1)

(a)Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah cites Esther as having requested of the Chachamim 'Kav'uni la'Doros!', by which - she meant that they should commemorate her by fixing the annual reading of the Megilah as an obligation.

(b)When they initially declined, on the grounds that doing so would only incite the hatred of the Nochrim - she replied that the entire incident was anyway recorded in the annals of Medes and Persia, and that reading annually it would make no difference.

(c)According to Rav, Rebbi Chanina, Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Chaviva, she also requested 'Kisvuni l'Doros (to include Megilas Esther among the holy writings). Whenever this set of names appears in Seder Mo'ed - we amend Rebbi Yochanan to Rebbi Yonasan.

(d)And when in answer to her request, the Chachamim quoted the Pasuk in Mishlei "ha'Lo Kasavti Lecha Shalishim", they meant - that Shlomo ha'Melech indicated in this Pasuk that the battle with Amalek is to be hinted in Tanach only three times and no more; and this it already has: in Beshalach, in Ki Setzei and in Shmuel. Consequently, there is no room in Tanach for Megilas Esther.

2)

(a)The Chachamim relented however, on account of the Pasuk in Beshalach "Ke'sov Zos Zikaron ba'Sefer", which they interpret like this - "Kesov Zos" ... what is written in the Torah, counting all the occasions that Amalek is mentioned in the Torah as one (presumably because "Zos" refers to Torah, like we find "v'Zos ha'Torah"); "Zikaron" ... what is written in Shmuel, "ba'Sefer" ... Megilas Esther.

(b)The above explanation is also the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ha'Muda'i. Rebbi Yehoshua explains the Pasuk simply - "Kesov Zos" ... what is written here in Beshalach; "Zikaron" ... what is written in Ki Setzei; "ba'Sefer" ... in Shmuel.

(c)We can infer from Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's statement, that Esther does not render one's hands Tamei - that it was not written with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.

(d)And we reconcile this with another statement of his, where he says that Esther was said with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh - by explaining his first statement (that Esther was not said with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh) to mean that she was not granted permission to write it down in the form of a Sefer, only orally (although the content of the Megilah was still said with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh).

3)

(a)According to Rebbi Meir, Koheles does not render the hands Tamei, and there is a Machlokes by Shir ha'Shirim; according to Rebbi Yosi, there is a Machlokes by Koheles, Shir ha'Shirim definitely does render the hands Tamei. Rebbi Shimon says that ...

1. ... Koheles - is from the leniencies of Beis Shamai (that it does not render the hands Tamei) and the stringencies of Beis Hillel (that it does).

2. ... Rus, Shir ha'Shirim and Esther - render the hands Tamei.

(b)Shmuel (who just said that Esther does not render the hands Tamei) does not hold like Rebbi Shimon and the Tana'im who appear to agree with him. He holds like Rebbi Yehoshua - whom we saw earlier maintains that Esther does not render the hands Tamei.

(c)Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya maintains that Koheles does not render the hands Tamei - because he says, it is based purely on the wisdom of Shlomo ha'Malech, and was not written with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.

(d)It appears from the Pasuk in Melachim "Vayedaber Sheloshes Alafim Mashal (which are not recorded) that those parables that are (including Koheles) were said with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. We finally prove it from the Pasuk - "Al Tosef Al Devarav", implying that it was written with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.

4)

(a)The Tana'im bring a number of proofs that Esther was said with Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. Some say from "va'Yomer Haman b'Libo" (Rebbi Eliezer), others from "va'Tehi Esther Noseis Chen b'Einei Kol Ro'ehah" (Rebbi Akiva) ... from "va'Yivada ha'Davar l'Mordechai" (Rebbi Meir) ... and from "uva'Bizah Lo Shalchu es Yadam" (Rebbi Yosi ben Durmaskis). Shmuel brings a proof - from the Pasuk in Esther "Kiymu v'Kiblu ha'Yehudim", which he explains to mean that 'Kiymu Lema'alah Mah she'Kiblu Lematah', something which no-one could possibly have known without Ru'ach ha'Kodesh.

(b)According to Rava, there is a flaw in each Tana's proof. The flaw in the proof from ...

1. ... "Vayomer Haman b'Libo" - is that everybody knew that Haman was the most esteemed man in the king's eyes, in which case it is obvious from his words that that is what he was thinking.

2. ... "va'Tehi Esther Noseis Chen b'Einei Kol Ro'ehah" - is that Esther found favor with everybody, because she appeared to them like a woman from their own country (like Rebbi Elazar says), and perhaps she simply overheard people telling each other that she was from their country.

3. ... "va'Yivada ha'Davar l'Mordechai" - is that for all we know, Mordechai actually overheard them plotting to kill the king (as the Gemara will explain later in the name of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba).

4. ... "uva'Bizah Lo Shalchu es Yadam" - is that Mordechai may well have been informed of this fact through messengers sent to him expressly to supply him with this information.

(c)When Rava quoted a mantra that 'one sharp pepper is better than baskets-full of melons' - he meant that sometimes a sharp Amora (Shmuel, in our case) is smarter than many Tana'im.

5)

(a)The Beraisa cited by Rav Yosef extraplolates from the words ...

1. ... "u'Mishlo'ach Manos Ish l'Re'eihu" - that the Mitzvah of 'Shelach Manos' consists of two gifts to one friend.

