Purim

Hilchos Megillah v'Chanukah. So the Rambam in Metzad Hanefek Kotaros that

יש בכללן שתי מצוות עשה מדברי סופרים ואינן מן המניין וביאור שתי מצוות אלו בפרקים אלו.

So the first shoresh in Sefer Hamitzvos of the shorashim is that the minyan Taryag should only include mitzvos d'oraisa, not mitzvos d'rabanan. That's what the Rambam is saying, that the mitzvos that we discuss in Hilchos Megillah v'Chanukah are mid'rabanan, and as such, they einan min haminyan. Which shtei mitzvos does the Rambam have in mind? So l'chora it's pashtus. The very first line in Hilchos Megillah: קריאת המגילה בזמנה מצוות עשה מדברי סופרים. So that's one, krias ha-Megillah. And then if you look in perek gimmel of Hilchos Chanukah, halacha gimmel, after giving the background, the historical background to Chanukah, the Rambam in halacha gimmel describes the takanas Chanukah, and then he says V'yamim eilu towards the end of halacha gimmel:

וימים אלו הן הנקראין חנוכה והן אסורין בהספד ותענית כימי הפורים והדלקת הנרות בהם מצווה מדברי סופרים כקריאת המגילה.

So l'chora it's pretty clear that what he intended under the Kotaros is that he was referring to mikra Megillah and ner Chanukah. Question is though, why the Rambam refers to it as shtei mitzvos? If you take a look in perek beis of Megillah, halacha yud-daled, halacha tes-vav, halacha tes-zayin, so the Rambam quotes the chiyuv simcha, shaloach manos, and matanos l'evyonim:

מצוות יום ארבעה עשר לבני כפרים ויום חמישה עשר לבני כרכים להיות ימי משתה ושמחה ומשלוח מנות לרעים ומתנות לאביונים.

So there's an additional three mitzvos: mishteh v'simcha, shaloach manos, and matanos l'evyonim. In Hilchos Chanukah, so in addition to ner Chanukah, perek gimmel halacha hey:

בכל יום ויום משמונת הימים האלו של חנוכה גומרין את ההלל ומברך ברוך אתה ה' אלוהינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצוותיו וציוונו לגמור את ההלל בין יחיד בין ציבור אף על פי שקריאת ההלל מצווה מדברי סופרים מברך בברכת המצווה.

And then in halacha vav the Rambam continues:

והלל של חנוכה בלבד הוא שמדברי סופרים אלא קריאת ההלל לעולם מדברי סופרים.

So l'chora the Rambam should have had six mitzvos in that are going to be discussed in Hilchos Megillah v'Chanukah. So l'chora it's as follows: if you look in the Rambam's hakdama to the Yad, after he finishes enumerating the Taryag, so the Rambam writes:

אלו הן שש מאות ושלש עשרה מצוות שנאמרו למשה בסיני.

Then skipping a couple of lines:

ויש מצוות אחרות שנתחדשו אחר מתן תורה וקבעו אותם נביאים וחכמים ופשטו בכל ישראל כגון מקרא מגילה ונר חנוכה ותענית תשעה באב וידיים ועירובין.

There are other mitzvos besides the Taryag d'oraisa, there are mitzvos d'rabanan. כל אלו המצוות שנתחדשו that were introduced after Matan Torah, חייבים אנו לקבלם ולשמרם. So l'kablam means to recognize the authority of Chazal. So lekablam means to recognize the authority of Chazal to have introduced these mitzvos, to be mekabel them as mitzvos, and then leshomram, and then practically to fulfill them, to observe them.

שנאמר לא תוסיף מכל הדבר. ואינם תוספת על מצוות התורה. ועל מה הזהירה תורה לא תוסיף ולא תגרע?

Why doesn't every mitzvah de-rabbanan violate the issur of bal tosif?

ועל מה הזהירה תורה לא תוסיף ולא תגרע? שלא יהיה נביא רשאי לחדש דבר ולומר שהקדוש ברוך הוא ציווה במצווה זו להוסיף על מצוות התורה או לחסר אחת מאלו השש מאות ושלוש עשרה מצוות.

If the Navi, if Chazal would allege that Hakadosh Baruch Hu directly commanded Mikra Megillah or Chanukah or eruvin or netilas yadayim or Tisha B'Av and the like, so then ein hachi nami, that would be a violation of bal tosif.

אבל אם הוסיפו בית דין עם נביא שיהיה באותו הזמן מצווה דרך תקנה או דרך הוראה או דרך גזירה, אין זו תוספת, שהרי לא אמרו שהקדוש ברוך הוא ציווהו לעשות עירוב ולקרוא המגילה בעונתה. ואילו אמרו כן היו מוסיפים על התורה. אלא כך אנו אומרים שהנביאים עם בית דין תיקנו וציוו לקרוא המגילה בעונתה.

So again, A, the Rambam is reiterating, it has to be clearly delineated as not de-oraisa, right? This is not the result of a direct tzivui from Hakadosh Baruch Hu. But moreover,

שהנביאים עם בית דין תיקנו וציוו לקרוא המגילה בעונתה כדי להזכיר שבחו של הקדוש ברוך הוא ותשועות שעשה לנו והיה קרוב לשווענו כדי לברכו ולהללו וכדי להודיע לדורות הבאים שאמת מה שהבטיחנו בתורה כי מי גוי גדול אשר לו אלוהים קרובים אליו כה' אלוהינו בכל קוראנו אליו.

It's not enough that Chazal clearly indicated be-shaito that Mikra Megillah is not de-oraisa, it's a takkanah that we're now making, but they also have to explain, they have to have this in their minds, and that's part of the takkanah, what it is min ha-Torah, what mitzvas ha-Torah, what yesodostike belief from the Torah that this mitzvah de-rabbanan is coming to protect, to facilitate, or to foster. De-hainu, there's no such thing as an independent de-rabbanan. Every de-rabbanan, every de-rabbanan, the reason a de-rabbanan is not bal tosif is A, because it's identified as such, and B, because it's not on the same level. It's not that now there's 614 mitzvos. No, there's 613 mitzvos, that's the Torah. And then Chazal were charged with protecting, with facilitating, with fostering what it is in the Torah. So every de-rabbanan links up with something in the Torah. Maybe it links up with a mitzvah lo sa'aseh and it's a harchaka. We don't eat בשר עוף בחלב as a harchaka not to eat בשר בהמה בחלב. Or maybe there's a basic, basic belief that the Torah imparts, such as the efficacy of tefillah be-tzibbur, which as is the case by Krias ha-Megillah, that's part of what the Rambam says, that Krias ha-Megillah comes to bolster that belief. Where did the Rambam get this idea from? It's an interesting take on Krias ha-Megillah, right? That Krias ha-Megillah is to illustrate for us and to reinforce our belief in the efficacy of tefillah be-tzibbur. So if you have the Gemara in Megillah for a moment, so we're going to take a look at י"א ע"א beginning on yud amud bet. So the Gemara has from a whole series of Amoraim that for instance Rabbi Yonasan פתח לה פתחא להאי פרשתא מהכא. Rashi explains כשהיה רוצה לדרוש בעניין אגרת פורים, before he would begin darshaning Megillas Esther, היה מתחיל לדרוש מקרא זה. This was his introduction to the drasha on Megillas Esther. Before he would start darshaning the pesukim of Megillas Esther, so this would be his, this would be his introduction and the Gemara goes on to quote it. So for instance Rabbi Yonasan quotes a pasuk that refers to Vashti, right. So the Gemara in daf yud aleph quotes that רב מתנא אמר מהכא. Rav Masna, it's around I don't know ten lines or so after they branched out on יא ע"א, רב מתנא אמר מהכא, this was Rav Masna's introduction to when he would start darshaning the pesukim of Megillas Esther כי מי גוי גדול אשר לו אלקים קרובים אליו. So this is where the Rambam got it. So what's the relevance to Megillas Esther? How is that the introduction to darshaning the pesukim in Megillas Esther כי מי גוי גדול אשר לו אלקים קרובים אליו? Again the end of the pasuk is כאשר ה' אלקינו בכל קראנו אליו. So the Rambam says no aha, that's the pshat. The Gemara is telling us that that the pirsumei nisa that we're supposed to hear in the lines between the lines of the Megilla is a pirsumei nisa which is which was brought about through the tefilla betzibur, through the לך כנוס את כל היהודים. When does everything turn around? Everything turns around in the לך כנוס כל היהודים, לך כנוס את כל היהודים. Okay. So again, so so the way the Rambam understands that mitzvos derabbanan do not violate bal tosif is because A they're identified as such and B because they're not free-standing, they're not independent, they're oriented towards, they're calibrated towards something in the Torah. And and that's indispensable for a derabbanan not to be a hosafa al hatorah. Even if it would be identified as as a derabbanan, but it wouldn't be calibrated towards something in the Torah, it wouldn't be oriented towards something in the Torah, so then it would be a hosafa. It would be a hosafa. It can't be that Chazal, Chazal said you know hey, let's let's make a Purim, it's a fun day, people have a good time, why not, mah heichal teisei. It has to be linked to something in the Torah. It has to be there to protect or to facilitate or to foster something in the Torah. And and that's what the Rambam sees partially from this Gemara of רב מתנא אמר מהכא. So, nechzei anan. So in addition to krias hamegilla, so the Rambam illustrates again this klal for krias hamegilla. Clearly it applies to every mitzva derabbanan. So let's say shalach manos, matanos la'evyonim, seudas purim. What's the de'oraisa lynchpin for for those mitzvos derabbanan? So lachora it's pashut that it's the same, right. It's not that it's not that that these other mitzvos derabbanan are oriented towards something else. No, it's the same lehodia ledoros habaim, again there was a, there's a first half of the sentence also, but lehodia ledoros habaim

