Siman 691

The Megillah is called a "sefer," as it is written: "and it was written in the sefer," and therefore its writing is like a Sefer Torah. This is what we learned in the Mishnah (17a): If it was written with sam, or with sikra, or with kumos, or with kankantum; on paper, or on diphtra – he has not fulfilled the obligation, until it is written in Ashurit, on the sefer, and with deyo. Therefore, one only writes the Megillah with deyo, on gevil or on klaf like a Sefer Torah. And so it is in the Yerushalmi, the first chapter of Megillah: And if he wrote it with gallnut water or with kankantum water – it is kosher. However, for gallnut water one requires gumma (Turei Zahav). And if he wrote it with other types of dyes – it is invalid, for we require deyo, just as in a Sefer Torah. And it requires sirtut like the Torah itself, meaning to rule every single line, not like the one who says that sirtut of the top line is sufficient. (Levush and Magen Avraham, and the Gra and the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger contested them. And so wrote the Darkhei Moshe.)

The Rambam ruled that it does not require tanning lishmah. However, Rabbeinu Tam ruled that it requires tanning lishmah, and so ruled the Rosh, the Tur, and most of the poskim. The reasoning of the Rambam appears to follow his own system, as he ruled in the first chapter of Hilkhot Sefer Torah that a mezuzah does not require tanning lishmah, for only a sefer Torah and tefillin require tanning lishman. Consequently, a megillah is no better than a mezuzah, as it is simple that its sanctity is not more stringent than a mezuzah, even though it is called a "sefer." But all the poskim disagree with him regarding mezuzah, and therefore regarding megillah as well it requires tanning lishmah, and such is the primary ruling (the Gra).

If it was written on paper, or on hide that is not processed, or according to most poskim when it is not processed lishmah, or if he wrote it not with ink—it is pasul. And likewise, if a Cuthite or a min wrote it—it is pasul. And it appears that a woman is also pasul for the writing of the Megillah, even though she is obligated in it, just as she is pasul for the writing of a Sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot; even though she is obligated in mezuzah, and likewise Megillah (the Gara). And there is one who permits (Birkei Yosef, cited in Sha'arei Teshuva). And so it appears to me: for granted regarding a Sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot, we derive "and you shall bind... and you shall write"—all who are included in binding are included in writing, and all who are not included in binding are not included in writing. And consequently a woman, since she is not included in the binding of tefillin—she is not included in writing even regarding a mezuzah, although she is obligated, since it is one parsha with tefillin. But regarding Megillah, this does not apply. And on the contrary: since she is obligated—certainly she is kosher for writing. For behold, she is permitted to make tzitzit, and a sukkah, and a shofar, even though she is exempt from them, and all the more so Megillah, which she is obligated in. And so it is explained from the Tur, and Shulchan Aruch, and the Rambam, and all the poskim who did not mention a woman to disqualify her regarding Megillah. And a minor is certainly pasul, since he is exempt from Megillah, and besides this, he is not a bar da'at to write according to its halacha. And if he wrote with the left hand—it is kosher ex post facto (Pri Chadash).

And other disqualifications found in a sefer Torah are also disqualifying in a Megillah. Such as hak tochot, and being surrounded by parchment, and the humps of the hetin, and the suspension of the hehin and the kofin, and all the bodies of the letters according to their form, and the keri and ketiv, and deficient and redundant spellings, and the tagin of shaatnez getz. The Bahag wrote that it does not require tagin. His reasoning appears to be: since it is also called an "iggeret," tagin are not relevant to an iggeret. However, the custom is to include tagin, and if one did not include tagin, it is permitted to read from it. So too, one must make the lines even, and the width of the column according to three times the word "lemishpehotekhem" as in a sefer Torah, and likewise all the laws of a sefer Torah. Nevertheless, if letters or words are found that are not surrounded by parchment, or other disqualifications, it is permitted to read from it; for even with the absence of letters and words up to its majority it is kosher, as I wrote in the previous siman. And all the more so in a case such as this, provided that the majority is not so.

And there is reason to doubt: If one wrote many letters, words, and verses in color, in a manner that if they were blurred or missing it would be kosher—such as if it were in the minority [of the scroll] as I wrote in the previous siman—is it also kosher when they are written in color? And likewise, if one made them through hak tochot and the like, for it is no worse than blurring or absence. Or perhaps: it is certainly not comparable to blurring, where they were kosher and became ruined. And it is not even comparable to absence, for a change is worse than an absence, as we find regarding a get, where a change is invalid and an absence is kosher. And so too regarding a Megillah: perhaps this is called being written in an invalid manner? And it requires further study.

