Hi,
I have a question from my Talmud class, for which the Rabbi teaching the class did not have an answer. In the gemarra on the first mishna in Megilah, there is a "gezeira shava" linking the word "prazi" in the Megilah with the word "prazi" in D'varim. It would seem logical that this could not be an 'actual' gezeira shavah, but rather more of a binyan av, because the Purim story had not yet occurred and the Megilah had not yet been written at the time of Sinai. However, Rashi seems to indicate that it is an 'actual' gezeira shavah. How does one explain Rashi?
Thank you in advance for your answer.
Bernie Schubach
Dear Bernie,
(a) Your question on Rashi, that this could not be a Gezeira Shava, is excellent! In fact, it is asked by the Ramban and Ritva, who (without actually quoting Rashi) conclude that the Gemara means to use the word Prazi in the Torah as no more than a Giluy Milsa of what Prazi means, just as you suggested.
(b) You are also correct in pointing out that Rashi clearly argues with this interpretation. Rashi's basis is the wording of the Gemara, that "Rebbi Y. ben Karchah did not learn Prazi Prazi," intimating that Prazi was something that had to be learned and could not just be applied by one's self (see Sugya). Strong support for Rashi's explanation may be drawn from the Yerushalmi Megilah (1b) quoted in the Ritva, which says that "We see that Megilas Esther may be learned exegetically (Nitnah Lidaresh)."
The Yerushalmi is probably referring to what our Gemara tells us (Megilah 7a) that Esther was written with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. Moshe Rabbeinu may have passed down that when Ru'ach ha'Kodesh uses the word Prazi, it may be learned from the Prazi of the Torah with a Gezeirah Shavah. At the time the Megilah was written with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh, the Chachamim of the generation analyzed it in order to decide how the laws of Keri'as ha'Megilah ought to be instituted, and they came up with this Gezeirah Shavah.
(c) It seems clear to me that the argument (quoted in the RAN and Rishonim) as to whether Mukafos Chomah of Chutz la'Aretz also read on the 15th is connected to the point that you made. Those who insist that they do not read on the 15th since the laws of Prazi are learned from Arei ha'Prazi, which were in Eretz Yisrael, must have learned like Rashi. Otherwise, Arei ha'Prazi only teaches us the literal meaning of Prazi, but it doesn't compare that verse to the Prazi of Megilas Esther. Those who reject this opinion -- among them, the Ritva -- need not resort to saying that this point is not included in the Gezeirah Shavah of Prazi-Prazi. They may say that Prazi-Prazi is not a Gezeirah Shavah at all!
L'hitra'ot!
Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld