Megillah 3b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yohanan said: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of page column")

This teaches that he spent the night in the depth of halakha.

And Rav Shmuel bar Unia said: Torah study is greater—

than the offering of the daily offerings. As it is stated: “Now I have come”—

because of the cessation of Torah study, and not because of the cessation of the daily offering.

In any event, we see from here that Torah study is greater than service! And how did the school of Rabbi learn by a kal va-chomer that service is more severe than the cessation of Torah study?!

And we answer:

It is not difficult. This

that we said that Torah study is great was with regard to Torah study

of the many,

for there, at the siege of Jericho, there was a cessation of Torah study by all Israel.

But

if

that

which we said above, that service is more severe, was with regard to Torah study

of an individual

it speaks.

And we challenge:

And

Torah study

of an individual—

is it lenient?

But we learned: On the intermediate days of the festival, women lament [

saying a eulogy for the dead, and all answer together],

but they do not clap

on their hearts .

Rabbi Ishmael says: If they were

the women

near the bottom—

also

they clap.

On the first days of the months, on Hanukkah, and on Purim, they lament and clap. In both this and that—[

but ]

they do not perform the lamentation

that is, one says, and all answer after her].

And Rabba bar Huna said: There is no festival before a Torah scholar,

and therefore they eulogize him even on the intermediate days of the festival, and

all the more so

there is no

Hanukkah and Purim

before him, and it is permitted to eulogize him, even though by doing so they interrupt the reading of the Megilla ; we see that Torah study—even that of an individual—is preferable to the reading of the Megilla?!

And we answer:

You are speaking of the honor of Torah?! The honor of Torah

is different! And therefore there, in the eulogy of a Torah scholar, since it constitutes the honor of Torah, even

that of an individual—

it is more severe

than the reading of the Megilla .

But

in truth,

the Torah study of an individual—

is lenient

in comparison with service and the reading of the Megilla.

Rava said:

This matter

is obvious to me,

that

service and the reading of the Megilla—

the reading of the Megilla is preferable! From Rabbi Yose bar Hanina

above.

And this too is obvious to me, that

Torah study and the reading of the Megilla—

the reading of the Megilla is preferable. For the school of Rabbi relied

on that beraita which says that service is interrupted in order to hear the reading of the Megilla, and they interrupted Torah study in order to hear the reading of the Megilla.

And likewise,

Torah study and a met mitzva,

that is, attending to a dead person who has no one to bury him —

a met mitzva is preferable. For it was taught: Torah study is interrupted for taking out the dead, and for bringing in a bride .

And likewise, it is obvious that

service and a met mitzva—

a met mitzva is preferable, from

what is written

“and for his sister”

as follows.

For it was taught:

It is written concerning a nazirite: “He shall not come for any dead person”; behold, all the dead are included. And afterward it is written: “For his father, and for his mother, for his brother, and for his sister he shall not defile himself,” and apparently, the verse is superfluous!? And we expound them in the Sifrei as follows:

“For his father” he shall not defile himself—but he does defile himself for a met mitzva.

“For his mother”—what does it come to teach? That if he was a priest and a nazirite, he shall not defile himself for his mother, but for a met mitzva he does defile himself.

“For his brother” comes to inform us that if he was a high priest and a nazirite, he shall not defile himself for his brother, but for a met mitzva he does defile himself.

And this that it is written

“and for his sister”—what does it come to teach?

For surely his sister is already included in the verse “He shall not come for any dead person”!

Rather, the verse comes to exclude this case:

Suppose he was going to slaughter his Paschal offering, and to circumcise his son [

that is, or to circumcise his son],

and he heard that a dead person had died for him,

a brother or sister;

perhaps he may become impure

to them and nullify his mitzva?

You must say: He shall not defile himself!

For just as a nazirite does not nullify his naziriteship in order to become impure for his relatives, so this person shall not nullify his Paschal offering.

Perhaps, just as he does not become impure for his sister, so he does not become impure for a met mitzva

in order not to nullify the mitzva?

The Torah says: “And for his sister.”

And we expound:

For his sister—

it is he who does not become impure, but he does become impure

for

a met mitzva.