And it is also necessary to write it from a text, and to utter every word with his mouth before he writes it. And even though above in siman 32 regarding tefillin it was explained that they do not require this, see there—this is only regarding tefillin, because the parshiyot are fluent in his mouth, which is not the case with a Megillah (the Gra, subsection 16, and the difficulty of the Magen Avraham, subsection 4, is settled). And so it is explicit in the Yerushalmi, and so we rule in Yoreh Deah siman 274 regarding a Sefer Torah, see there. And one makes all its parshiyot closed (stumot), and if he made them open (ptuchot)—it is invalid. Thus ruled our teacher, the Rema, in section 2 in the name of the Hagahot Maimoniyot, chapter two. And I do not know the reason. And I saw a wondrous thing in the Great Or Zarua at the end of the first chapter of Megillah, for initially he counts several open parshiyot and several closed ones. And he wrote "on the seventh day"—open, "according to the language of his people"—open, and several other parshiyot. And at the end of the matter he wrote, this is his wording: Regarding the parshiyot, I have not heard if they are open or closed, and it stands to reason to make them closed, similar to tefillin and mezuzot, etc. Thus far his words. And this is a contradiction! And besides this, his words are astonishing, for in tefillin they are open, as I wrote in siman 32. And also regarding a mezuzah, we hold in Yoreh Deah siman 288 that if he made them open—it is valid, see there. Therefore, it appears that also regarding a Megillah, if he made them open—it is valid, only that ab initio one should make them closed, since it emerged from the mouth of the Hagahot Maimoniyot, and the Ra'avyah whom the Or Zarua cited in his name at the end, see there. (And so wrote the Magen Avraham, subsection 5. And the one who provided the citation in the Rema—cited the rulings of the Mahari, and he is the author of Terumat HaDeshen, and I did not find anything in it.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2 that it requires a pole at its end, and a blank space at its beginning, in order to wrap it around it. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that the custom is not to make a pole at all at its end. Thus far his words, and such is the simple custom. The Tur wrote the opposite, that it requires a pole at its beginning, and a blank space at its end, in order to wrap it around it like a Sefer Torah. Thus far his words. And it is not exactly like a Sefer Torah, for a Sefer Torah requires two poles, because they read from it frequently. But Nevi'im and Ketuvim—one pole is sufficient, as it is stated in the first chapter of Bava Batra (13b). And it is obvious that a Megillah is no superior to Nevi'im and Ketuvim, and one pole is sufficient. In the Gemara there, the version of the text is like the Tur, that the pole is at its beginning. However, the Tosafot and the Rosh raised many difficulties against this, and they have the version of the text in reverse, that the pole is at its end. And such is the primary view, for behold, it is rolled to its beginning, and how could the pole be at its beginning? And so it is in the Yerushalmi in the first chapter of Megillah, that one makes a pole for a book at its end, and rolls it onto the pole from its end to its beginning. This is the wording of the Yerushalmi there at the end of halacha 9: And they make a pole for a book at its end, and for a Torah from here and from here. Therefore, one rolls the book to its beginning, and the Torah to its middle. Thus far his words. (The words of the Tosafot are in Bava Batra ibid., and the words of the Rosh are in the third chapter of Yadayim, and so wrote the Rash there. Therefore, the Rosh at the end of the first chapter of Bava Batra wrote the version of the text that the pole is at its end, but the Rif has the version of the text like Rashi, and has the version that "from its beginning it is rolled," and not "to its beginning." If so, according to the Rif and Rashi, the pole is at its beginning. And this is the reason of the world that they do not make a pole at all for a Megillah, because we do not know how to make the pole. Furthermore, it appears in my humble opinion regarding the reason of the world, that indeed in the Gemara and Yerushalmi a pole was not mentioned regarding a Megillah, only regarding other books. And they hold that just as other books compared to a Sefer Torah, since their reading is not frequent, they were diminished by a pole, so too a Megillah, whose reading is only once a year—it does not require a pole at all. And in the days of the Rishonim they made a pole for a Megillah because they would study from it occasionally, while there was no printing in the world, which is not the case with us as it is only once a year—it does not require a pole at all. Examine and you will find it easy. And it appears to me that it does not require a parchment of three columns, for it is called an "Iggeret." And in Masechet Soferim chapter three: They do not diminish in a Torah less than three columns—implying only in a Torah.)

