(Mishnah): If they read the Megilah in Adar Rishon, and the year was declared a leap year, they read it again in Adar Sheni;

The only differences between Adar Rishon and Sheni are Keri'as ha'Megilah and Matanos l'Evyonim.

Gemara: Our Mishnah is when they declared a leap year, and afterwards they read it [in Adar Rishon], but if they read the Megilah in Adar Rishon, and the year was declared a leap year, no [they need not read it again].

Rebuttal: Our Mishnah says [unlike this! Rather, even] if they read the Megilah in Adar Rishon, and the year was declared a leap year, they read it again in Adar Sheni!

Source (R. Simon ben R. Yehoshua ben Levi) Question: It says "Lekayem Es Igeres ha'Purim ha'Zos" - why does it say Shenis?

Answer #1 (R. Simon): This teaches that if they read it in Adar Rishon, and it became a leap year, they read it in Adar Sheni.

Answer #2 (R. Yirmeyah citing R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak): What did Mordechai and Esther do? They wrote an Igeres (letter) and sent to our Rebbeyim here (in Eretz Yisrael - ha'Gaon Rav C. Kanievsky, Shlita). They said to them "accept on yourselves these two days every year (make a Yom Tov and read the Megilah)."

[Chachamim] said to them "it is not enough the afflictions that come upon us, that you want to add to us the Tzarah of Haman?!" (This will arouse enmity. The Nochrim will think that we rejoice over their downfall!)

[Mordechai and Esther] returned and wrote a second letter to them - "Lekayem Aleihem Es Igeres ha'Purim ha'Zos ha'Shenis."

Question: What was written in it?

Answer: They said to them, if you are afraid of this (you need not be, for they already recall their downfall)! It is written in their chronicles - "ha'Lo Hem Kesuvim Al Sefer Divrei ha'Yamim l'Malchei Madai u'Faras"!

(R. Shmuel bar Nachman citing R. Yonason): There were 85 Chachamim, and among them over 30 Nevi'im, and they were pained about this;

They said, it is written "Eleh ha'Mitzvos Asher Tzivah Hash-m Es Moshe" - these are the Mitzvos that we were commanded through Moshe, and Moshe told us that another Navi will not teach any new matter. Now, Mordechai and Esther seek to make this new matter (a fourth mention of vengeance against Amalek in Tanach! "Kasavti Lecha Shalishim" (Mishlei 22:20) connotes that it must be written only three times. It is already written in Parshas Beshalach, Ki Setzei, and Sefer Shmuel!)

They did not budge from there. They debated the matter until Hash-m enlightened their eyes, and they found [that vengeance against Amalek should be mentioned] in Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim.

It is written [after the war with Amalek in Beshalach] "va'Yomer Hash-m El Moshe Kesov Zos Zikaron ba'Sefer" - "Zos" refers to Torah, like it says "v'Zos ha'Torah Asher Sam Moshe Lifnei Bnei Yisrael";

"Zikaron" refers to Nevi'im - "va'Yikasev Sefer Zikaron Lefanav l'Yir'ei Hash-m..."

"Ba'Sefer" refers to Kesuvim - "u'Ma'amar Esther Kiyam Divrei ha'Purim ha'Eleh v'Nichtav ba'Sefer."

(Rav, R. Chaninah, R. Yonason, Bar Kaparah and R. Yehoshua ben Levi): This [mention of vengeance against Amalek in the] Megilah was said to Moshe on Sinai, just the Torah is not in order. "Kesov Zos Zikaron ba'Sefer" - "Kesov" alludes to Kesuvim.

R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argued. R. Yochanan said that in the future, Nevi'im and Kesuvim will be Batel (for they were only to rebuke, and in the future this will not be needed), but the five Chumashim of the Torah will not be Batel;

What is the reason? It says "Kol Gadol v'Lo Yasaf."

(Reish Lakish): Also Megilas Esther and Halachos (traditions from Sinai) will not be Batel. It says here "Kol Gadol v'Lo Yasaf", and it says [in the Megilah] "v'Zichram Lo Yasuf mi'Zar'am." Halachos [will not be Batel], for it says "Halichos Olam Lo."

(R. Levi citing R. Yehoshua ben Levi): Hash-m saw that in the future, Haman will weigh money against [offer to pay Achashverosh in order to destroy] Yisrael. He said that it is good that [Yisrael] give their money before that Rasha [offers his]. Therefore, we read Parshas Shekalim before [Purim].