שאמת מה שהבטיחנו בתורה כי מי גוי גדול אשר לו אלקים קרובים אליו כאשר ה' אלקינו בכל קראנו אליו.

That that emuna is bolstered by the krias hamegilla and it's bolstered by the whole celebration of the of the day. So kumt oys that that the core, because this is the the essence of every derabbanan, because this is the the justification for the derabbanan. The essence of the de'rabonon is the connection to the Torah and lich'ora, even though on a practical level we can speak of four different mitzvos hayom in Purim, but lemaise in terms of the shoresh hadvorim there's only one. Because again every mitzva de'rabonon to be legitimate, to be valid has to be again, it has to be anchored in the Torah. And that anchor is really the that's the justification for the de'rabonon and heyois that it's one anchor, it's one shoresh so then mimmela that's why the Rambam doesn't count Megilla, Suda, Shalach Manos and Matanos L'evyonim as four, he counts it as one. Okay, so Krias HaMegilla is the most prominent of the four so Krias HaMegilla is the mitzva and the other three are included alongside it. Okay, so then we said there should have been six, six mitzvos. So now we understand why the four of Hilchos Megilla is one, but it should still be three, no? It still should have been Krias HaMegilla and Ner Chanukah and Hallel. Because the Hallel refers to the shmonas yomei so that's still that part of the question is still outstanding. So lich'ora as follows. If you have the Sefer Hamitzvos for a minute. So the Rambam in Shoresh Rishon lists another a number of mitzvos that the BaHaG included in his Minian Taryag where the Rambam faults him for doing so because the Rambam says the mitzva is clearly de'rabonon and the Minian Taryag is only supposed to be mitzvos d'oraisa. So one of those mitzvos that the BaHaG includes in his Minian Taryag is Hallel. He includes Hallel in the in the Minian Taryag. So the Ramban when it comes to Hallel, when it comes to some of the other mitzvos the Ramban says ein hachinami the Gaonim thought that the Minian Taryag includes mitzvos de'rabonon as well. But when it comes to Hallel... V'hanireh midevreihem if you're looking in a Frankel it's on page lamed-vav in the left hand column, the fifth line. V'hanireh midevreihem speaking about Hallel, the Ramban says שהוא מן התורה כמו שפירשתי. But if Hallel's d'oraisa so what's the mokor? Where do you takeh find Hallel as a d'oraisa? So the Ramban gives two possibilities: ויהיה הלכה למשה מסיני or שהוא בכלל השמחה שנצטוינו בו kemo shekasuv

וביום שמחתכם ובמועדיכם ובראשי חדשיכם ותקעתם בחצצרות על עלתיכם ועל זבחי שלמיכם כי עיקר השירה בפה

v'klee l'vasumay kolleyhu. So u'vyom simchaschem you blow the chatzoatros. But the Ramban says we paskin that כי עיקר השירה בפה not biklee. U'klee the instrumentation is the levasumay kolleyhu to give a nice sweet... background to the to the to the vocals.

ונצטוינו בשמחת השם על הקרבן ובשלא בשעת הקרבן בכלל השמחה.

