Megillah 3b (ג:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yohanan said:

This teaches that he spent the night delving deeply into halakha.

And Rav Shmuel bar Unya said: The study of Torah is greater—

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

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

In any event, we see from here that the study of Torah is greater than the Temple service! And how, then, did the members of Rabbi’s household derive by means of a kal va-chomer that the Temple service is more stringent than the neglect of Torah study?!

And we answer:

This is not difficult. The statement

that we said—that the study of Torah is greater—refers to the study of Torah

by the public,

as there, at the siege of Jericho, the entire Jewish people neglected Torah study.

But

if

the statement

that we said above—that the Temple service is more stringent—refers to the study of Torah

by an individual

it is speaking.

And we challenge this:

And

Torah study

by an individual—

is it lenient?

But didn’t we learn in a Mishna: On a festival, women lament [

they recite a eulogy for the deceased, and all respond together],

but they may not beat their hands

against their hearts .

Rabbi Yishmael says: If the women were

women

gathered close to the bier—

they also

beat their hands.

On the New Moons, on Hanukkah, and on Purim, they lament and beat their hands. In both cases—[

but ]

they do not utter dirges

that is, one woman recites, and all the others respond after her].

And Rabba bar Huna said: There is no festival in the presence of a Torah scholar,

and therefore they eulogize him even on a festival, and

all the more so

there is no

Hanukkah or Purim

in his presence, and it is permitted to eulogize him, even though by doing so they interrupt the reading of the Megilla . We see, then, that Torah study—even that of an individual—is preferable to the reading of the Megilla?!

And we answer:

Are you speaking of the honor of Torah?! The honor of Torah

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

that of an individual—

it is more stringent

than the reading of the Megilla .

But

in truth,

the Torah study of an individual—

is less stringent

than the Temple service and the reading of the Megilla.

Rava said:

This matter

is obvious to me,

that

the Temple service and the reading of the Megilla—

the reading of the Megilla is preferable! From the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina

above.

And this too is obvious to me:

Torah study and the reading of the Megilla—

the reading of the Megilla is preferable. From the fact that Rabbi’s household relied

on that beraita which says that the Temple 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.

Likewise,

Torah study and a met mitzva,

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

the met mitzva is preferable. As it was taught: Torah study is interrupted for taking out the dead and for accompanying a bride .

Likewise, it is obvious that

the Temple service and a met mitzva—

the met mitzva is preferable, from

as it is written

“and for his sister”

as will be explained below.

As it was taught:

With regard to the nazirite, it is written: “He shall not come near any dead person,” which includes all the dead. Then it is written: “For his father, or for his mother, or for his brother, or for his sister he shall not make himself impure.” But seemingly, this verse is superfluous! And the Sifrei expounds these verses as follows: “

For his father”—he shall not become impure, but he does become impure for a met mitzva. “

For his mother”—why is this stated? If he was both a kohen and a nazirite, he may not become impure for his mother, but he does become impure for a met mitzva. “

For his brother”—this comes to teach us that if he was both a High Priest and a nazirite, he may not become impure for his brother, but he does become impure for a met mitzva.

And regarding that which is written

“and for his sister”—why is this stated?

After all, his sister is already included in the verse “He shall not come near any dead person”!

Rather, the verse comes to exclude the following case:

Suppose he was on his way to slaughter his Paschal offering, or to circumcise his son [

that is, either to circumcise his son],

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

a brother or sister.

One might have thought that he should become impure

for them and thereby neglect his mitzva.

You must say: He shall not become impure!

For just as a nazirite does not interrupt his nazirite status in order to become impure for his relatives, so too this person does not interrupt his Paschal offering.

One might have thought: Just as he does not become impure for his sister, so too he does not become impure for a met mitzva

in order not to neglect the mitzva?

The verse therefore states: “And for his sister.”

And we expound:

For his sister—

it is for her that he may not become impure, but he does become impure

for

a met mitzva.

We see that the Temple service of the Paschal offering is interrupted on account of a met mitzva!

Rather, this matter

Rava

was

uncertain about: Between 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 publicizing the miracle; or perhaps a met mitzva is preferable—

because of human dignity?

After he raised the question, Rava then

and

resolved it: A met mitzva—

is preferable!

For the Master said: Great is human dignity, as it overrides a negative commandment of the Torah.

As it is written concerning the returning of a lost object: “You may not hide yourself,” and it is also written in that passage: “And you hide yourself.” And we expound: There are times when you do hide yourself, for example, in the case of an elderly person for whom returning the lost object would not befit his dignity.

The substance of the matter: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A walled city, and all that is adjacent to it, and all that is visible with it, is treated 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 treated as a walled city.

And likewise, if it was

visible

with the walled city,

even though it is not adjacent

to it, it is treated as a walled city.

And we inquire about this:

Granted, the case of a place that is visible

with it

even though it is not adjacent can be found, for example, if

that city is situated

on the top of a mountain,

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

But the case of a place that is adjacent—

even though it is not visible—how can it be found?

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

For example,

if it is situated in a valley,

that is, in a low place. Therefore, even though it is adjacent to the walled city, it is not visible together with it.

And

another

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

that was first settled with houses],

and afterward—

after it had been settled—

was surrounded

by a wall,

is treated as a village

with regard to houses in walled cities. Its law is like that of houses in unwalled villages: the owner may redeem his sale whenever he wishes, and in the Jubilee year the house returns to its owner without payment.

This is unlike houses in walled cities, whose law is that they may be redeemed only until the end of one year from the date of sale; and if they were not redeemed, they do not go out in the Jubilee year [this is Rashi’s explanation , whereas Tosafot explained that the statement is referring to the Megilla: such a city is not read on the fifteenth as a walled city. See there ].

What is the reason?

As it is written: “And if a man sells a house in a city of habitation.”

And we expound: Specifically,

if it was surrounded by a wall and afterward settled,

as the verse indicates: a house of habitation—that is, of a city that has a wall,

but not one that was settled

first

and afterward surrounded by a wall .

And

another

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

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

is treated as a village,

and they read on the day of assembly .

And we inquire about this:

What does he come to teach us?

But

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—

it is

considered

a village!

And we explain:

The statement concerning a walled city was necessary

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

even though idlers happen to come to it

from elsewhere

from outside,

nevertheless, it is necessary that there be permanent idlers there, lest idlers from elsewhere not be found.

And

another

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

is treated as a walled city.

And we inquire about this:

What

is the meaning of this phrase that he said: “A walled city

that was destroyed”?

If you say

that

its walls were destroyed,

is it really in this regard that we say that specifically if it

was settled

afterward—

yes,

it is treated as a walled city; but if it

was not settled

afterward—

no,

its status as a walled city is nullified?

But

the law is not so, as

it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer bar Yosei says:

With regard to houses in walled cities, it is written:

“That has no wall.”

This indicates

even though it does not have

a wall

now, but it had one previously,

it is considered a house in a walled city .

We see, then, that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement “a walled city that was destroyed” is not speaking of a city whose walls were destroyed!

Rather, what does “destroyed” mean? Destroyed with regard to the ten idlers .

For in this case we say that if it was subsequently resettled with ten idlers, it is treated as a walled city.