Megillah 5b — the Talmud in English

And

likewise,

Rabbi bathed

Rabbi

in the carriage of Sepphoris—

that is, publicly, on market day, when carriages were passing—

on the seventeenth of Tammuz. .

And

likewise

Rabbi sought

Rabbi

to abolish

the fast of

the Ninth of Av,

but the Sages did not agree with him

regarding the Ninth of Av.

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said before him [

before Rabbi Elazar]:

“Rabbi! That is not what happened,”

for Rabbi wanted to abolish the Ninth of Av entirely.

Rather,

in that year,

the Ninth of Av occurred on Shabbat,

and we postponed it until after Shabbat. Rabbi said: Since it was postponed,

let it be postponed

entirely, and let it not be observed even after Shabbat.

But the

Sages

did not agree

with him in this matter.

Rabbi Elazar applied to him

this verse:

“Two are better than one.”

If I had not heard this from you, I would have been mistaken. Now that we are two, it is better for me, because you have taught me what actually happened.

We raise a difficulty:

“But how could Rabbi plant a tree on Purim?”

And Rav Yosef taught:

It is written concerning the days of Purim:

“Gladness, feasting, and a festival.”

And we interpret this verse as follows:

“Gladness”—

this teaches that eulogies are forbidden. .

“Feasting”—

this teaches that fasting is forbidden. .

“And a festival”—

this teaches that performing labor is forbidden.

If so, how could Rabbi plant a tree on Purim, since planting is labor?

We answer:

Rather, Rabbi observed Purim on the fourteenth,

because he lived in a city that was not surrounded by a wall.

And when he planted—

on

the day

of the fifteenth

of Adar

he planted,

because it was not Purim in his location.

We raise a difficulty:

Is that so? Rabbi lived in Tiberias,

and Tiberias was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun.

If so, he observed Purim on the fifteenth!

Rather, Rabbi observed Purim on the fifteenth, and when he planted—

it was on the fourteenth.

We ask:

Was it obvious to

Rabbi

that Tiberias was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun

or not?

But Hezekiah read the Megilla in Tiberias on both the fourteenth and the fifteenth,

because

he was uncertain

whether it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun or not?!

We answer:

Concerning Hezekiah—

he was uncertain,

but

concerning Rabbi—

it was obvious to him

that Tiberias was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua. We raise a difficulty:

Even if

it was

obvious to Rabbi

that the city was surrounded by a wall,

was he therefore permitted

to perform labor on the fourteenth?

But it is written in Megillat Ta’anit:

It is written in the scroll:

“The fourteenth day and the fifteenth day,”

and we interpret this to mean that both of them

are days of Purim, on which eulogizing is forbidden.

And Rava said: It was necessary—

the reason this matter was written in Megillat Ta’anit, even though it is already written in the Scroll of Esther that the days of Purim are forbidden for eulogies and fasting, as we derive from “feasting and gladness”

—was only to forbid

the fourteenth day

of this one,

the unwalled cities,

on this one,

the walled cities,

and

to forbid

the

day of

this one,

the walled cities,

on this one,

the unwalled cities. It teaches us that both days are subject to all the laws of Purim.

If so, even if it was obvious to Rabbi that he belonged to those who observe Purim on the fifteenth, he should have been forbidden to perform labor on the fourteenth as well!?

We answer:

That statement—

that one day is forbidden because of the other—

concerns eulogies and fasting, but labor

is forbidden only on

one day

of the person’s own location,

and no more.

We raise a difficulty:

Is that so?

Is labor forbidden only on one day?

But Rav saw a certain man who was scattering flaxseed [

that is, sowing flax]

on Purim, and he cursed him [

Rav cursed that man],

and his flax did not grow?!

We answer:

There,

that man

belonged to that day;

he sowed on the day on which he was obligated to observe Purim, and therefore Rav cursed him.

Rabba, son of Rava, said: You may even say

that

on his own day

Rabbi planted a tree. There is no difficulty, because the prohibition against

eulogies and fasting—

the later generations accepted upon themselves,

but the prohibition against

labor—

they did not accept upon themselves.

There is proof of this:

Originally,

when that generation established the observance of the days of Purim,

it is written [

“Gladness, feasting, and a festival.” But afterward,

when Mordecai sent to all the Jews that they should establish the days of Purim for themselves,

it is written [

in verse 22]:

“To make them days of feasting and gladness”; the words “a festival” are not written

.

We see that they did not accept upon themselves the prohibition against labor, which is derived from the words “a festival,” as stated above.