The ten sons of Haman – one must write them like a song. However, not like other songs that have a blank space under text and text under a blank space, but rather one leaves a blank space between text and text, so that there shall be no rising from their downfall (end of the first chapter of Megillah). That is to say: like a building that is built partially at the beginning of the wall and partially at its end, and in its middle it is blank, and consequently it will fall. And in the Yerushalmi ibid. it says that if one did not do so – it is pasul. And this is why we write a word at the beginning of the line and a word at the end of the line, and the middle is vacant. And it says there that one must write "ish" at the beginning of the column and "ve'et" at its end. And afterwards "Parshandata" at the beginning of the line and "ve'et" at its end, and so all of them until "Vaizatha." And one writes "Vaizatha" at the beginning and "aseret" at its end. And one must lengthen the vav of "Vaizatha," both in its writing to lengthen it, and also to lengthen slightly in its reading. And such is the custom to extend it with a melody. And according to this, there are eleven of these line breaks, for they were ten, and "ish" and "aseret" were added, for so it is explicitly stated in the Yerushalmi ibid.

And know that regarding the manner of their writing, the dispute increased. For the Levush wrote that "ish" must be at the top of the page, and "aseret" at the end of the page. That is to say: not only at the beginning of a line and the end of a line, but also the top of the page and the end of the page, meaning: that they should spread over the entire column, and one should not write in this column besides them, even a single word. And this is what they said in the Yerushalmi: "ish" at the beginning of the page, "ve'et" at its end, that is to say: at the very end of the page. And there is one who wrote that if he did not do so—it is pasul (Eliyah Rabbah in the name of Knesset HaGedolah). And in this they exceeded the measure. And the proof is that in the Yerushalmi, the third chapter of Megillah (halacha 7), it states before the law of its writing: writing upon writing, and space between them, and it says there that if he did not do so—it is pasul. And afterward it says this law of "ish" at the beginning of the page, "ve'et" at its end, and it does not say that if he did not do so it is pasul. And so it is in the thirteenth chapter of Masechet Soferim, see there. Deduce from this that this is not indispensable.

However, some say that in the essence of the matter it is an error, for the intent is not at the end of the page, but rather at the end of the line. For if it were not so, there would necessarily be many large letters, and yet they were not counted in the Masorah among the large letters (the Gra, subsection 25). And in truth, in the Yerushalmi there, it only mentioned "ish" at the beginning of the page and "ve'et" at its end, and it did not mention "aseret" at all. If so, it works out well according to this quite simply: that "ish" is at the beginning of the page—literally at the beginning of the page and at the beginning of the line—and "ve'et" is at the end of the line, and so for all of them. But in Masekhet Soferim it is mentioned that "aseret" is at the end of the page, see there. And the intent is: at the end of the line, or that this itself is called "the end of the page" regarding the width of the page (and with this the difficulty of the Chayei Adam is answered; examine closely and you will find it easy). And so it implies explicitly in the Or Zarua HaGadol, and in the Hagahot Ashri at the end of the first chapter, who wrote: "ish" at the beginning of the line, "ve'et" at the end of the line, and name over name, "ve'et" over "ve'et." Thus far their words, and they did not mention at all that "aseret" is at the end of the page. According to this, one writes these eleven breaks in eleven lines adjacent to one another. And the letters are like all other letters, except for the vav of "Vayizata," which is a large vav. And afterward, one writes the rest of the Megillah on that same column (ibid.). However, in the Masorah of Megillat Esther it says: "ish" at the beginning of the page, and "aseret" at the end of the page and the end of the column. Thus far its wording; behold, it is explicit that "aseret" is at the end of the column. Therefore, there is one who says that it is not necessary that "ish" begin at the top of the page, but rather that one first writes the verses preceding this on this column. And at its end, meaning when only eleven lines remain, one writes "ish" at the beginning of the line and "aseret" at the end of the page (Chayei Adam in the name of the Gra).