So the Ramban suggests that wherever you have a mitzvas simcha, you also have Hallel. On any day which is a yom simcha, so the simcha translates as as Hallel in in in in saying Hallel. Now the Ramban is saying this min haTorah, right? The Ramban thinks that that this connection between Hallel and simcha is min haTorah. If you take a look in the Rambam here in the beginning of Hilchos Chanukah in perek gimmel, halacha gimmel. U'mipnei zeh because of the the miracle that the Rambam described in the opening halachos,

התקינו חכמים שבאותו הדור שיהיו שמונת הימים האלו שתחלתם מליל חמשה ועשרים בכסלו ימי שמחה והלל ומדליקים בהם הנרות בערב על פתחי הבתים בכל לילה ולילה משמונת הלילות.

So the Tur and then the Mechaber quotes the Maharam mi'Rottenburg who says in Shulchan Aruch, who says that the ribui seudos on Chanukah is reshus. They don't have the status of seudas mitzvah. The Bach says and he quotes the Maharshal to this effect as well, that the Rambam disagrees with that Maharam, because in the Rambam it's mefurash that they're yemei simcha. And what's more, the Bach goes on to say that he thinks we pasken like the Rambam, that they are yemei simcha, so the seudos, seudas that you have on Chanukah do have the status of of a seudas mitzvah. The Kuntres Chanukah u'Megilla quotes from Reb Velvel that Reb Velvel disagreed with the Bach's understanding of the Rambam. And he said when the Rambam says yemei simcha, he doesn't mean that it has to that it translates into basar v'yayin, that it translates into mishteh. No, it just means yemei simcha that there's an issur hesped v'ta'anis. But but it doesn't translate the way the Bach and the Maharshal were assuming into seuda, be it basar v'yayin or I guess latkes and sufganiyot, whatever. At first glance, so Reb Velvel's peshat in the Rambam seems very dachuk. That's what yemei simcha means? Yemei simcha just means issur hesped v'ta'anis? But the emes is when you read further, it's very, very compelling. Let's read again.

ומפני זה ג' ג' ומפני זה התקינו חכמים שבאותו הדור שיהיו שמונת הימים האלו שתחלתם מליל חמשה ועשרים בכסלו ימי שמחה והלל ומדליקים בהם הנרות בערב על פתחי הבתים בכל לילה ולילה משמונת הלילות.

So the Rambam said three things about Chanukah, right? They're yemei simcha, Hallel, and hadlakas ner Chanukah, yes? Three things. ימי שמחה והלל ומדליקים בהם הנרות. Good. Fine. Now, וימים אלו הן הנקראים חנוכה. The Rambam continues,

והן אסורין בהספד ותענית כימי הפורים והדלקת הנרות בהם מצוה מדברי סופרים כקריאת המגילה.

Halacha daled,

כל שחייב בקריאת המגילה חייב בהדלקת נר חנוכה והמדליק אותה בלילה הראשון מברך שלש ברכות וכל הרואה אותם מברך שתים ובשאר הלילות המדליק מברך שתים והרואה מברך אחת שאין מברכין שהחיינו. שאין מברכין שהחיינו אלא בלילה הראשון.

