Rujukan Talmud untuk Ester 9:10: Jerusalem Talmud Megillah, Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot & Megillah

Naḥman the son of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Joy and enjoyment⁷¹The entire statement is an explanation of Esth. 9:10, but the expression “joy and enjoyment” is from 8:17 instead of the correct “joy” (as in the Babli, 5b.), this implies that eulogies are forbidden. And festive dinner, this implies that fasting is forbidden. And holiday, this implies that work is forbidden⁷²The Babli notes that it is not clear from the statement whether this refers to both days of Purim or only to the day celebrated in the community.. Rebbi Ḥelbo said, many times I sat before Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman but did not hear these things from him. He said to him, did you hear all the traditions which my father had? The action of Rebbi disagrees, for Rebbi acted demonstratively on two days in the year. He took a bath on the Seventeenth of Tammuz⁷³To emphasize that the restrictions of the 9^th of Av do not apply to the 17^th of Tammuz. and planted saplings on Purim⁷⁴To make it clear that work is not forbidden on Purim; Babli 5b.. Rebbi Ḥabiba in the names of the Rabbis of there: Any place where it is written holiday it is not written theyaccepted, and any place where it is written they accepted it is not written holiday⁷⁵In the list of Esth. 9:19 “holiday” is mentioned, but in the note 9:22 that the Jews accepted the rules of Purim, only joy and dinner are mentioned (in addition to obligations to send food to one another and gifts to the poor.). And here it is written holiday and it is written they accepted⁷⁶This can be read either as proof of R. Ḥelbo’s position (as a question), or (as a statement) by Naḥman that 9:23 asserts that the Jews accepted all that Mordocai had written to them, implicitly endorsing the holiday status.? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Family and family, these are the hamlets. City and city, these are the fortified places. Town and town, these are the small towns⁷⁷Esth. 9:28; Babli 2b..

A Gentile came to a Gentile woman and she gave birth. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Gentiles have family relationships¹³³The verse Gen. 2:24: “Therefore, a man abandons his father and his mother and clings to his wife so they will be one flesh” is interpreted to mean that, by the laws of Creation, incest between parents and children, adultery (with a wife not his own) and possibly homosexuality are forbidden. The question is whether a court can enforce the incest prohibition between father and daughter. If there is no recognized legal relationship, that cannot be enforced. R. Joḥanan holds that any court on earth, even a Jewish one, can punish incest between Gentile father and daughter. R. Simeon ben Laqish disagrees.
In the Babli, 62a, the parallel discussion is on a completely different topic, whether the firstborn of a proselyte who converted together with his father is entitled to the customary double portion of the inheritance. R. Joḥanan answers in the affermative, R. Simeon ben Laqish in the negative.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Gentiles have no family relationships. But is it not written¹³⁴Is. 39:1.: “At that time, Merodakh-Baladan, son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a gift to Ḥizqiah.” Since he honored his elder¹³⁵Babli Sanhedrin 96a reports that Baladan was incapacitated and Merodakh added his father’s name to his own so that all acts of his regency should also be in his father’s name., he was honored with a family relationship. But is it not written¹³⁶1K. 15:18. The text is contaminated with 2Chr. 16:2.: “At that time, king Asa sent to Ben-Hadad, son of Tabrimon, son of Ḥezayon, king of Damascus, as follows.” Destroyer son of a destroyer. As you say¹³⁷Esth. 9:24. In Targum Šeni 3:1, the family tree of Haman is given up to his ancestor Esaw. It is not clear there whether “Hamedata the Agagite” is intended as a name or a title. In the latter case, Haman’s father’s name was Seraḥ.: “For Haman ben Hamedata was”. Was he the son of Hamedata? That means, oppressor son of an oppressor. So here also, destroyer son of a destroyer. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, so did Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish answer Rebbi Joḥanan, but is there not written¹³⁸2S. 9:10. In v. 2, Ṣiba is called “ ‘ebed of the House of Saul”. Since in v. 9 he is called “esquire of Saul”, it seems that ‘ebed represents the usage of the time the book was finally edited, the later kingdom of Judah, when ‘ebed was the recognized title of officials directly responsible to the king.: “Ṣiba had sixteen sons and twenty slaves.” Do slaves have family relationships¹³⁹Not being able to legally marry, they are empowered to be promiscuous without guilt.? It is to enumerate those who served Mephiboshet together.

R. Meir says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “And the thing became known to Mordecai” (2:22). Yose b. Durmaskit said: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “But on the spoil they laid not their hands” (9:10).