cursed are all the wicked, blessed...")

It is the custom that the congregation recites four verses of redemption in a loud voice, and afterward the reader repeats and reads them from the Megillah. For that which they recited by heart—they have not fulfilled the obligation. And these are they: "A Jewish man," "And Mordechai went out," "The Jews had light," "For Mordechai the Jew." And also "five hundred men" until "ten" and "ten" included—the congregation recites, because in this was the essence of the salvation. And the custom that the children strike "Haman"—it is an ancient custom. However, they should be careful not to strike with loud noises with large pieces of wood, for they disrupt the Megillah, and open their mouths in laughter and noises, and the listeners cannot hear properly. And if it is impossible to protest against them—it is better to read in his home with a minyan, even though in the synagogue there is a multitude of people and the glory of the King. But since the disruption is great—it is impossible to hear properly, and especially the women.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Rema, in section 17: They further wrote: that the children are accustomed to draw the form of Haman on wood and stones, or to write the name of Haman upon them, and to strike them one against the other, in order that his name be blotted out in the manner of "you shall surely blot out the memory of Amalek," and "the name of the wicked shall rot." And from this spread the custom that they strike Haman when they read the Megillah in the beit knesset. And one should not nullify any custom or mock it, for they were not established without reason. Thus far his words. And the custom is to strike when they mention "Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite" in the manner of "from the wicked comes forth wickedness, and from the root of a snake comes forth a viper." And any custom that was established according to the greats of the generation is a custom, and not a custom that they practiced on their own. And see what I wrote above in siman 468. And when they strike "Haman"—he should not read, and he should remain silent. (In Masechet Soferim at the end of chapter fourteen it is brought: that a custom that has no proof from the Torah is like one who errs in the weighing of judgment.)

The halacha was decided according to Rava (5a), that the Megillah in its proper time—we read it even in private. This is unlike Rav Assi there, who holds that ten are required, except for the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot who rules like him, and it is a minority opinion. And behold, from Rashi, and our teacher Tam whom the Tur cited, and the Ba'al HaMaor, it appears explicitly that even ab initio one does not require ten. For since on this day everyone reads—it is a pirsumei nisa even in private. However, from the Rif, and the Rambam, and the Rosh, and the Ramban it is explained that certainly for the hiddur mitzvah and for pirsumei nisa—even Rava admits that ten is preferable. And only when there are not ten is it permitted to read in private, and to recite the blessing over the Megillah before it and after it. And such is the custom of the world. And whenever there is a larger congregation—it is more of a hiddur, for "in a multitude of people is the King's glory." But if in the beit knesset it is impossible to hear well, because of the confusion of the beating of "Haman" and the like—it is better to read with ten in a house. And there is a doubt whether women join the ten, and it appears that they do not join. And if they read it in public, and some individual did not hear it—he may read it even ab initio in private, since they read it in that city with ten, and we do not trouble him to gather ten, which is a difficult thing, since everyone heard in the beit knesset. And we have already written that when the individual reads it in its proper time—he must recite the blessing over it at the beginning and the end. And it has already been explained that one must read in his house before the women and the maidens, if they did not go to the beit knesset, because their obligation is equal to the men in the reading of the Megillah.