We see that service for the Paschal offering is interrupted because of a met mitzva!

Rather, this matter Rava

needed to ask

himself:

The reading of the Megilla and a met mitzva—which of them is preferable?

Shall we say that

the reading of the Megilla is preferable—

because of the publicizing of the miracle; or perhaps a met mitzva is preferable—

because of the honor of created beings?

After he asked, he then

Rava

resolved it: A met mitzva—

is preferable!

For the Master said: Great is the honor of created beings, for it overrides a negative commandment of the Torah.

For it is written concerning the returning of a lost object: “You may not hide yourself,” and it is also written in that matter: “And you hide yourself.” And we expound: There are times when you hide yourself, such as in the case of an elder, for whom returning the lost object is not in accordance with his honor.

The body of the matter: Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: A walled city, and all that is adjacent to it, and all that is visible with it, is judged as a walled city—

and they read on the fifteenth.

A tanna taught:

If it was

adjacent

to a walled city,

even though it is not visible

with it, it is judged as a walled city.

And likewise, if it was

visible

with the walled city,

even though it is not adjacent

to it, it is judged as a walled city.

And we raise it:

Granted, visible

with it

even though it is not adjacent—the case can be found, for example, when it sits

that city

at the top of a mountain,

and therefore it is visible with the walled city even though it is not adjacent to it.

But adjacent—

Но если место примыкает —

even though it is not visible, how can the case be found?

Rabbi Jeremiah said:

For example,

when it sits in a valley,

that is, a low place. And therefore, even though it is adjacent to the walled city, it is not visible with it.

And

further

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: A walled city that was settled [

that was first settled with houses],

and afterward—

after it was settled—

was enclosed

with a wall,

is judged as a village

with regard to houses of walled cities. For its law is like that of houses in unwalled settlements, whose sale he can redeem whenever he wishes, and in the Jubilee the house returns to its owner without payment.

This is unlike houses of walled cities, whose law is that they are redeemed until the completion of one year from the day of the sale, and if he did not redeem it, it does not go out in the Jubilee [so Rashi explained , and Tosafot explained that it speaks with regard to the Megilla, that one does not read in it on the fifteenth like in a walled city. See there ].

What is the reason?

For it is written: “And if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city.”

And we expound: Specifically

one that was enclosed and afterward settled,

as the verse implies: a dwelling house—of a city that has a wall,

and not one that was settled

first

and afterward enclosed .

And

further

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: A walled city in which there are not ten idlers,

that is, people who are idle from their work and are supported from the communal funds, so that they will be found in the synagogue morning and evening [ as we say in tractate Berakhot: Once the Holy One, blessed is He, comes to the synagogue and does not find ten there, immediately He becomes angry, and so on]—

is judged as a village,

and they read on the day of assembly .

And we raise it:

What does he come to teach us?

For

we already learned

it below:

What is a large city

with regard to reading the Megilla?

Any city that has ten idlers. Fewer than this—

behold, it is

considered

a village!

And we explain:

He needed to teach it concerning a walled city

that it is a place of markets, and people gather there from many places. And Rabbi Joshua ben Levi teaches us that

even though there happen to come to it

idlers

from elsewhere,

nevertheless, we require that there be permanent idlers in it, lest idlers from elsewhere not be found.

And

further

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: A walled city that was destroyed and afterward settled—

is judged as a walled city.

And we raise it:

What

is this that he says: “A walled city

that was destroyed”?

If you say

that its

walls were destroyed,

is it indeed in this matter that we say that specifically if it

was settled

afterward—

yes,

it is judged as a walled city;

if it was not settled

afterward—

no,

and the law of a walled city is nullified from it?

But

the law is not so, for

it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer bar Yose says:

It is written concerning houses of walled cities:

“Which has no wall.”

It implies

even though it does not have

a wall

now, and it had one previously,

it is considered a house of a walled city .

We see that this statement of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, “a walled city that was destroyed,” does not speak of a case in which its walls were destroyed!

Rather, what is “destroyed”? It was destroyed of the ten idlers .

For in this matter we say that if afterward it was again settled with ten idlers, it is judged as a walled city.