TWO VERSES ARE NEEDED TO SHOW THAT WE READ IN ADAR SHENI
Had it said only "In every year and year", one might have thought that we always read in the month next to Shevat;
Had it said only "ha'Shenis", one might have thought that l'Chatchilah we read in the first and second [Adars in a leap year]. "In every year and year" teaches that this is not so.
R. Eliezer expounds "ha'Shenis" like Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah.
(Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah): At first, Purim was enacted in Shushan; later, it was enacted everywhere.
MAKING MEGILAS ESTHER PART OF KESUVIM
(Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah): Esther asked Chachamim to enact Purim to be a Yom Tov. They replied that this would arouse the jealousy of the nations.
Esther: This is not a concern, since the story is already part of the Persian/Median chronicles.
Whenever Rav, Rav Chanina, R. Yochanan, and R. Chaviva are taught together in Seder Mo'ed, R. Yonason should be in place of R. Yochanan.
Esther asked Chachamim to make Megilas Esther part of Kesuvim.
Chachamim answered, "I have written (about war with Amalek) three times" (in Shmos, Devarim and Sefer Shmuel), it should not be written a fourth time!
Later, they consented because they expounded "Write this as a remembrance in a Safer";
"Write this" refers to Milchemes Amalek in Shmos and Devarim (they count like one time);
"A remembrance" - refers to what is recorded in Shmuel;
"In a Sefer" is Megilas Esther.
In a Beraisa R. Yehoshua holds like Chachamim's initial refusal, and R. Eliezer ha'Moda'i holds like their conclusion.
(Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel): If one touches a Megilah, his hands do not become Tamei (other Kisvei ha'Kodesh are Metamei hands).
Inference: Shmuel holds that Megilas Esther was not authored with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.
Question: Shmuel said that it was authored with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh!
Answer: It was authored with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh to be read (by heart), but not to be written.
Question (Beraisa): R. Meir says that (Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai agree that) Koheles is not Metamei hands; they argue about Shir ha'Shirim;
R. Yosi says that Shir ha'Shirim is Metamei hands, they argue about Koheles;
R. Shimon says that regarding Koheles (whether or not it is Metamei hands) Beis Shamai are more lenient than Beis Hillel, but Rus, Shir ha'Shirim and Megilas Esther are all Metamei hands.
Answer: Shmuel holds like R. Yehoshua (above (f), that Megilas Esther should not have been written).
(Beraisa): R. Shimon ben Menasiya says that Koheles is not Metamei hands, because it is merely the wisdom of Shlomo;
Chachamim: Was this all his wisdom?! "Shlomo said 3000 parables" (since he wrote only some, presumably he wrote those said with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh). It also says "Do not add to his words (i.e. Hash-m's words; only write what was given with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh)."
Question: Why did Chachamim need a second verse?
Answer: One might have thought that his parables were not from Hash-m, and he chose to write some of them.
(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): Megilas Esther was written with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. We learn from "Haman said in his heart (the king wants to honor me)";
R. Akiva says, we learn from "Esther bore grace in the eyes of all who saw her."
R. Meir learns from "The matter became known to Mordechai."
R. Yosi ben Dormaskis learns from "They did not take from the spoils."
(Shmuel): Better than all these sources is "they fulfilled and accepted" - they fulfilled in Heaven what they accepted below.
(Rava): We may dispel all the proofs (for all of these could be known without Ru'ach ha'Kodesh), except for Shmuel's:
(R. Eliezer's proof): Haman reasoned that he is most important to the king. Since Haman suggested giving so much honor, this shows that he thought it was for himself.
(R. Akiva's proof): Perhaps, Esther appeared to each person as if she was from his nation, like R. Eliezer taught.
(R. Meir's): R. Chiya bar Aba said that Bigsan and Teresh were Tarsiyim (and Mordechai understood their language).
(R. Yosi Ban Dormaskis'): Perhaps Yisraelim in all Medinos sent a message that they did not take spoils.
(Ravina): This is like people say, one sharp pepper (Shmuel's source, which cannot be rejected) is better than baskets full of gourds.
(Rav Yosef): We may learn (that it was written with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh) from "These days of Purim will not pass from the Yehudim".
(Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): We may learn from "Their memory will not pass from their seed."
MATANOS L'EVYONIM AND MISHLO'ACH MANOS
(Rav Yosef): One must give two portions (of food) to a friend, and two gifts to two poor people.
