Question: Our parchments are not Afitzei (treated with gallnuts). Why may we write on them Sefer Torah, Tefilin and Megilah?

Answer (R. Tam): The plaster we put in our parchments helps like Afatzim.

Proof: In Gitin (19a) we say that without Afitz, it can be [erased and] forged. Our parchments cannot be forged on the white [side].

Explanation (R. Tam): Our ink is proper ink, but ink of Afatzim is not ink.

Support: In Gitin (19a), a Beraisa teaches that one may write [a Get] with anything - ink, yellow dye... or anything that lasts;

We conclude that ['anything that lasts'] comes to include the law of R. Chiya's Beraisa, that if he wrote with rainwater (alternatively - water in which gall-nuts were soaked) or with gall-nuts, it is Kosher;

Inference: We needed an inclusion to teach Aftza, after teaching ink. This shows that the primary ink is not of Aftza.

R. Tam's opinion: Therefore, we should disqualify a Sefer Torah written with ink of Afatzim.

Rebuttal (Ashkenazim): There (Gitin 19a) discusses water in which Afatzim were soaked. Ink made from Afatzim themselves is surely good!

Pesak: Ours is the primary ink (even according to R. Tam). Nidah 20a connotes like this;

Citation (20a): R. Ami broke off a piece of ink and compared black blood to it.

One can break off a piece of our ink, but not ink of Afatzim.

Explanation (Rashi): Even though he already read on Yom ha'Kenisah [he must read with them].

Question: Why should he read a second time?

Answer: In any case, Rashi explained well. Since he was in the city at night, he became like a Ben Ir (city dweller), even though he will return [to the village] on the 14th, and even though he read on Yom ha'Kenisah.

Proof: We say that villagers read early on Yom ha'Kenisah in order to supply water and food to their brethren in the cities, and they are exempt from reading the Megilah [on the 14th].

This is only when they do not delay there on the night of the 14th, rather, they come there on the 14th;

However, if they delay there on the night of the 14th, surely their law is like that of Bnei ha'Ir, even though they already read.

Tosfos' opinion: It seems that Rashi is correct, that from the top of the Sefer until the sinew (where it is inserted through the parchment) is like [the distance between] one sinew and another, both above and below.

Support: Makos 9b connotes like this regarding Arei Miklat;

Citation (9b): It says "v'Shilashta" - they should be Meshulashin (equal) from the south to Chevron like Chevron to Shechem from Shechem to Kadesh like from Kadesh to the north.

Inference: Meshulashin means like this, and unlike others explain, that the sinew is put (inserted through the parchment) at the top of the parchment, the middle and bottom.

Explanation: It seems that even regarding Megilah and other Seforim, we require a remnant of the stitching, since the reason is in order that it will not tear.

Note: Maharam Shif observes that the opinion cited at the end of the previous Tosfos disagrees, at least regarding Megilah.

Assertion: A Stam Cheresh cannot hear or speak. However, the Cheresh here can speak, for he reads the Megilah;

He is adept in every respect, except for this, that he cannot be audible to his ears.

Question #1: What kind of minor do we discuss?

Question #1A: If he did not reach the age of Chinuch, why is R. Yehudah Machshir?

We say in Rosh Hashanah (29a) that whoever is not obligated in a matter cannot exempt others from their obligation!

Question #1B: If he reached the age of Chinuch, why do Chachamim disqualify?

Also all the others [who can be Motzi others] are liable only mid'Rabanan! If so, why don't we say that a mid'Rabanan [Chiyuv] can be Motzi a mid'Rabanan [Chiyuv]?

We say so in Berachos (20b) that a son can bless [Birkas ha'Mazon] for his father, even though he is a minor, and the father is Yotzei through his Berachah!

We establish this to be when the father ate a k'Zayis or k'Beitzah, which is a Shi'ur to be obligated mid'Rabanan, and the minor, who is obligated mid'Rabanan, is Motzi the father, who ate only a Shi'ur mid'Rabanan.

Why don't we say similarly about Megilah?

Question #2: In Sukah (38b), we say that a minor cannot be Motzi [adults] in Keri'as ha'Hallel. They (adults) must answer what the minor says (so the adults are Motzi themselves);l

Why is this unlike Birkas ha'Mazon?

Answer: Really, we discuss a minor who reached the age of Chinuch;

Even so, Chachamim disqualified him, for the obligation even for adults is only mid'Rabanan, and a minor is obligated only mid'Rabanan even regarding other Mitzvos;

For an adult, it is only one mid'Rabanan (i.e. for one reason), for he is obligated mid'Oraisa in other Mitzvos. A double mid'Rabanan cannot be Motzi a single mid'Rabanan.

Distinction: The case of Birkas ha'Mazon discusses when the minor ate to satiation, which is a Chiyuv mid'Oraisa [for an adult], so it is a single mid'Rabanan. He is Motzi the father, who ate only a Shi'ur mid'Rabanan.

Question: Still, it is difficult, for we say that Rav Sheshes and Rav Yosef [who were blind] said the Hagadah on Seder nights and were Motzi others [even in the Berachah on Matzah], for they hold that Matzah nowadays is mid'Rabanan;

Based on what I explained, this is difficult. They were a double mid'Rabanan, for a blind person is exempt from Hagadah;

How could they be Motzi others who are obligated mid'Rabanan? For them (the others), it is a single mid'Rabanan!

Answer: A blind person is better than a minor, for he was already obligated mid'Oraisa, unlike a minor.

Note: Initially, Rav Sheshes and Rav Yosef could see. They were unable to acquire Rav's Midah not to look outside his four Amos, so they became blind (R. Gershom Menachos 109b Amar, Ramban Kidushin 31a DH Man).

Explanation: Because (the Stam Gemara) rules there like R. Yehudah, it struggled to establish our Mishnah like him.

Question: How can we compare Birkas ha'Mazon to Keri'as Shema?

Granted, regarding Megilah, we can say that he holds like the opinion that holds that for Keri'as Shema, one must be audible to his ears. He holds that Chachamim enacted Megilah like Torah law;

However, Birkas ha'Mazon is mid'Oraisa, and it does not say "Shema" (to obligate being audible to his ears). What is the source to enact that he must be audible to his ears?

Answer: We can say that he knew that we learn Birkas ha'Mazon from Keri'as Shema.