Megillah 5b (ה:) — the Talmud in English

And

,

Rabbi bathed

Rabbi

in the carriage of Sepphoris—

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

on the seventeenth of Tammuz .

The Ritva explained that, strictly speaking, all fasts are forbidden with all the restrictions of a fast. However, in the days of Rabbi there was a period when there was neither peace nor persecution. It is stated in tractate Rosh HaShana [18b] that in such a situation, if people wished to fast they fasted, and if they wished not to fast they did not fast. Therefore Rabbi bathed on the seventeenth of Tammuz. He wrote that according to this, it is possible that Rabbi also ate; bathing was mentioned because it was more public knowledge. However, he wrote that it is more reasonable to say that the distinction between “if they wished” and “if they did not wish” applies specifically to the other restrictions, but not to eating. Even nowadays, we are obligated to abstain from eating by the enactment of the Prophets, and not merely as a custom. The Shulchan Arukh [Orach Chaim 550:2] ruled that on the four fasts bathing, anointing, and similar activities are permitted, and that one is forbidden only to eat. See the Taz there, who raised a difficulty from this passage and from Tosafot here [s.v. “And Rabbi bathed”]. The Magen Avraham cited the Ran as explaining that the reason is that most of the public cannot endure all these restrictions; therefore, a person who is spiritually particular should observe all of them except for the prohibition against wearing shoes. See also the Biur HaGra.

Likewise,

so

Rabbi sought

Rabbi

to annul

the fast of

Tisha BeAv ,

but the Sages did not agree with him

with regard to this matter of Tisha BeAv.

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said before him [לפני רבי אלעזר]before Rabbi Elazar:

before Rabbi Elazar]:

“Rabbi, that was not what happened,”

that Rabbi sought to annul Tisha BeAv entirely.

“Rather,

that year,

Tisha BeAv fell on Shabbat,

and we postponed it until after Shabbat. Rabbi said: Since it has been 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.”

For had I not heard this from you, I would have erred; and now, because we are two, it is better for me, for you have taught me what actually happened .

And we raise a difficulty:

But Rabbi—how could he plant a tree on Purim?

But Rav Yosef taught:

It is written concerning the days of Purim:

“Joy, feasting, and a Festival day.”

And we interpret this verse as follows:

“Joy”—

this teaches that eulogizing is forbidden .

“Feasting”—

this teaches that fasting is forbidden .

The Ran cited some of the Sages as expressing uncertainty whether the laws of mourning apply on Purim. On the first day of mourning, which is mandated by Torah law, it is obvious that they apply. But concerning the other days, there is uncertainty: do we say that Purim is like a Festival, in which case a positive obligation incumbent upon an individual does not override a positive obligation incumbent upon the community by Torah law? Similarly here, should we say that an individual’s rabbinic positive obligation does not override the community’s rabbinic positive obligation? Or perhaps, since Purim is rabbinic, the mourning that had already begun overrides it? See the Rosh in Moed Katan [chapter 3, section 85], who cited Sefer HaMiktzuot, which states that if Purim occurs during the seven days of mourning, the decree of the seven days is annulled for the mourner. See there. See also the Ritva’s novellae here. In practice, the Shulchan Arukh [section 596:4] states: “All the practices of mourning apply on Hanukkah and Purim.” However, the Rama concludes there that the custom is that mourning is not observed either on the fourteenth or on the fifteenth. See there and in the Mishna Berura. The Ritva wrote that nevertheless, if one ate even kinds of fruit, he is no longer subject to the prohibition. Still, he must fulfill the mitzva of the Purim meal whenever possible. It follows from his words that there is no obligation to eat bread at the Purim meal. See the Taz [section 693, subsection 2], who concluded that the Purim meal is obligatory, like the Shabbat meal. Therefore, if one forgot to mention “For the miracles” in Grace after Meals, he must repeat it.

“And a Festival day”—

this teaches that performing labor is forbidden.

If so, how could Rabbi plant a tree on Purim, when this is labor?

We answer:

Rather, Rabbi was a resident of a fourteenth-day city,

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

And when he planted—

on

the day

fifteenth

of Adar—

he planted,

since it was not Purim in his locale.