Opinion #1 (R. Avahu citing R. Lazar): "B'Chol Shanah v'Shanah" equates a leap year to a regular year. Just like in a regular year, [we read the Megilah] in the Adar next to Nisan, also in a leap year [we read] in the Adar next to Nisan.

Opinion #2 (R. Chelbo): [In a leap year we read in Adar Sheni] in order to put redemption [of Purim] next to redemption [of Pesach].

Opinion #3 (R. Levi citing R. Chama bar Chaninah): That year [of the miracle of Purim] was a leap year [and the war was in Adar Sheni];

What is the source? It says [that Haman cast lots] "mi'Yom l'Yom umi'Chodesh l'Chodesh Shneim Asar Hu Chodesh Adar" - [l'Chodesh Shneim Asar is Adar Rishon. Hu Chodesh Adar is extra, to teach that it was Adar Sheni.]

Question: Is Adar Rishon the added month, or is Adar Sheni the added month?

Question: What difference does it make (which is extra)?

Answer (R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak): It affects the years of lambs (for the Tamid, or for Musafim. They must be yearlings). If they were born on the 15th of Adar of a regular year, and they entered a leap year -

If you will say that Adar Rishon is the added month, it is a long year (they are still yearlings until Adar Sheni 15). If you will say that Adar Sheni is the added month, it is a yearling only until Adar Rishon (15).

Answer (Aivi bar Nagri): Our Mishnah teaches that Adar Rishon is the addition, for it taught there (in Eduyos) that [R. Yehudah and R. Papiyas] testified that we may make a leap year at any time in Adar, and they used to say until Purim. They testified that we may make a leap year on condition [that the Nasi will consent];

This teaches that Adar Rishon is the added month. If you would say that Adar Sheni is the addition, [on the last day of Adar Rishon] nothing remains from the year. Can he make it a leap year?!

(Mar Ukva): There were two letters [informing about a leap year]. One said "it is proper in the eyes of me and my colleagues add 30 days to the year";

And one said " it is proper in the eyes of me and my colleagues to add to the year a month of (i.e. 29) days";

Inference: The one who said 30 days holds that Adar Rishon is the addition (it is always 30 days). The one who said a month of days holds that Adar Sheni is the addition.

Rejection: You cannot learn from there, for R. Yakov bar Acha, R. Yudan Gezori and R. Simon citing R. Yehoshua ben Levi say that if he made the two months [of Adar] full, or he made the second full, but not the first, what he did, he did.

(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): Mitzvos that apply to in Adar Sheni do not apply in Adar Rishon, except for [the Isur of] eulogies and fasting, which are the same in this [Adar] and in this.

(R. Ba, Rav Yirmeyah citing Rav, and R. Simon citing R. Yehoshua ben Levi): The Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel.

(Rav Chuna Rabah of Tziporin): R. Chaninah of Tziporin was Manhig like R. Shimon ben Gamliel (he told questioners to follow him - ha'Gaon Rav C. Kanievsky, Shlita);

Inference: It says only that he was Manhig like R. Shimon ben Gamliel, but [he did] not [publicly rule that this is the] Halachah.

Observation: However, regarding documents, we write Adar Rishon and Adar Sheni (one may not write Stam Adar for Adar Sheni, even though most Mitzvos of Adar are only in the second - ha'Gaon Rav C. Kanievsky, Shlita), but for Adar Sheni we [may] write "Tinyan" (the second, in place of "Sheni");

R. Yehudah says, in Adar Sheni he writes [Adar] "Tav" (the first letter of Tinyan), and this suffices.

A Mishnah there teaches that the only differences between Adar Rishon and Sheni are Keri'as ha'Megilah and Matanos l'Evyonim. (This is our Mishnah. The Yerushalmi here copied the Sugya in Shekalim. There, it properly says "a Mishnah there..."!)

(R. Simon citing R. Yehoshua ben Levi): They differ even about announcing [that people must give half-]Shekalim and [sending Sheluchim to uproot] Kil'ayim. (These are only in Adar Sheni.)

(R. Chelbo and Rav Chuna Rabah citing R. Chiyah Rabah): Everyone is Yotzei on the 14th, which is the time of its reading.