2. ... "u'Matanos la'Evyonim" - that the Mitzvah of Matanos la'Evyonim consists of two gifts to two needy people (one gift to each). Note, that 'Manos' also implies ready-to-eat food, whereas Matanos means any kind of gift.

(b)When Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'a sent Rebbi Oshaya the thigh of a third calf and a flask of wine, the latter commented - that he had fulfilled the Mitzvah of Shelach Manos.

(c)When Rabah gave Abaye Shelach Manos which included a sack of dates to take to Mari bar Mar, the latter commented - that when a farmer becomes a king, he continues to place a basket around his neck, like he did when he was a farmer. Likewise Rabah, who had now become the Rosh Yeshiva, nevertheless continued to send Shelach Manos like an ordinary person.

(d)And when Mari sent him back with a sack of ginger and a cupful of long peppers - he passed the comment that Rabah would complain that he had sent him sweet things, whereas in return he received sharp ones.

6)

(a)Abaye related how, on one occasion, he once left Rabah's house satisfied, yet, when, in Mari bar Mar's house and they brought him sixty different kinds of sweet dishes - he not only ate them all, but he wanted to chew the dishes as well.

(b)To prove his point - he quoted the mantra that there is always room for sweet things.

(c)Abaye bar Avin and Rav Chanina bar Avin were both very poor. They managed to fulfill the Mitzvah of Shelach Manos on Purim - by exchanging their Purim Se'udos.

7)

(a)One is obligated to become drunk on Purim - to the point that one is unable to distinguish the difference between 'Arur Haman' and 'Baruch Mordechai'.

(b)One Purim, when Rabah and Rebbi Zeira fulfilled this Mitzvah - Rabah Shechted Rebbi Zeira. On the following day, he Davened and brought him back to life.

(c)When, on the following year, Rabah suggested that they eat their Purim Se'udah together again - Rebbi Zeira replied that miracles do not occur every day.

8)

(a)Rava learns from the Pasuk in Esther "Yemei Mishteh v'Simchah" - that someone who eats the Purim Se'udah by night is not Yotzei.

(b)When Ameimar assumed that the Rabanan were late for the Derashah one Purim because they were busy with the Purim Se'udah - Rav Ashi suggested that they could have eaten it on the previous night (after the reading of the Megilah).

(c)Ameimar corrected him - by quoting Rava (whom we just cited), who requires the Purim Se'udah to be eaten by day.

(d)Rav Ashi asked Ameimar to repeat what he just said - forty times (until he felt that he had it 'in his pocket').

9)

(a)According to our Mishnah, the only difference between what is permitted and what is forbidden on Shabbos and on Yom Tov is 'Ochel Nefesh'. The author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Yehudah - because, in addition to Ochel Nefesh, he permits Machshirei Ochel Nefesh on Yom Tov, although it is forbidden on Shabbos.

(b)The Tana of our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk in Bo "Hu" 'v'Lo Machshirav'. Rebbi Yehudah learns his concession from - "Hu Levado Ye'aseh Lachem"; "Lachem" 'l'Chol Tzorcheichem' (a Pasuk in the same Parashah).

(c)

1. ... the Tana Kama learns from "Lachem" - "Lachem" 'v'Lo l'Akum'; "Lachem" 'v'Lo li'Kelavim'.

2. ... Rebbi Yehudah learns from "Hu" - that Machshirin which he could have prepared before Yom Tov are precluded from the above concession.

(d)An example of a Melachah that could not have been performed on Erev Yom Tov is - smoothening a knife that only became jagged on Yom Tov.

10)

(a)The only difference between the Melachos of Shabbos and those of Yom Kippur listed by our Mishnah is - that whereas the former is punishable at the hands of Beis-Din (Sekilah), the latter is punishable only at the hands of Hash-m (Kares).

(b)The author of our Mishnah must be Rebbi Nechunyah ben ha'Kanah who holds that Shabbos and Yom Kippur have the same Din as regards 'Tashlumin' - meaning that someone who set fire to someone's haystack (for example) on Yom-Kippur, is Patur from paying (because he receives the stricter punishment), in the same way as he would have been Patur had he done so on Shabbos.

(c)The Rabanan say - that it is only on Shabbos (when the stricter punishment is Miysas Beis-Din) that one is Patur from the lesser punishment (of Beis-Din), but not on Yom-Kippur, when the stricter punishment is only Kares (at the Hands of Hash-m).

11)

(a)We learned in a Mishnah in Makos that, according to Rebbi Chananya ben Gamliel, all Chayvei Kares who receive Malkus, are absolved from Kares. Rebbi Yochanan commented - that according to the Rabanan, who disagree with Rebbi Chananya ben Gamliel, he remains Chayav Kares.

(b)Rava tries to prove Rebbi Yochanan's statement from our Mishnah - which differentiates between Shabbos, which is punishable by Beis-Din, and Yom Kippur, which is punishable by Hash-m. Now if our Tana would hold like Rebbi Chananya ben Gamliel, then Yom Kippur too, would be punishable by Beis-Din (i.e. Malkus).

(c)Rav Nachman (bar Yitzchak) refutes Rava's proof however, by establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Yitzchak - who says that someone who is Chayav Kares is not subject to Malkus at all.

(d)Rav Ashi considers that unnecessary. He refutes Rava's proof even if the author does not hold like Rebbi Yitzchak - because, he explains, when the Tana says that Yom-Kippur is punishable at the Hands of Hash-m (and not by Beis-Din), he is referring to the initial punishment, no matter that he can also receive Malkus.