Halacha Heh, וכל יום ויום משמונת הימים האלו גומרין את ההלל, umevarech lefanav etcetera. So what do you have here? The Rambam comes back and he elaborates the elements that he originally just mentioned which are included in Chanukah, right? He said that Chanukah has a chiyuv of hadlakas neiros. So now he tells us in Halacha Daled, kol shehayav in Halacha Daled, kol shehayav in hadlakas neiros, כל החייב בקריאת המגילה חייב בהדלקת נר חנוכה, and he tells us about the brachos you make. He said that Chanukah is yemei hallel. He comes and says: what does it mean hallel? It means to say hallel shaleim, you say hallel shaleim with a bracha. What about simcha? Why doesn't he elaborate simcha? You hear the question? Why doesn't he elaborate simcha? So the answer is he does, because he said והן אסורין בהספד ובתענית. So it's marvelous, it's not just a dikduk, it's so compelling that that's what the Rambam means. והן אסורין בהספד ובתענית, that gufeh is the elaboration. Again, you look at the symmetry. שמונת הימים האלו התקינו לימי שמחה הלל מדליקין הנרות. So neiros, the Rambam comes and elaborates, fleshes out, what does that mean, what does that entail? Right away he fleshes it out. Hallel, the Rambam comes back, fleshes out, what does that mean? What about simcha? Tell me something about simcha. The answer is he did. והן אסורין בהספד ובתענית, key point. That's what, simcha doesn't mean ribui seudos. It takeh means like exactly like we learned the pshat here in the Rambam. Okay, but now let's go a step further as the Kuntres Chanukah u'Megilla takes us. So he says, so the pshat lichora is as follows. The Rambam's makor he points to is the famous braisa in Megillas Taanis from Shabbos כ"ה עמוד ב' that עשאון ימים טובים בהלל והודאה. So Rashi already says yamim tovim doesn't mean issur melacha. So he says, what's the pshat? The pshat is as follows: that what the Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvos said on a d'oraisa-dik level, the Rambam agrees with on a d'rabbanan-dik level. That where there's a chiyuv hallel, it's only in context of yemei simcha. Hallel isn't in a vacuum. Hallel is only, again, to say hallel is in the framework of yemei simcha. And the takana עשאון ימים טובים בהלל means that's gufeh what it's a yom tov regarding hallel, right? It's yemei simcha which allows for hallel. So basically the same relationship that the Ramban recognized, suggests on a d'oraisa-dik level, d'hinu, again, what the Ramban is m'yased is that a person doesn't just say hallel on a vacuum, that hallel is an expression of a simcha pnimeis. The Kuntres Chanukah u'Megilla says in the Rambam, that same relationship exists but mi'drabbanan. And that's the pshat that Chanukah are yemei simcha. Doesn't mean simcha of basar v'yayin, it doesn't mean simcha of ribui seudos, but the fact that it's yemei simcha, aleph, שמחה בכלל הספד ותענית, but beis, that's what allows for hallel, because hallel is only on yemei simcha, the same way the Ramban explained that for the Bahag min hatorah, הלל בכלל מצוות השמחה שנצטווינו בה. So now nachzor l'didon rabosai. Why didn't the Rambam count hallel as another mitzvah d'rabbanan which he's discussing in Hilchos Megilla v'Chanukah? So lichora it's hallel is always, again here the it's not a kasha but just to try to prevent confusion, the parallelism between the Bahag min hatorah and the Rambam mi'drabbanan stops at this point, but that's okay. Hallel is never, hallel is always nitpal to simcha. The derabanan of Hallel, even on a derabanan-dikker level, Mikra Megillah as a mitzvah derabanan is a new mitzvah. Okay, its shoresh is le'hodos u'lehallel l'Hashem. But as a mitzvah derabanan, it's a new mitzvah. Hallel, even as a derabanan, isn't something new. משל למה הדבר דומה. Would we have a question why the Rambam in the beginning of Hilchos Shabbos doesn't tell us that one mitzvah eina min haminyan which he's going to discuss in Hilchos Shabbos is the din of kiddush bimkom seudah? Kiddush is de'oraisa, but bimkom seudah is a din derabanan. So clearly bimkom seudah is not a new mitzvah derabanan, right? Chazal were telling us how to be mkayem the mitzvos hatorah. It's not a new mitzvah derabanan, right? So we wouldn't expect that to be listed in the, we wouldn't expect that to be listed. Mitzvas Hallel, Hallel is never, Hallel is never its own mitzvah. Because again, Hallel is just, you know that chiyuv simcha that you have on שמונה עשר יום שגומרים בהם את ההלל, so the eight days of Succos again in Eretz Yisrael, the eight days of Succos, the eight days of Chanukah, first day Pesach, first day Shavuos. So the ten de'oraisa days, there's a מצות שמחה מן התורה. The eight derabanan days, so certainly Chanukah as a yom simcha is the same mitzvah derabanan as hadlakas ner Chanukah, the same way, the same way משלוח מנות ומתנות לאביונים וסעודת פורים are the same mitzvah derabanan as Mikra Megillah. So Hallel is never, Hallel is never a new mitzvah derabanan. It's Chazal telling us how to express the fact that it's a yom simcha. And simcha is the mitzvah that's counted. So if you, if we want to know why didn't the Rambam count the mitzvah derabanan of saying Hallel on Succos, on Shavuos, on Pesach, because the answer is it's the same reason he wouldn't count kiddush bimkom seudah. It's telling us how to express, how to be mkayem the de'oraisa of kiddush. This is telling us how to be mkayem the de'oraisa of simcha. Why didn't the Rambam count Hallel of Chanukah? Because all of Chanukah is one mitzvah and this is just telling us what do you do with Chanukah, which is yemei simcha. And that lechorah is the vort rabboisai. On the Rambam's kashya about derabanans vis-a-vis bal tosif. So the Rishonim are misyacheis to this question also. The Rashba in Rosh Hashanah, Tosafos in Rosh Hashanah daf tes zayin commenting on the Gemara of

למה תוקעין ומריעין כשהן יושבין תוקעין ומריעין כשהן עומדין כדי לערבב את השטן.

