Resources for Megillah 10

Rabbi Yitzchok Gutterman

1. The גמרא quotes ר' יצחק who said he heard that one can offer קרבנות in בית חנויו even after the destruction of the בית המקדש since קדושה ראשונה קדשה לשעתה ולא קדשה לעתיד לבא. See the רשב"א in ד"ה וקסבר who points out that ר' יצחק’s statement of קדושה ראשונה קדשה לשעתה ולא קדשה לעתיד לבא is not connected to the general מחלוקת in ש"ס about קדושה ראשונה קדשה לשעתה. oר' יצחק was specifically referring to the היתר במות (at least when he made his statement) and was not referring to the מחלוקת as to whether or not the places עולי מצרים or עולי בבל conquered maintained their קדושה post-חורבן.

2. The גמרא quotes רבי יהושע who says you can bring קרבנות even without a בית המקדש. Much has been written about whether we should be trying to bring תמידין ומוספין nowadays based on רבי יהושע. The fact that we are all טמא would not be an issue since טומאה הותרה בציבור. See the שו"ת רע"א הוצאות המאור חלק חמישי סי' מ who discusses this at length. The first issue to address is whether the מקום המקדש still maintains its קדושה. See the רמב"ם in הלכות בית הבחירה פּרק הל' ט"ו who paskens like ר' יהושע and says that one can bring קרבנות today even without a בית המקדש since the קדושה is a result of the שכינה‘s presence and שכינה אינה בטילה. However, the ראב"ד there, disagrees and says there is no קדושה in the מקום המקדש anymore and one who walks there would not be liable for כרת. Other issues include that we don’t know exactly where to make the מזבח, the lack of כהנים מיוחסין, the lack of תכלת to make the אבנט of the בגדי כהונה, and the lack of מחצית השקל which is needed to buy the קרבן on behalf of the Jewish people. See the שו"ת חתם סופר in סימן רל"ו who responds to his father in law, רע"א, and says that most of the issues raised aren’t issues (for various reasons) except the lack of שקלי ציבור which he says would not be an issue for things like קרבן פּסח because it is paid for by the individual. At the end of the day, there is an important קהילת יעקב in שבועות סימן י"א who quotes the ספר החינוך in מצוה ת"מ who says that even though one may be מקריב a קרבן post-חורבן, it is certainly not a חיוב to do so. The קהילת יעקב’s explains that קרבנות are supposed to be brought “אל פּתח אהל מועד” and since there is no פּתח אהל מועד, there is no חיוב הקרבה.

3. The גמרא brings many אמוראים on this דף and the next one who gave introductory דרשות prior to darshening the מגילה. See the פּני יהושע, who points out that we don’t find anything like this anywhere in ש"ס (although it is found in מדרשים). Why did these אמוראים feel the need to make their introductory דרשות to the מגילה? He answers that they were all bothered by the first two פּרקים of the מגילה. Why did the מגילה record the story of the משתה? Moreover, the גמרא on דף ז said that the מגילה should not have been included in תורה שבכתב, until they found a רמז to it in “כתב זאת זכרון בספר”, a פּסוק referring to עמלק. If so, we should have started the תורה שבכתב of the מגילה from the third פּרק which talks about עמלק! He answers that most of the אמוראים are bringing פּסוקים describing the eventual destruction and vengeance against נבוכדנצר. The גמרא later in the פּרק will tell us the cause of the original גזרה to destroy the Jews was a result of their being forced by נבוכדנצר to bow down to his idol (as well as enjoying the משתה). Therefore, the destruction of ושתי (the granddaughter of נבוכדנצר) and the משתה are all part of the story of עמלק’s eventual destruction.

*******************************

Click here to download Shaklya v’Tarya Summary by Rabbi Chaim Smulovitz (in PDF)

Click here to download Shaklya v’Tarya Summary by Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld (in PDF)