Support (for R. Simon - R. Yosah): You said properly! Don't we announce about Shekalim so Yisrael will bring their Kelim in the proper time? If you say [at the beginning of] Adar Rishon, there are still 60 days in the year! (There is no reason to announce so early);

We go out for Kil'ayim (to uproot it) when the vegetation is recognized. If you will say in Adar Rishon, the vegetation is not yet recognized [to know whether or not it is Kil'ayim].

(Mishnah): The only difference between [Melachos forbidden on] Yom Tov and Shabbos is Ochel Nefesh (preparation of food);

The only difference between Shabbos and Yom Kipur is that [for Shabbos] one who [did Melachah b'Mezid] is punished through Beis Din (stoning), and [for Yom Kipur] he gets Kares.

(Beraisa, citing R. Yehudah): Also Machshirei [matters needed to enable preparing] Ochel Nefesh they permitted [on Yom Tov].

Question: What do [R. Yehudah] and [the Tana of our Mishnah] argue about?

Answer #1 (Rav Chisdi): They argue about whether one may sharpen the end of a roasting spit.

Answer #2 (R. Chanina brei d'R. Avahu Rav Chisdi): They argue about whether one may make a [new] fire from rocks [in order to cook].

(R. Yehudah bar Pazi of Barzilah): This is the matter [that they argue about. We explain like ha'Gaon Rav C. Kanievsky, Shlita.]

Question: What is "this is the matter"? Is the matter to sharpen the end of a spit, or is the matter to make a [new] fire from rocks?

Answer: We can resolve this only from the following [Mishnah (Beitzah 3:7)]. We may not sharpen a knife [the usual way] but one may scrape it against another [knife];

Rav Chisdi said that this is like R. Yehudah. Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel that all agree to it. [One scrapes it not to sharpen it, rather,] in order to remove grease on [the knife. The Amora'im agree that only R. Yehudah permits in order to sharpen. This shows that the Tana'im argue about sharpening, like Answer #1 above.]

Citation (Beitzah 5:2 - Mishnah): All these are [forbidden] on Yom Tov, and one need not say on Shabbos. (The Mishnah concludes "the only difference between Yom Tov and Shabbos is Ochel Nefesh.")

Question: Is this (Ochel Nefesh) the only difference between Shabbos and Yom Tov]? There are others! There is stoning for [Melachah b'Mezid] on Shabbos, and there is no stoning for Yom Tov! There is Kares for Shabbos, and there is no Kares for Yom Tov! There are lashes for Yom Tov, and there are no lashes for Shabbos!

Suggestion: The Mishnah discusses [things permitted only on Yom Tov for] Ochel Nefesh. It does not discuss punishments, for both of them have punishments (even though the punishments are different)

Objection #1: [The previous] Mishnah (Beitzah 5:1) teaches that one may lower Peros (partially dried grain) through a skylight on Yom Tov, but not on Shabbos! (This is lest it get wet, and not for Ochel Nefesh!)

Objection #2 (Beraisa): One may grind fragrant wood for Bris Milah on Yom Tov, but not on Shabbos!

R. Yosah: This is if he did not yet circumcise. (After the Bris, if he lacks spices, it is permitted even on Shabbos due to Piku'ach Nefesh. On Yom Tov it is permitted even beforehand to enable Bris Milah, Mitoch (since) the Torah permitted grinding for Ochel Nefesh.)

Objection #3 (Beraisa): Chachamim agree to R. Meir about tied ropes that seal covers to pits and caves, that one may shake them, untwine them, untie them or cut them [on Yom Tov], but on Shabbos one may shake them, but not untwine them, untie them or cut them;

And regarding Kelim, [all of these] are permitted on Shabbos, and there is no need to say that they are permitted on Yom Tov. (The Gemara did not answer the question.)

(Mishnah): The only difference between Shabbos and Yom Kipur is that [for Shabbos] one who [did Melachah b'Mezid is punished through Beis Din (stoning), and [for Yom Kipur] he gets Kares.

Inference: Regarding payment [for damage done through Melachah], both of them are the same! Our Mishnah is like R. Nechunyah ben ha'Kanah;

(Beraisa - R. Nechunyah ben ha'Kanah): Yom Kipur is like Shabbos for payment. (All exempt from payment for Shabbos, since he is Chayav Misas Beis Din at the time. R. Nechunyah exempts even one who is Chayav Kares at the time.)