But either way we're blowing extra kolos. We're blowing extra kolos. Min hatorah you only have to hear nine kolos. With the safek of what truah is, that becomes thirty kolos. But we blow more than thirty kolos. So why isn't that bal tosif? So Tosafos says repeating a mitzvah isn't bal tosif. Let's say for a Kohen to duchen multiple times a day is not bal tosif. Bal tosif means, again, if you have five compartments in the tefillin instead of four compartments of, in the tefillin. You have five minim as part of mitzvas lulav instead of four minim. But you pick up the lulav in the morning, you pick up the lulav again in the afternoon, that's not bal tosif. The Rashba says Tosafos is right, but kushya me'ikara laysa. The answer is right but the, there really was no question in the first place because mitzvos derabanan are not subject to bal tosif. So for the Rashba, it's not the pshat that, that a mitzvah derabanan Chazal navigated and avoided bal tosif. It's that the lav of bal tosif doesn't apply to the Sanhedrin. The same way there are lavin which are lo shavim bechol, the lav of tumas meis applies to Kohanim and doesn't apply to everyone else. The lav of bal tosif is not shaveh bakol, it applies to yechidim, it doesn't apply to the Sanhedrin. That's the Rashba's answer. I just saw recently, I hadn't been aware of it, Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi says the same thing in the Kuzari actually. He also gives this tirutz of the Rashba when he also is when the Chaver is explaining to the king how you can have mitzos d'rabanan. So he says the same shtickel Torah as the Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi was before the Rashba. So he I don't know if maybe he was the first one to say it, but Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi has it already in the Kuzari. Okay, maybe just one other ha'ara here in the Rambam Hilchos Megilla before we start. So let's see פרק א הלכה א, rabosai.

קריאת המגילה בזמנה מצות עשה מדברי סופרים והדברים ידועים שהיא תקנת נביאים והכל חייבים בקריאתה אנשים ונשים וגרים ועבדים משוחררים ומחנכין את הקטנים לקרותה ואפילו כהנים בעבודתם מבטלין עבודתם ובאין לשמוע מקרא מגילה וכן מבטלין תלמוד תורה למקרא מגילה קל וחומר לשאר מצות של תורה כולן נדחין מפני מקרא מגילה.

So what the Rambam's quoting here is a Gemara in Megilla, daf gimmel. אמר רב יהודה אמר רב Kohanim ba'avodasan u'Leviim b'duchanan six or seven lines after they branch out on the bottom of Megilla amud aleph, branch out to the right. אמר רב יהודה אמר רב Kohanim ba'avodasan there's an aleph to the Ein Mishpat u'Leviim b'duchanan v'Yisrael b'maamadan כולם מבטלין עבודתן ובאין לשמוע מקרא מגילה. Tanya nami hachi Kohanim ba'avodasan Leviim b'duchanan Yisrael b'maamadan כולם מבטלין עבודתן ובאין לשמוע מקרא מגילה. Fine. So that's what the Rambam is quoting. And it's it's the he's it's not only the din from the Gemara but even the lashon is the lashon haGemara, that ובאין לשמוע מקרא מגילה, right? It's it's the lashon haGemara. But what's so interesting is the following: in context in the Rambam, though, there's something there's something unusual here. The Rambam begins by saying that the mitzvah of Megilla is kria. Kria. קריאת המגילה בזמנה מצות עשה מדברי סופרים. Hakol chayavin bikriasah. The mitzvah's kria. Now it's true, in halacha beis the Rambam will tell us that in light of the din of shomea k'oneh, l'maaseh not everyone reads. In halacha beis the Rambam will tell us אחד הקורא ואחד השומע מן הקורא יצא ידי חובתו. Provided והוא שישמע ממי שהוא חייב בקריאתה. Okay, good. But what's unusual is that already in halacha aleph, after we've only been told that Hakol chayavin bikriasah and we've not yet been told that you yotzei with shmia, so the Rambam quotes the lashon haGemara of ואפילו כהנים בעבודתן מבטלין עבודתן ובאין לשמוע מקרא מגילה. You hear, rabosai? Again, it's the lashon haGemara. So like this it wouldn't be there's nothing remarkable. Adderaba, the Rambam's just quoting straight from the Gemara. But it's jumping the gun. In terms of the seder ha'halachos in the Rambam, it's jumping the gun because you would have expected the the we haven't yet been told אחד הקורא ואחד השומע מן הקורא. And yet despite the fact that it's jumping the gun, so the Rambam insists on maintaining the lashon Chazal of ובאין לשמוע מקרא מגילה. Why not why not adjust it? Given the sequence in the Rambam, he should have adjusted it to ואפילו כהנים בעבודתן מבטלין עבודתן וקורין מקרא מגילה. So lichora the pshat is as follows. Tosfos there al hadaf in Megilla asks

