Megillah 2b — the Talmud in English

And this is what is difficult for him:

And did Rabbi Judah say

that

in the present time, since people look at it, they read it only at its proper time?

And he raises an objection

from the Mishna below:

Rabbi Judah said: When

do the villagers advance [the reading] to the day of assembly?

In a place where they assemble on Mondays and Thursdays

in the cities for judgment.

But in a place where they do not assemble on Mondays and Thursdays,

there is no leniency there for the villagers, and

they do not read it—

except at its proper time.

It follows that

in a place where they do assemble on Mondays and Thursdays, at least—

we read

on the day of assembly,

even in the present time,

and we are not concerned with this matter that people look at it?!

And

it might have entered our minds that for this reason he

establishes the beraita as [the view of] Rabbi Yosei ben Judah.

And we are astonished:

And because Rabbi Judah’s [statement]

in the Mishna

conflicts with Rabbi Judah’s

in the beraita,

he establishes the beraita as [the view of] Rabbi Yosei ben Judah,

but in the beraita it teaches that Rabbi Judah said it?!

And we explain:

Rav Ashi had heard that there is one who teaches it

as a beraita

as [the view of] Rabbi Judah, and there is one who teaches it as [the view of] Rabbi Yosei ben Judah. And since Rabbi Judah’s [statement]

in the beraita

conflicts with Rabbi Judah’s

in the Mishna, resolve it and

say: One who teaches it as [the view of] Rabbi Judah—

[that is] not precise. One who teaches it as [the view of] Rabbi Yosei ben Judah—

[that is] precise,

for certainly Rabbi Yosei ben Judah said it. And in truth, Rabbi Yosei ben Judah disagrees with Rabbi Judah of the Mishna, and holds that they read it only at its proper time.

We learned in our Mishna:

Walled cities, which were surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua son of Nun, read on the fifteenth, and so forth.

From where are these words,

that walled cities read on the fifteenth?

Rava said, for the verse says: “Therefore the unwalled Jews, who dwell in unwalled cities, and so forth, observe the fourteenth day.”

And two days were mentioned earlier in the verse: the fourteenth and the fifteenth.

And since

the verse says that

the unwalled

[cities that are not surrounded by a wall, and are called “unwalled” because, since they have no wall, their settlement is spread out and exposed] observe

on the fourteenth,

it follows that

the walled

observe

on the fifteenth,

for the verse cast the verse’s “fifteenth” upon the walled cities.

And we object:

But say

that

the unwalled

observe

on the fourteenth,

but

the walled altogether

—

not at all

observe, and this that the verse says “the fifteenth”—cast it upon Shushan, where they observe on the fifteenth as they did at the time of the miracle?

And we answer:

And

the inhabitants of walled cities—

are they not Israelites,

that you say they should not observe the days of Purim at all?!

Furthermore,

this:

“From India to Cush” is written

[and although this wording is not written in the passage concerning observing the days of Purim, it is written, “in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus,” which likewise means from India to Cush]. If so, it necessarily follows that the inhabitants of walled cities also observe the days of Purim! And since only the inhabitants of unwalled cities observe on the fourteenth, we learn from this that the inhabitants of walled cities observe on the fifteenth.

And we object:

But say

that

the unwalled

observe

on the fourteenth,

as it is written in the Megillah, whereas

the walled

observe

on the fourteenth, and

also

on the fifteenth, as it is written: “to observe them as days on which they should keep the fourteenth day of the month Adar and the fifteenth day of it, every year,”

which implies that they should observe Purim for two days?! And we answer:

Had the verse written

only

“the fourteenth and fifteenth day,”

it would have implied

as you say,

that they should observe both days. But

now that it is written: “the fourteenth day and the fifteenth day,” the second

word

“and”

at the end

comes and separates,

to say that

these

—the unwalled—

[observe] on the fourteenth, and these

—the walled—

[observe] on the fifteenth.

And we object:

But say

that

the unwalled

observe

on the fourteenth,

whereas

the walled,

whose time was not explicitly established,

if they wish—

they should observe

on the fourteenth; if they wish—

they should observe

on the fifteenth?

And we answer:

The verse says, “at their appointed times.”

And we expound:

The appointed time of this one

—the unwalled—

is not the appointed time of that one

—the walled. And if so, it necessarily follows that the time of the walled is specifically on the fifteenth.

And we object:

But say

that the walled cities should observe

on the thirteenth,

and the verse that says “the fifteenth”—let us say that it is speaking of Shushan, so that they should observe on the fifteenth as at the time of the miracle? And we answer: Since we do not find that Scripture designated a time for the walled cities, it is reasonable that they should observe like

the

inhabitants of

Shushan,

who observe on the fifteenth as at the time of the miracle.

We have found the observance

of the feast and the festival day, for the unwalled cities observe on the fourteenth. For the verse, “Therefore the unwalled Jews, and so forth, observe the fourteenth day, and so forth,” speaks of observance.

But

remembrance—

the reading of the Megillah—

from where do we know it?

And we say: We derive it by means of an analogy. For

the verse says: “And these days are remembered and observed”; remembrance is linked

to observance,

for we perform both of them on one day.

And we say:

The Mishna

which says that walled cities read on the fifteenth is specifically referring to cities walled from the days of Joshua son of Nun—

not like this tanna:

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Joshua ben Karha says: Walled cities, which were surrounded by a wall from the days of Ahasuerus—

read on the fifteenth.