R. Shimon ben Menasiya says, Aveiros of Kares are like Aveiros of Misah.

Question: What do [the Tana'im in this Beraisa] argue about?

Answer #1 (R. Acha citing R. Avuna): They argue about [one who rapes] a Na'arah [Besulah] who is a Nidah (this will be explained).

Answer #2 (R. Mana): They argue even about [one who rapes] his wife's sister.

R. Nechunyah ben ha'Kanah holds that just like Shabbos, there is no Heter for its Isur, also Yom Kipur has no Heter for its Isur, but these (Nidah and Achos Ishto), since they have a Heter for their Isur (after Tevilah, or through his wife's death), he pays. (TORAH MI'TZIYON, Kesuvos 3:1 - the Isur does not return without a new action (sighting of blood, or marrying another sister). Shabbos and Yom Kipur, the Isur returns automatically.)

R. Shimon ben Menasiya holds that just like Shabbos has Kares, also Yom Kipur has Kares, and [also] these, since they have Kares, he does not pay.

Question (R. Yudah bar Pazi): If one transgressed an Aveirah that has lashes and Kares, what would these Tana'im say?

R. Yosah: [This question] needs great Chachamim [to answer it]!

Question (R. Yonah): Why didn't he learn from what R. Shimon bar Yochai taught?

(Beraisa - R. Shimon bar Yochai): R. Tarfon says, Kares is written about Shabbos, and Kares is written about Yom Kipur. Just like the Kares said about Shabbos, there are no lashes with the Kares (since one can be killed for the Lav of Melachah on Shabbos, one cannot be lashed for it), also the Kares said about Yom Kipur, there are no lashes with the Kares.

Assertion (R. Mana, to R. Yosi): It is a question according to Reish Lakish. However, according to R. Yochanan, if there are lashes when there is Misah, all the more so there are lashes when there is Kares!

They argued about one who slaughters Oso v'Es Beno for idolatry. R. Yochanan said, if they warned him for Oso v'Es Beno, he is lashed. If they warned him for idolatry, he is stoned;

Reish Lakish says, even if they warned him for Oso v'Es Beno, he is not lashed, since if they [would] warn him for idolatry, he would be stoned.

Rebuttal (R. Yosi): It is a question even according to R. Yochanan. There [lashes and Kares are for] two different Aveiros. Here, [he asks about] one Aveirah.

Note: A Stam Mishnah (Makos 13a) teaches that one is lashed for one's sister, aunt... i.e. Chayavei Kerisos! Even though there is an argument about this in a Beraisa (13b), we concluded above (6b) that in such a case, the Halachah follows the Stam!

Question: (Ha'Gaon Rav C. Kanievsky, Shlita - if one was Shogeg about an Aveirah with lashes, in Terumos, Reish Lakish exempts him from paying for the Aveirah, even though he is not lashed; R. Yochanan disagrees.) According to Reish Lakish, what is the difference between these Tana'im (R. Nechunyah and R. Shimon ben Menasiya), who exempt Chayavei Kerisos from payment, and Rabanan? (In any case he does not pay, for there is a Lav with the Kares!)

Answer: They argue about Lavim without Kares.

Explanation #1 (R. Yudan): They argue about one who has Bi'ah with a Mamzeres [Na'arah Besulah, whether or not he pays the fine].

Explanation #2 (R. Chanina): They argue even about one who burned another's stack on Yom Tov. (Even though it is not a fine, Rabanan exempt);

According to these Rabanan (R. Nechunyah and R. Shimon ben Menasiya), since there is no Kares, he pays. According to [the other] Rabanan, since there are lashes [for Mezid], he does not pay.

Question: [According to Reish Lakish, the Mishnah] "there is a fine for [raping or enticing] the following Na'aros (and a Mamzeres is included)" is unlike Rabanan!

Answer (R. Matanyah): It is like everyone. It discusses a Mamzer who has Bi'ah with a Mamzeres.

Question: [Why is there a fine for] his brother's wife? She is his Yevamah! (It is a Mitzvah to had Bi'ah with her, even against her will! We must say that his brother died. If not, she is an Arusah, and he is Chayav Misah.)

Answer (R. Matanyah): The case is, his brother had children [from another wife, so Yibum does not apply] and he was Mekadesh a woman (Na'arah), and died, and [the Na'arah's] brother came and raped her.