However, the custom is like the Levush, for so it appears explicitly from Masekhet Soferim. And as for why they were not counted in the Masorah among the large letters, it appears that this is not similar to other large letters mentioned in the Masorah, for there, there is a secret in the largeness of the letter. This is not the case here, for their largeness is not due to the essence of the letter, but rather due to the lines, as it is impossible otherwise. Consequently, since it was transmitted that "ish" is at the top of the column and "aseret" is at the end of the column, it is automatically as if there were a Masorah regarding large letters, for it is impossible otherwise. And it is true that from the Yerushalmi nothing is proven, since it did not mention this matter of "aseret." Nevertheless, in any event, since it said "ish" at the top of the column—it implies the very top of the page. And since in Masekhet Soferim and in the Masorah of Esther it is said "aseret" at the end of the column—it follows that so it is. And there are those who also have the version in the Yerushalmi of "aseret" at the end of the column (see Beit Yosef). Therefore, it appears in my humble opinion that so one should do ab initio, not to write on the entire page anything but the ten sons of Haman, with "ish" at its top and "aseret" at its end. And so wrote one of the great authorities (Chayei Adam, and so it implies in the Hagahot Maimoniyot, see there).

It is stated in the Gemara (19a): The Megillah is called a "book" and it is called a "letter." It is called a "book": for if one sewed it with linen threads – it is invalid. And it is called a "letter": for if one placed three threads of gidin in it – it is valid, provided that they are tripled. Rashi and Tosafot explained that this means: that from the beginning of the seam until the place of the sewing of the gid – should be like the distance from it to the second gid, and from the second to the third – like from the third until the end of the seam. Thus far their words. And some explain that one should place the gid at the top of the column, in its middle, and at its end (Tosafot ibid.). And the Rambam explains: three stitches at the top of the parchment, three in their middle, and three at their end. And the Rif explained: two at the two ends of the parchment, and one in the middle of the parchment, and that one in the middle – shall be exactly in the middle. And to fulfill the requirements of all of them, one must make three stitches at its top, three at its end, and three in its middle, and one stitch in the fourth part on this side, and one stitch in the fourth part on the other side. And if one does not have more gidin – it is better to sew the remainder with linen threads than to leave it without sewing. But if one has gidin – he should sew it entirely with gidin. And the sewing should be from the outside and not from the inside. And one must leave a remainder at the top of the parchment and at its end when sewing them together, and a minimal amount is sufficient, as with a Sefer Torah, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 288, see there. And the reason: so that it does not tear. And if one did not leave a remainder – it is not a hindrance even in a Sefer Torah, and all the more so in a Megillah.

One may not read for ten people from a megillah written among the Hagiographa. For in such a case there is no pirsumei nisa, as it is merely like one who reads from the Hagiographa, since it was written with them. And if he read—he has not fulfilled the obligation, unless it was recognizable against the rest of the Hagiographa, such as if it were longer than the rest of the sheets, or shorter than the rest of the sheets, and then it is recognizable. However, an individual may read from it and fulfill his obligation, even if it is not shorter or longer, for regarding an individual we are not so concerned with pirsumei nisa. And specifically when it is written on a scroll like a Sefer Torah in all its details. But if it is not so—it is automatically invalid, even when it is alone. And it appears to me: even though we have not found a requirement in a megillah that it must end in the middle of the page, nevertheless if other Hagiographa are written on that same column—it is invalid. For a megillah is only called such when no other matter is written in it, aside from the megillah itself.

If they placed vowel points in the megillah, or if they wrote the cantillation marks, or if there is written upon its first page the blessings of the megillah and the liturgical poem of the megillah—it is not invalidated by this. And it is not similar to one written among the Hagiographa, where one does not fulfill the obligation in public, or to what we wrote that other books of the Hagiographa invalidate it, for this is of the matters of the megillah. Nevertheless, ab initio it is forbidden (Magen Avraham subsection 9). And according to the opinion of the Mordechai, even ex post facto—it is invalid. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 10: If there is no kosher megillah—they read it from a Chumash without a blessing. Thus far his words. And specifically a Chumash that is made as a scroll, and not from our printed Chumashim (ibid. subsection 10). And in my humble opinion, it seems that his intention is not to fulfill the obligation of megillah, but rather this is what he is saying: that one should read from a Chumash in order to remember the miracle, and if so, even from our Chumash it is so. And there is one who permits writing the cantillation marks in the megillah when one is not expert in reading it with its cantillation marks. And in my humble opinion, it is better to read it without cantillation marks than to write the cantillation marks in the megillah (see Bach and Magen Avraham there). And if one read from a stolen megillah—he has fulfilled the obligation, for theft does not apply to sound. And whether it is permitted to recite a blessing over it—it was explained above in siman 649 regarding the matter of a lulav, and the same law applies here, see there. And the main point is: not to recite a blessing, and the blessings are not indispensable (see Sha'arei Teshuva at the end of this siman).