What is the reason of Rabbi Joshua ben Karha?

Because we compare

as

[like]

Shushan. What [is true of] Shushan—

it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Ahasuerus, and they read

in it

on the fifteenth; so too every

city

that was surrounded by a wall from the days of Ahasuerus—

they read

in it

on the fifteenth.

But our tanna,

who made the matter depend on cities walled from the days of Joshua son of Nun,

what is the reason?

He derives

a gzera shava

“unwalled”—

“unwalled.”

It is written here

in the Megillah:

“Therefore the unwalled Jews,” and it is written there

concerning the conquest of the kingdom of Og by Moses and Joshua: “And the Lord our God delivered Og also into our hands, and we captured all his cities, cities fortified with high walls, and so forth,

except the cities of the unwalled.”

Just as there,

in the conquest of the kingdom of Og, it speaks of cities

from the days of Joshua son of Nun,

so too here,

in the Megillah, it speaks of unwalled cities

from the days of Joshua son of Nun.

And if it was surrounded by a wall afterward, it is not considered walled with regard to the Megillah.

And we consider the matter:

Granted, Rabbi Joshua ben Karha—

did not state [the law] like our tanna,

who requires [a city to have been] walled from the days of Joshua, because

he does not possess

the gzera shava

“unwalled” \-

“unwalled,”

because he did not learn this gzera shava from his teachers [and a person may not formulate a gzera shava on his own, unless he learned it from his teachers].

But our tanna—what is the reason he did not state [the law] like Rabbi Joshua ben Karha,

who derives it from Shushan?

And we are astonished:

What is the reason?!

Because

he does possess

the gzera shava

“unwalled”—

“unwalled,”

for this is how he learned from his teacher to derive this gzera shava!

And we explain:

This is what the Gemara is saying:

If you derive it by means of a gzera shava,

[then] Shushan

how did they establish it on the fifteenth?

According to whom did it act

? Not like the unwalled,

for the unwalled observe on the fourteenth,

and not like the walled,

for we do not know that it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua?!

Rava said, and some say

that it was said by

Kadi

[the name of a sage]:

Shushan is different, since a miracle was performed in it,

for they were given two days to kill their enemies, and against their will they did not rest until the fifteenth; therefore they established it this way for the generations.

And we object:

Granted, according to our tanna,

who holds that a city must have been surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua son of Nun, and only Shushan is different,

this is why it is written: “province and province, and city and city.”

For this implies that there is a different practice in the provinces and a different practice in the cities. For that which is written

“province and province”—

to distinguish between

the walled cities, that is, between

cities walled from the days of Joshua son of Nun,

which read on the fifteenth,

and a city walled from the days of Ahasuerus,

which reads on the fourteenth.

And that which is written

“city and city” also—

to distinguish between

the unwalled cities, that is,

between Shushan—

and the other cities,

for Shushan, even though it was not surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, reads in it on the fifteenth.

But according to Rabbi Joshua ben Karha,

who says that even cities walled from the days of Ahasuerus read on the fifteenth,

granted

the verse

“province and province,” to distinguish between

cities walled from the days of Ahasuerus and those that are not walled, that is, between

Shushan—

and the other cities.

But for what does “city and city” come,

since according to him there is no further distinction between one walled city and another, or between one unwalled city and another?

Rabbi Joshua ben Karha can say to you: And according to our tanna, is it satisfactory?

For according to him too it is difficult! For

since he possesses

the gzera shava

“unwalled”—

“unwalled,”

to distinguish between cities walled from the days of Joshua and the unwalled cities, the verse

“province and province,”

which, you said, comes to distinguish between a city walled from the days of Joshua and a city walled from the days of Ahasuerus—

why do I need it,

since we derive it by means of a gzera shava?

Rather,

this

verse

of “province and province”—

came for another exposition,

another [than the one mentioned],

and it came according to Rabbi Joshua ben Levi.

For Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: A city and everything adjoining it—

even though it is not visible with it,

and everything visible with it—

even though it is not adjoining [as he explains below]—

is judged like the city.

And for this reason Scripture juxtaposed “city and city” to “province,” to say that a city adjoining a province shall be like it.

And

to what extent

is it considered adjoining, so that it is judged like a walled city?

Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba: Like Hamath to Tiberias

and that is the measure of

a mil.

And we are astonished:

Let him say

explicitly

“a mil,”

and why does he say: Like Hamath to Tiberias?

And we explain:

This teaches us how much the measure of a mil is—

like Hamath to Tiberias.

And now we bring further statements of Rabbi Yirmeya, and some say Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, incidentally to this statement that he said earlier concerning the measure of a mil

[and below, on folio 3a, the continuation of the verse “province and province” will be explained]:

And Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say Rabbi Hiyya bar

Abba:

The letters

Mantzepakh,

which are the doubled letters of the alphabet [which have two forms, one form when the letter appears in the middle of a word and another form when it appears at the end of a word], the

Zofim—

prophets of the generations—

said them.

And it would enter our mind now that they innovated them.

And we raised a difficulty:

And can you really understand it so? For it is written: "These are the commandments

which the Lord commanded Moses [to give] to the children of Israel at Mount Sinai" , and we expound from this verse

that a prophet is not permitted to innovate a matter from then on,

from the time of its giving, for specifically these are the commandments, and no more!

And furthermore, Rav Hisda said:

Since the letters were engraved on the tablets on both their sides [as it is written: "From one side and from the other they were written" ],