We raise a difficulty:

Is that so? But Rabbi lived in Tiberias ,

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

If so, he was a resident of a fifteenth-day city!?

Rather, Rabbi was a resident of a fifteenth-day city, and when he planted—

it was the fourteenth day.

We raise another difficulty:

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 ?!

The Ran wrote that Hezekiah did this as an act of piety. As a matter of law, however, we follow the majority of cities, which were not surrounded by walls from the days of Joshua, son of Nun, and read on the fourteenth. Furthermore, even if the matter is an even doubt, it is a doubt concerning rabbinic law, and we rule leniently. If so, reading on both days would exempt him on both and cause him to miss the mitzva of reading the Megilla. Therefore, he reads on the fourteenth and is exempt on the fifteenth. In fact, he recites a blessing only on the fourteenth; on the fifteenth he reads the Megilla without a blessing. So too ruled Maimonides [Laws of Megilla 1:11] and the Shulchan Arukh [688:4]. In Responsa Besamim Rosh [section 349], it is written that even if the chronicles of the nations state that a certain city has existed for more than 2,500 years and was surrounded by a wall, one may not rely on them. In Responsa Teshuva MeAhava [section 210], the words of the Levush are cited: all the cities of northern Europe were uninhabited in the time of Joshua; they were settled only after the Israelites entered the Land, and even after the destruction of the Temple. But concerning regions near the Land of Israel, or southern regions—even if distant from the Land of Israel—there is uncertainty. The Rashash wrote that he heard from a Jerusalem scholar that in Hebron as well they read on both days, because they were uncertain whether it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun. He wrote that it is evident that Hebron was not so surrounded, since it was a city of refuge. See there.

We answer:

As for Hezekiah,

he was uncertain,

but

-

it was obvious to him

that it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua ! We raise a difficulty:

And even if

also

it was obvious

to Rabbi that it was surrounded by a wall,

was he nevertheless permitted

to perform labor on the fourteenth merely for that reason?

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

are days of Purim, on which one may not eulogize.

And Rava said: It was necessary—

the fact that this matter was written in Megillat Ta'anit [since it is already written in the Scroll of Esther that the days of Purim are forbidden for eulogizing and fasting, as we derive from “feasting and joy”]],

rather, to prohibit the

fourteenth day

of this one,

the unwalled cities,

on this one—

the walled cities,

and

to prohibit

the

day

of this one,

the walled cities,

on this one—

the unwalled cities. It comes to teach us that both days are subject to all the prohibitions of Purim.

If so, even if it was obvious to Rabbi that he was a resident of a fifteenth-day city, performing labor on the fourteenth should also be forbidden to him?!

We answer:

That statement applies

to the prohibition of one concerning the other—

with regard to eulogizing and fasting; but labor

is forbidden only on

one day

of one’s locale,

and no more.

We raise a difficulty:

Is that so?

Is labor forbidden for only one day?

But Rav saw a certain man who was sowing flax [שהיה זורע פשתן]who was sowing flax

that is, sowing flax]

on Purim, and he cursed him [קללו]Rav cursed that man,

Rav cursed that man],

and his flax did not grow?!

The Sefat Emet explains, based on the Ritva, that the Gemara understood the case to concern a day on which the man was not obligated to observe Purim. On the day of his obligation, Rav would have placed him under a ban, and not merely cursed him. Since Rav cursed him, this indicates that performing labor was forbidden even on the second day. The same is stated in the Shulchan Arukh [696:1]: one who performs labor on Purim will not see a sign of blessing from that labor.

We answer:

There,

that man

was a resident of that day,

for he sowed on the day of his obligation, and that is why Rav cursed him.

Rabba, son of Rava, said: Even if you say

that

on his day

Rabbi planted, it is not difficult, for the prohibition of

eulogizing and fasting—

they accepted upon themselves

the later generations, whereas the prohibition of

labor—

they did not accept upon themselves.

And there is proof of this:

initially,

when that generation observed the days of Purim,

it is written [פרק ט' פסוק י"ט] [chapter 9, verse 19]:

“Joy, feasting, and a Festival day.” But later,

when Mordecai sent to all the Jews to accept the days of Purim upon themselves,

it is written [בפסוק כ"ב] [in verse 22]:

in verse 22]:

“to make them days of feasting and joy”; whereas “a Festival day” is not written

there .

