Halakhah for Megillah 1:15

However, Tosafot (ibid. and Arachin 3a s.v. La'atuyei) quote the opinion of the Ba'al Halachot Gedolot (Behag) that "a woman may only recite the Megillah on behalf of other women, but not on behalf of a man." As a source for this ruling, Tosafot cite a passage from the Tosefta (Megillah 2:4) which rules that an androginos³ This term refers to someone with both male and female features. His status is sometimes parallel to a male and sometimes parallel to a female (see Encyclopedia Talmudit 1:55-60).may not recite the Megillah on behalf of a man. Tosafot explain that this restriction stems from the partial female status of the androginos. Accordingly, if an androginos cannot recite the Megillah on behalf of a man, certainly a woman cannot. This view apparently understands that the Gemara in Masechet Megillah does not obligate a woman to read the Megillah; rather, she merely must hear it. The Rosh (Megillah 1:4) cites a passage from the Yerushalmi (Megillah 2:5) as proof for the opinion of the Behag. The passage records that both Rabi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabi Yonah, father of Rabi Mana, would make sure to read the Megillah on behalf of the women of their families, because women are obligated to hear the Megillah.⁴ Much of the passage cited by the Rosh does not appear in our editions of the Yerushalmi.It is very significant to note that both Tosafot and the Rosh agree that, according to the Behag, a woman can read the Megillah on behalf of other women.

The Gemara records the incident involving Rabbah and Rabi Zeira to reject or limit the rabbinical decree regarding drinking on Purim. The Baal Hamaor (Megillah 3b in the Rif's pages) cites and accepts the opinion of Rabbeinu Ephraim that the Gemara presents the incident to rescind this Halachah, and to conclude that it is now improper to drink on Purim. On the other hand, the Rif (ibid.) and the Rosh (Megillah 1:8) cite the obligation to drink on Purim without any reservations whatsoever. Although they reject the approach of Rabbeinu Ephraim, they presumably believe that the Gemara presents the story as a cautionary note. Thus, although the Shulchan Aruch (ad. loc.) rules in accordance with the Rif and Rosh, the Rabbah and Rabi Zeira incident sounds a cautionary note to ensure that observance of this Halachah does not lead to serious problems.

According to the vast majority of poskim, a woman may read on behalf of other women. Some say that a woman cannot fulfill the obligation on behalf of many women, since megilla reading has a status similar to Torah reading, and just as a woman does not read from the Torah, so too she does not read the megilla for many women. Some poskim say that when the megilla is read for women no berakha is recited (Ben Ish Ḥai, year 1, Teztaveh 1; Kaf Ha-ḥayim 689:19). However, halakhic practice follows the overwhelming majority of poskim who maintain that a woman may read on behalf of other women and that if the group is comprised of ten women, the reader recites the berakha of “Ha-rav et riveinu” (“Who fights our battles”) after the megilla. However, le-khatḥila, it is preferable that women hear the Megilla read by a man,  to satisfy all opinions. Ideally, women would hear the megilla in the synagogue with men, since “In a multitude of people is a King’s glory.”³Korban Netanel (on Rosh, Megilla 1:4:m) innovatively suggests that a woman may not read on behalf of many women. This is cited in SHT 689:15. However, it seems that the intent is to be stringent le-khatḥila, because SHT 16 states that the dominant opinion is that women and men have an equal obligation. Halikhot Beitah (Petaḥ Ha-bayit 25; also cited in Halikhot Shlomo 19 n. 4) states that R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach questions Korban Netanel’s explanation and concludes that halakhic practice follows R. Tikochinsky, who rules in Lu’aḥ Eretz Yisrael that a woman may read on behalf of many women. The reason for the opinion that no berakha is recited on a reading for women is concern for the position that no berakha is recited when reading for an individual, and women collectively are considered to be like an individual (Kaf Ha-ḥayim 689:19). The opinion of most poskim is that there is no need to be concerned for this at all. See Peninei Halakha: Zemanim 15:7 and n. 8.

The Gemara might record the incident involving Rabbah and Rabi Zeira to reject or limit the rabbinical decree regarding drinking on Purim. The Baal Hamaor (Megillah 3b in Rif's pages) cites and accepts the opinion of Rabbeinu Ephraim that the Gemara presents the incident to rescind this Halachah, so it is now improper to drink on Purim. On the other hand, the Rif (ibid.) and the Rosh (Megillah 1:8) cite the obligation to drink on Purim without any reservations whatsoever. Apparently, they believe that the Gemara presents the story merely as a cautionary note, with no impact on the Halachah.

Rashi (Megillah 7b s.v. Livsomei) and the Rambam (Hil. Megillah 2:15) describe the obligation to drink on Purim specifically as drinking wine.¹⁰See Rashi to Megillah 7b and Korban Netaneil (Megillah 1:10), who also seem to assert that one fulfills this rule only by drinking wine. See this author's essay in Beit Yitzchak (26:595-596) for an explanation of the significance of specifically requiring wine. In fact, the Aruch Hashulchan (O.C. 695:5) specifically warns against drinking liquor, because it causes one to vomit.

Rav Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook (Igrot Hare’iyah 423) adopts an ostensibly similar yet fundamentally different approach to this issue in a brief but illuminating responsum to Rav Yechiel Michel Tukachinsky. The specific issue he addresses is whether a particular location should read the megillah on the fifteenth of Adar based on contemporary scholarship’s conclusion that the area was surrounded by a wall in the time of Yehoshua bin Nun.⁹Cities surrounded by a wall at the times of Yehoshua read the megillah on the fifteenth of Adar, while those that were not surrounded by a wall at that time read on the fourteenth of Adar (Megillah 1:1). Rav Kook writes (in 1912):

Longtime Beit El residents report that they have never heard of anyone in the city reading the megillah on the fifteenth. They follow the ruling of the longtime Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Beit El, Rav Zalman Melamed, who authored a responsum (Techumin 1:130-134) arguing that it is sufficient to read it on the fourteenth. Rav Melamed emphasizes that he believes the archaeological evidence to be so “far from certain” that “In [my] opinion, even a halachic safeik has not been created.” In a conversation with Rav Melamed in 2004, he confirmed that no one actually reads the megillah on the fifteenth in Beit El. He cited the practical difficulties associated with observing Purim on two days and the majority opinion amongst the poskim (based on the Yerushalmi, Megillah 1:1) that if a resident of a walled city (mistakenly) observes Purim on the fourteenth, he nevertheless fulfills his Purim obligations. Rav Ovadia Yosef also notes this last point in his responsum.