R. Yehudah Nesiah sent a leg of a third-born calf and a barrel of wine to R. Oshaya. R. Oshaya replied, Rabeinu, you fulfilled Mishlo'ach Manos (and Matanos l'Evyonim. Bach and Gra delete this from the text. They do not explain what is the Chidush that he was Yotzei Mishlo'ach Manos. Perhaps one might have thought that both portions must be solid food, or that giving to a Talmid does not fulfill "l'Re'ehu". Alternatively, perhaps R. Oshaya was very rich and (only) a big gift like this gave him enough Simchah for the sender to be Yotzei.)
Rabah made Abaye a Shali'ach to give a bag of dates and a cup of (sweet) flour from dried wheat to Mari bar Mar.
Abaye (to Rabah): Mari will say, if a farmer will become king, he still carries his basket on his neck! (One would expect a more distinguished gift from the Rosh Yeshiva.)
Mari made Abaye a Shali'ach to give to Rabah a sack of ginger and a cup of peppers.
Abaye told Mari: Rabah will say, I sent to him sweet food, and he sends to me sharp food!
(Abaye): When I left Rabah's house, I was satiated; when I reached Mari's house, they served me 60 bowls of 60 types of food, and I ate 60 pieces.
The last course was a pot roast; I wanted to eat the plate afterwards!
This is like people say, a poor person is famished and does not know it. Alternatively, there is always room to eat something tasty.
Abaye bar Avin and R. Chanina bar Avin used to exchange their meals (to fulfill Mishlo'ach Manos - Rambam, Shulchan Aruch. Rashi explains that they would alternate hosting each other on Purim.)
HALACHOS OF THE PURIM SEUDAH
(Rava): A person is obligated to become drunk on Purim until he cannot distinguish 'cursed is Haman' from 'blessed is Mordechai.'
Rabah and R. Zeira ate their Purim Seudah together; Rabah got drunk and slaughtered R. Zeira. The next day he prayed, and restored him to life.
The next year, Rabah invited R. Zeira to eat with him again. R. Zeira declined, because miracles do not always happen.
(Rava): One who eats the Purim Seudah at night did not fulfill the Mitzvah - it says "days of Mishteh and Simchah."
Rav Ashi was by Rav Kahana; he asked why the Talmidim were not coming to learn.
Rav Kahana: Perhaps they are busy having the Purim Seudah.
Rav Ashi: They should have eaten it last night!
Rav Kahana: Didn't you hear Rava's teaching?!
Rav Ashi learned the Halachah 40 times, and was secure of it as if it was in his pocket.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SHABBOS, YOM TOV, AND YOM KIPUR
(Mishnah): The only difference between Shabbos and Yom Tov is preparation of food.
(Gemara) Inference: They are the same regarding Machshirim (preliminary preparations).
Our Mishnah is not like R. Yehudah:
(Beraisa): The only difference between Shabbos and Yom Tov is preparation of food;
R. Yehudah permits Machshirim.
The first Tana expounds "Hu" (food preparation is permitted) - but not Machshirim;
R. Yehudah expounds "Lachem" - all your needs are permitted.
Question: What does the first Tana learn from "Lachem"?
Answer: It forbids Meleches Ochel Nefesh for Nochrim or dogs.
Question: What does R. Yehudah learn from "Hu"?
Answer: "Hu" forbids Machshirim that could have been done before Yom Tov, and Lachem permits those that could not.
(Mishnah): The only difference between Shabbos and Yom Kipur is that the punishment for Melachah on Shabbos b'Mezid is through Beis Din (stoning), and that for Yom Kipur is through Shamayim (Kares).
(Gemara) Inference: There is no difference regarding paying for damage done via a Melachah.
Our Mishnah is like R. Nechunya ben Hakanah:
(Beraisa - R. Nechunya ben Hakanah): Yom Kipur is like Shabbos regarding payment.
Just as one is Chayav Misah for Chilul Shabbos and exempt from payment, also for Yom Kipur.
(Mishnah - R. Chananyah ben Gamliel): Anyone who was Chayav Kares who was lashed is exempted from Kares.
We learn from "And you saw your brother disgraced" - once he is lashed, he is like your brother.
( R. Yochanan): The other Tana'im argue with R. Chananyah.
Support (Rava - Mishnah): The only difference... the punishment for Chilul Shabbos is through Beis Din, and that for Chilul Yom Kipur is through Shamayim.
According to R. Chananyah, also Yom Kipur is punishable through Beis Din (lashes)!
Rejection #1 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Perhaps our Mishnah is like R. Yitzchak, who says that there are no lashes for Chayavei Kerisos.
(Beraisa - R. Yitzchak): The Torah mentioned Kares regarding relations with one's sister to teach that the punishment is Kares, and not lashes.
Rejection #2 (Rav Ashi): Our Mishnah can be like Chachamim that argue with R. Yitzchak (and it is like R. Chananyah) - it teaches that the primary punishment for Yom Kipur is Kares.