Megillah 2b (ב:) — the Talmud in English

And this is what is difficult for him:

And did Rabbi Yehuda say

that

in the present era, since people look at it, one reads it only at its proper time?

And he raises an objection from

the Mishna below:

Rabbi Yehuda said: When

do the villagers advance their reading to the day of assembly?

In a place where they assemble on Mondays and Thursdays

to come to the towns 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

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

they do read

on the day of assembly,

even in the present era,

and we are not concerned about the fact that people look at it?!

And

it might have entered our minds that for this reason he

establishes the beraita as referring to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda.

And we are astonished:

And merely because Rabbi Yehuda’s statement

in the Mishna

contradicts Rabbi Yehuda’s

statement in the beraita,

does he establish the beraita as referring to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda,

when the beraita explicitly teaches that it was stated by Rabbi Yehuda?!

And we explain:

Rav Ashi had heard that there was one who taught the beraita

as being in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

and there was one who taught it in accordance with Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda. And since Rabbi Yehuda’s statement

in the beraita

contradicts Rabbi Yehuda’s

statement in the Mishna, he resolved it and

said: The one who teaches it as Rabbi Yehuda—

that is not precise. The one who teaches it as Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda—

that is precise,

for certainly Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda said it. And in fact Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda of the Mishna and maintains that one reads it only at its proper time.

We learned in our Mishna:

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

From where are these matters,

that walled cities read on the fifteenth?

Rava said, for the verse states: “Therefore the unwalled Jews who dwell in unwalled cities 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, lacking a wall, their settlement is open and dispersed] observe

the fourteenth,

it follows that

walled cities—

observe

the fifteenth,

as the verse assigned “the fifteenth” to the walled cities.

And we raise an objection:

But perhaps

the

unwalled

observe

the fourteenth,

but

walled cities altogether

and

not at all

observe —and the fact that the verse mentions the fifteenth means that it assigns it to Shushan, where they observe 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 would say they should not observe the days of Purim at all?!

Furthermore,

it is written:

“From India to Cush” [although this wording is not written in the context of 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.

although this wording does not appear in the passage concerning observing the days of Purim; it is written there, “in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus,” which likewise means from India to Ethiopia. Therefore, it necessarily follows that the inhabitants of walled cities also observe the days of Purim. And since only the inhabitants of unwalled cities observe it on the fourteenth, we learn from this that the inhabitants of walled cities observe it on the fifteenth.

And we raise an objection:

But perhaps

the

unwalled

observe

the fourteenth,

as is written in the Megilla, whereas

walled cities

observe

the fourteenth, and

also

the fifteenth, as it is written: “To observe the fourteenth day of the month of Adar and the fifteenth day of it every year,”

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

Had the verse stated

only:

“the fourteenth and fifteenth day,”

it would have implied

as you said,

that they should observe both days. But

now that it states: “the fourteenth day and the fifteenth day,” the

second word

“and”

comes

and separates ,

to say that

these

—the unwalled cities—

observe on the fourteenth, and these

—the walled cities—

on the fifteenth.

And we raise an objection:

But perhaps

the

unwalled

observe

the fourteenth,

whereas

walled cities,

whose time was not explicitly fixed,

if they wish—

they may observe

on the fourteenth; if they wish—

they may observe

on the fifteenth?

And we answer:

The verse states: “at their appointed times.”

And we interpret:

The appointed time of one

—the unwalled cities—

is not the appointed time of the other

—the walled cities. If so, it necessarily follows that the appointed time of the walled cities is specifically the fifteenth.

And we raise an objection:

But perhaps

the walled cities should observe

on the thirteenth,

and let us say that the verse stating “the fifteenth” refers to Shushan, so that its inhabitants observe on the fifteenth, as at the time of the miracle? And we answer: Since we do not find that Scripture assigned a time to 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—that the unwalled cities observe on the fourteenth—for the verse, “Therefore the unwalled Jews ... observe the fourteenth day,” speaks of observance.

But

the remembrance—

reading the Megilla—

from where do we know it?

And we say: We derive it through a juxtaposition.

The verse states: “And these days are remembered and observed”; remembrance is juxtaposed

to observance,

for we perform both on one day.

And we say:

The Mishna

that states that cities surrounded by a wall read on the fifteenth refers specifically to cities surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun—

unlike this tanna:

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha says: Cities surrounded by a wall from the days of Ahasuerus—

read on the fifteenth.

What is the reason of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha?

Because we compare

to

[that is, like]

Shushan. Just as Shushan—

which 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—

reads

in it

on the fifteenth.

And our tanna,

who made the criterion cities surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun,

what is the reason?

He derives

a gzera shava,

“unwalled”—

“unwalled.”

Here it is written

in the Megilla:

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

regarding 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 ...”

“apart from the cities of the unwalled land, very many.”

Just as there,

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

from the days of Joshua, son of Nun ,

so here,

in the Megilla, the verse speaks of unwalled cities

from the days of Joshua, son of Nun.

And if a city was enclosed thereafter, it is not considered walled with regard to the Megilla.

And we inquire about this:

Granted, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha

did not say as our tanna,

who requires that the cities have been walled since the days of Joshua, because

he does not have

the gzera shava of

“unwalled”—

“unwalled,”

for 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: Why does he not say in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha,

who derives the matter from Shushan?

And we are astonished:

What is the reason?!

Because

he does have

the gzera shava of

“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 through a gzera shava,

then what of Shushan?

How did they establish its reading on the fifteenth?

In accordance with whom did it act

? Not like the unwalled cities,

for the unwalled cities observe on the fourteenth,

and not like the walled cities,

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

Kadei

[the name of a sage ]:

Shushan is different, since a miracle was performed there,

for its inhabitants were given two days to kill their enemies, and they could not rest until the fifteenth; therefore, they established it that way for future generations.

And we raise an objection:

Granted, according to our tanna,

who holds that the city must have been walled since the days of Joshua, and that Shushan is different,

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

For this implies that there is a different practice in the provinces and a different practice in the cities. The phrase

“province and province”

comes 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 cities walled from the days of Ahasuerus,

which read on the fourteenth.

And the phrase

“city and city” likewise—

comes to distinguish between

the unwalled cities, that is,

between Shushan—

and the other cities,

for although Shushan was not surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, they read there on the fifteenth.

But according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha,

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

granted,

the verse

“province and province” comes 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 Yehoshua ben Korha could say to you: And is it satisfactory according to our tanna?

It is also difficult according to him! For

since he has

the gzera shava of

“unwalled”—

“unwalled,”

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

“province and province,”

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

why do I need it,

since we derive this through the gzera shava?

Rather,

this

verse

—“province and province”—

comes for another homiletical interpretation,

a different one,

and it comes in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A walled city and everything adjacent to it,

even though it cannot be seen together with it,

and everything that can be seen together with it—

even though it is not adjacent [as will be explained below]—

is considered like the walled city.

And for this reason the verse juxtaposed “city and city” to “province,” to say that a city adjacent to a province is to be treated like it.

And

to what extent

is a place considered adjacent, so that it is treated like the walled city?

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

which is a measure of

a mil .

And we are astonished:

Why not say

explicitly

a mil,

and why does he say, “like Hamat to Tiberias”?

And we explain:

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

like Hamat to Tiberias .

And now we bring another statement of Rabbi Yirmeya, or, as some say, Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, incidentally to the foregoing statement concerning the measure of a mil

[and below, on page 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 when it appears at the end of a word], the

seers

—the prophets of the generations—

declared 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" ],