We see that they did not accept upon themselves the prohibition of labor derived from the words “a Festival day,” as we said above.

We raise a difficulty:

If so, why did Rav curse that man

who was sowing flax, since they had not accepted upon themselves a prohibition against labor?

We explain: Labor on Purim

is included among “matters that are permitted, but others have adopted the practice of prohibiting them—

“you may not permit them in their presence” —

that was the case.

In that man’s locale, they had adopted the practice of prohibiting the matter, and that is why Rav cursed him.

But in Rabbi’s locale, they had not adopted the practice

of prohibiting the matter, and that is why Rabbi planted a tree on Purim .

And if you wish, say instead: In fact, they had adopted the practice

of prohibiting labor even in Rabbi’s locale.

But Rabbi—

planted a joyful planting,

and since Purim is a day of joy, it is permitted to plant a joyful planting .

And what is a joyful planting?

It is like

the planting mentioned in tractate Ta'anit.

For we learned

there:

“When these have passed”—

the thirteen fasts that the court decrees because of rain,

and Israel was not answered

from Heaven,

they reduce business activity ,

building, planting, betrothals, and weddings.

And the tanna

in a beraita

taught concerning

that teaching:

“Building”

that we mentioned means

“joyful building,”

it is referring to.

“Planting”—

“joyful planting.”

And

what is joyful building?

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

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

What is joyful planting?

It is one who plants an aravanka of kings,

that is, a tree whose shade is attractive, such as a tree bent over poles and stakes, beneath which kings sit during the summer and indulge in various pleasures .

In any event, we see from here that there is such a thing as joyful planting. If so, it may be said that the planting Rabbi planted on Purim was a joyful planting .

The Gemara returns to the matter itself: Hezekiah read 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 are Ziddim, Zer, and Hammath, Rakkath, and Chinnereth,” and we have an established tradition that Rakkath is Tiberias.

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

We answer:

This is the reason he was uncertain: because on one side [בצדה האחד]on one side

on one side of the city]

there was the wall of the sea.

It had no wall on that side; rather, the sea was its wall. Hezekiah was uncertain whether such an arrangement is considered an enclosure.

We raise a difficulty:

If so, why was he uncertain,

since

it is certainly not a wall!?

For it was taught in a beraita:

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 that has no wall, but whose outer houses adjoin one another, with their walls forming a wall for the city [and “a wall of roofs” means a wall made of roofs, for the Aramaic translation of “roof” is iggar].

And from that which is written regarding the unwalled houses: “which have no wall

surrounding them,”

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

excluding Tiberias, whose sea

is its wall.

We see that Tiberias is not considered to be surrounded by a wall!

And we answer:

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

that Tiberias is certainly not considered to be surrounded by a wall.

When he is uncertain, it is with regard to reading the Megillah,

as the term “wall” is not written concerning it; rather, the terms “unwalled” and “surrounded” are used. And he is uncertain whether “unwalled” denotes exposure, or whether it denotes a city that is easy to conquer. And this is his uncertainty:

What

is the meaning of the expression

“unwalled,” and what

is the meaning of the expression

“surrounded”

that are written with regard to reading the Megillah?

Is it

because these

unwalled cities

are exposed, whereas these

surrounded cities

are not exposed, and

if so,

this

Tiberias

too

is exposed,

as one of its sides is the sea, and it is therefore not considered surrounded.

Or perhaps, because these

surrounded cities

are protected [protected],

whereas these

unwalled cities

are not protected .

And Tiberias

too is protected,

as the sea protects it.

For this reason,

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

he is uncertain.

Rav Asi read the Megillah in

a place called

Hozel, on both the fourteenth and the fifteenth.

Because

he was uncertain whether it had been surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua bin Nun or not.

Some say that Rav Asi said: This Hozel of the tribe of Benjamin was surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua. .

.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: When I was a youth

[when I was a young man],

I would state a matter that I had asked the elders

[and asked the elders about it]—

and it turned out that I was correct.