We ask:

But then, what was Rav’s reason for cursing that man

who was sowing flax, since they had not accepted the prohibition against labor?

We explain: Performing labor on Purim

was a matter that is permitted, but others adopted the practice of prohibiting it,

and one may not permit it in their presence.

That was the situation.

In that man’s locality, they had adopted the practice of prohibiting such labor, and therefore Rav cursed him.

But in Rabbi’s locality they had not adopted

the practice of prohibiting it, and therefore Rabbi planted a tree on Purim.

Alternatively, you may say: In fact, they had adopted

the practice of prohibiting labor even in Rabbi’s locality.

And Rabbi—

planted a tree of rejoicing,

and since Purim is a day of rejoicing, planting a tree of rejoicing is permitted on it.

What is a tree of rejoicing?

It is

the tree mentioned in tractate Ta’anit.

For the Mishna teaches

there:

“When these

thirteen fasts that the court decrees because of the lack of rain

have passed

and Israel has not received an answer from Heaven,

they reduce commercial activity,

building, planting, betrothals, and marriages.”

And the tanai

in a

beraita

explained that statement:

“Building”

that we learned means

building that brings joy,

as the statement refers to it.

“Planting”—

planting that brings joy.

And

what is building that brings joy?

It is one who builds a wedding house for his son,

because when a man married off his first son, he would build him a house and set up the wedding canopy inside it.

What is planting that brings joy?

It is one who plants an avronki tree for kings,

that is, a tree whose shade is pleasant—for example, a tree that is bent over poles and stakes, beneath which kings sit during the summer and enjoy various forms of celebration.

In any event, we see from here that there is such a thing as planting that brings joy. If so, it can be said that the tree that Rabbi planted on Purim was a tree of rejoicing.

The principal matter: Hezekiah read the Megilla in Tiberias on the fourteenth and the fifteenth, because he was uncertain whether it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun or not .

We raise a difficulty:

Was he uncertain about the matter of Tiberias?

But it is written

in the Book of Joshua, concerning the inheritance of Naphtali:

“And the fortified cities were Ziddim, Zer, and Hammath, Rakkath, and Chinnereth”; and we have an established tradition that Rakkath is Tiberias.

We see that it was a fortified city surrounded by a wall!

We answer:

This is the reason he was uncertain: on one side [

on one side of the city]

the sea was its wall.

It had no wall on that side; rather, the sea served as its wall. Hezekiah was uncertain whether such a configuration is considered a surrounding wall.

We ask:

If so, why was he uncertain?

Since

it is certainly not a wall!

For a beraita teaches:

It is written concerning houses in walled cities:

“That has a wall.”

And we interpret this to mean specifically a wall,

but not a wall of roofs.

That is, a city without a wall, whose outermost houses stand close together and whose walls form a wall around the city. “A wall of roofs” means a wall made from roofs, since the Aramaic translation of “roof” is “iggar.”

And from that which is written concerning the houses of the unwalled villages: “which do not have a wall

around,”

which implies that the houses of walled cities are surrounded by a wall, we expound:

excluding Tiberias, whose sea is

its wall.

We see that Tiberias is not considered walled!

And we answer:

With regard to the houses of walled cities, it is not uncertain to him

as far as Hezekiah is concerned, for certainly it is not considered walled.

When it is uncertain to him, it is with regard to the reading of the Megilla,

for the expression “wall” is not written in it, but rather “perazim” and “mukafim,” and it is uncertain to him whether “perazim” means exposure, or means a city that is easy to conquer. And this is his uncertainty:

What

is the meaning of the expression

“perazim,” and what

is the meaning of the expression

“mukafim” —

which are written with regard to the reading of the Megilla?

Is it

because these

— the perazim —

are exposed, and these

— the mukafim —

are not exposed, and

if so,

this

Tiberias

also

is exposed,

for one of its sides is the sea, and it is not considered walled.

Or perhaps, because these

— the mukafim —

are protected

[protected],

and these

— the perazim —

are not protected .

And Tiberias

also is protected,

for the sea protects it.

For this reason,

although we exclude Tiberias from the law of the houses of walled cities, with regard to the Megilla

it is uncertain to him.

Rav Asi read the Megilla in

a place whose name was

Hutzal, on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth.

Because

it was uncertain to him whether it was walled from the days of Joshua son of Nun or not.

There are those who say: Rav Asi said: This Hutzal of Benjamin was walled from the days of Joshua .

.

Rabbi Yohanan said: When I was a youth

[when I was a lad],

I would say a matter: for I would ask the elders

[and a matter would be asked of the elders] -

and it turned out to be as I said.