וקשה מאי מבטלין והלא אחר הקריאה יש הרבה שהות לעבודה.

The top Tosfos in Gimel amud Aleph. There's plenty of time. It's not bitul. So Tosfos says no, even postponing it is a bitul. Then

ואם תאמר ויעשו עבודתם מיד ואחר כך יקראו המגילה לבדם.

Why do we have to disrupt the normal seder hayom bamigdash? Let the kohanim finish the avoda and then they'll read the Megilla. And clearly what Tosfos means is they'll even read the Megilla betzibur. They'll have a minyan. There's certainly a minyan of kohanim in every beis av. So they'll make their own minyan.

ויש לומר דטוב לקרות עם הציבור משום דהוי טפי פרסומי ניסא.

No, you're not supposed to have an improvised minyan if you can avoid it on Purim. You're supposed to daven with the minyanim hakvuim because the minyanim hakvuim, there were more people. So it's clear that what's mevatel avoda is not krias haMegilla, but it's krias haMegilla betzibur and with the normal size tzibur that one would associate with as opposed to a reduced tzibur to allow. Now when it comes to Talmud Torah, so Talmud Torah is derived, it's a kal vachomer from avoda. If mikra Megilla is doche avoda, then it's doche Talmud Torah as well. So kumt ois will be the following. Let's say a person regularly has a seder, ich veis, his keviyas itim, he learns from 6 to 8:30 at night. So come Purim, so he's supposed to be mevatel that to hear the Megilla. He's not supposed to say, "well, I'll hear the Megilla after 8:30." No, he should be mevatel that for krias haMegilla. What if the case will be that for whatever reason he can't go to shul to hear the Megilla? He's going to have to read the Megilla beyichidus. He has his keviyas itim from 6 to 8:30. So the din is that mevatlin וכן מבטלין תלמוד תורה. So lichora what is the lashon lishmoa convey that likros wouldn't? Lishmoa conveys that it's betzibur. Now it's true in theory lishmoa could be a shomeia keone one on one. It could be. But that's not a kashe. The stama de-milsa of lishmoa, what lishmoa is conveying is that it's betzibur and ba'in, what's more ba'in? What does he have to go places for? No, he's going to shul. He's going to shul. He's going to join the tzibur. Ba'in lishmoa means he's going to join the tzibur. So that's why the Rambam bedavka even though he has to jump the gun. If the Rambam would have reformulated the meimra de-chazal and would have said כהנים מעבודתן מבטלין עבודתן למקרא מגילה, so then we would have thought that הן לגבי כהנים מעבודתן הן לגבי תלמוד תורה even krias haMegilla beyichidus is doche avoda, even krias haMegilla beyichidus is doche Talmud Torah and that's not the din. What's doche the avoda, what's doche the Talmud Torah is the krias haMegilla betzibur. Again, לו יהי הלכה למעשה, if you would imagine the following case: for whatever reason someone will not be able to hear the Megilla betzibur, for whatever reason, and at tzeis hakochavim ordinarily he's in the midst of a seder, he has a keviyas itim that ordinarily he's learning at that point. What emerges here from the Rambam is no, the docha of avoda, the docha of Talmud Torah is davka the krias hamegillah b'tzibur, not that Chazal said that mitzvas krias hamegillah you have to fulfill before mitzvas Talmud Torah or avoda. No, davka the krias hamegillah b'tzibur. And if you look, some of the poskim record the halacha that way. For instance, if you look in the Chayei Adam, so when the Chayei Adam quotes this din, he says that the krias hamegillah b'tzibur is docha. But lu yehi that it's a question of krias hamegillah b'yachid or the regular kviyas itim, so then ein hachi nami, a person would learn his regular kviyas itim and only afterward would he read the megillah. Okay, we'll stop here.