מגילה 2 — Soncino English Talmud

¹MISHNAH. THE MEGILLAH IS READ ON THE ELEVENTH, THE TWELFTH, THE THIRTEENTH, THE FOURTEENTH, AND THE FIFTEENTH [OF ADAR], NEVER EARLIER AND NEVER LATER. CITIES WHICH HAVE BEEN WALLED SINCE THE DAYS OF JOSHUA SON OF NUN READ ON THE FIFTEENTH; VILLAGES AND LARGE TOWNS READ ON THE FOURTEENTH. THE VILLAGES, HOWEVER, MAY [SOMETIMES] PUSH THE READING FORWARD TO THE COURT DAY. HOW DOES THIS WORK OUT? IF [THE FOURTEENTH OF ADAR] FALLS ON MONDAY, THE VILLAGES AND LARGE TOWNS READ ON THAT DAY AND THE WALLED PLACES ON THE NEXT DAY: IF IT FALLS ON TUESDAY OR ON WEDNESDAY, THE VILLAGES PUSH THE READING FORWARD TO THE COURT DAY, THE LARGE TOWNS READ ON THE DAY ITSELF, AND THE WALLED PLACES ON THE NEXT DAY. IF [THE FOURTEENTH FALLS] ON THURSDAY, THE VILLAGES AND LARGE TOWNS READ ON THAT DAY AND THE WALLED PLACES ON THE NEXT DAY: IF IT FALLS ON FRIDAY, THE VILLAGES PUSH THE READING FORWARD TO THE COURT DAY AND THE LARGE TOWNS AND WALLED PLACES READ ON THE DAY ITSELF. IF IT FALLS ON SABBATH, THE VILLAGES AND LARGE TOWNS PUSH THE READING FORWARD TO THE COURT DAY. AND THE WALLED PLACES READ ON THE NEXT DAY. IF IT FALLS ON SUNDAY, THE VILLAGES PUSH THE READING FORWARD TO THE COURT DAY, THE LARGE TOWNS READ ON THE SAME DAY, AND THE WALLED CITIES ON THE DAY FOLLOWING. GEMARA. THE MEGILLAH IS READ ON THE ELEVENTH. Whence is this derived? — [How can you ask,] ‘Whence is this derived’? Surely it is as we state further on, ‘The Sages made a concession to the villages, allowing them to push the reading forward to the Court day, so that [they should have leisure to] supply food and water for their brethren in the large towns’? — What we mean [by our question] is this: Let us see now. All these dates were laid down by the Men of the Great Assembly. For if you should [deny this and affirm] that the Men of the Great Assembly laid down only the fourteenth and fifteenth, [is it possible that] the [later] Rabbis should have come and annulled a regulation made by the Men of the Great Assembly, seeing that we have learnt, ‘One Beth din cannot annul the ordinances of another unless it is superior to it in number and in wisdom’? Obviously, therefore, all these days must have been laid down by the Men of the Great Assembly, [and we ask therefore], where are they hinted [in the Scripture]? — R. Shaman b. Abba replied in the name of R. Johanan: Scripture says, To confirm these days of Purim in their times. [which indicates that] they laid down many ‘times’ for them. But this text is required for its literal meaning? — If that were all, Scripture could say simply ‘at the [appointed] time’. What then is implied by ‘their times’? A large number of ‘times’! But still I may say that [the expression ‘their’ times’] is required to indicate that the time of one is not the same as the time of the other? — In that case, Scripture should say [simply], ‘their time’. Why does it say ‘their times’? So that you may infer from this all of them. But cannot I say that ‘their times’ means ‘numerous times’? — The expression ‘their times’ is to be interpreted in the same way as we should interpret ‘their time’: just as ‘their time’ would indicate two [days], so ‘their times’ indicates two [in addition]. But why not make these the twelfth and thirteenth? — For the reason given [elsewhere] by R. Samuel b. Isaac, that the thirteenth is a time of assembly for all, and no special indication is required for it in the text; so we may say here that the thirteenth day is a time of assembly and no special indication is required for it in the text. But why not say that the sixteenth and seventeenth are meant? — It is written, and it shall not pass. R. Samuel b. Nahmani, however, explained thus. Scripture says. As the days wherein the Jews had rest from their enemies. [The expression] ‘the days’ [would have sufficed] and we have ‘as the days’, to include the eleventh and the twelfth. But cannot I say rather the twelfth and thirteenth? — R. Samuel b. Isaac said: The thirteenth is a time of assembly for all, and does not require special indication. But cannot I say the sixteenth and the seventeenth? — It is written, ‘and it shall not pass’. Why did R. Samuel b. Nahmani not derive the rule from the expression ‘in their times’? — He does not accept the distinction [made above between] ‘time’, ‘their time’ and ‘their times’. And why did R. Shaman b. Abba not derive the rule from the expression ‘as the days’? — He can say to you: This is meant to make the rule apply to future generations. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: This [rule stated in the Mishnah] is the ruling of R. Akiba the anonymous authority, who draws the distinction between ‘time’, ‘their time’ and ‘their times’, but according to the Sages the Megillah is to be read only on the proper day. The following was adduced in refutation of this: ‘R. Judah said, When does this rule hold good? When the years are properly fixed and Israel reside upon their own soil. But in these days, since people reckon from it, the Megillah is to be read only on the proper day’. Now which authority is R. Judah here following? Shall I say, R. Akiba? This cannot be, because [according to him] the regulation is in force in these days also. It must be then that he follows the Rabbis, and [even according to them] we read [on the other days] at any rate when the years are properly fixed and Israel reside on their own soil! Is not this a refutation of R. Johanan? — It is. Some report as follows. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: This rule follows the ruling of R. Akiba the anonymous authority, but the Sages held that in these days, since people reckon from it, we read it only on the proper day. It has been taught to the same effect: ‘R. Judah said: When does this rule hold good? When the years are properly fixed and Israel reside upon their own soil, but in these days, since people reckon from it, it is read only on the proper day.’ R. Ashi noted a contradiction between two statements of R. Judah^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ

^ᵃnote:Lit., ‘scroll’. The scroll of the Book of Esther is meant (v. Introduction).
^ᵇnote:Lit., ‘neither less nor more’.
^ᶜnote:ihfrf (Sing. lrf). This word is generally applied to large centres of population with a more or less metropolitan character. In Mishnah Megillah, (cf. 19a), however, it seems to be used exclusively of walled towns, whatever their size.
^ᵈnote:The Gemara infra discusses what is meant by this.
^ᵉnote:,ukusd ,urhhgu ohrpf. The expression ‘villages and large towns’ in the Mishnah here seems to be merely a periphrasis for ‘other places’, since, as appears from the Gemara, the distinction here is between places which were walled in the days of Joshua and places which were not. The epithet ‘large’ is added because the word rhg (or vrhg) is also often used of a small place, hardly distinguishable from a village.
^ᶠnote:Lit., ‘the day of assembly’, i.e. Monday or Thursday, when the Beth din sat in the towns, and the people came in from the villages. They were allowed to read the Megillah then because they were more likely to find someone who could read to them in the town than in their own village (Rashi). Another reason is also given in the Gemara infra.
^ᵍnote:Lit., ‘the second (day of the week)’. In the Talmud the days of the week are distinguished by the ordinal numbers.
^ʰnote:I.e., the previous Monday.
^ⁱnote:I.e., the preceding Thursday.
^ʲnote:Reading on the Sabbath was prohibited, for fear the scroll might be carried from place to place. V. infra.
^ᵏnote:On the Sunday.
^ˡnote:V. infra p. 116.
^ᵐnote:Or ‘synagogue’. A name given to Ezra and his Beth din and their successors, up to the time of Simon the Just. V. Aboth, Sonc. ed. p. 1, n. 5. According to the Talmud, the Book of Esther was composed by or under the direction of the Men of the Great Assembly.
^ⁿnote:Of the members of the Beth din.
^ᵒnote:Cf. M.K. 3b; Git. 36a.
^ᵖnote:Esth. IX, 31. E.V. ‘their appointed times’. The plural form ‘times’ is stressed.
^ᵠnote:Lit., ‘for itself’; viz., the 14th and 15th mentioned in the text.
^ʳnote:Viz., the time for the villages is not the same as that for the walled towns.
^ˢnote:E.g., five or six.
^ᵗnote:To the fourteenth and fifteenth, viz., the eleventh and twelfth.
^ᵘnote:Rashi explains this to refer to the statement in the Scripture that on the thirteenth the Jews assembled and defended themselves. Asheri, however, points out that this has nothing to do with the reading of the Megillah, which was instituted to commemorate the resting, and he therefore prefers the explanation of R. Tam, that on the thirteenth the Jews assemble to observe the fast of Esther.
^ᵛnote:Ibid. 27. These words are interpreted to mean, ‘the observance shall not pass beyond the fifteenth day’. E.V., and it shall not fail.
^ʷnote:Ibid. 22.
^ˣnote:So called because Rabbi in compiling the Mishnah usually followed R Akiba when he mentioned no authority.
^ʸnote:Viz., the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar.
^ᶻnote:I.e., when there is a Beth din which fixes new moons and leap years as occasion arises.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e. count thirty days from Purim to Passover, since the new moon of Nisan will not be promulgated by the Beth din
^ᵃᵇnote:That the Megillah may be read on the eleventh, twelfth, or thirteenth.
^ᵃᶜnote:And there is now no contradiction between R. Johanan and Rabbi Judah.

², and therefore attributed the statement in the Baraitha to R. Jose son of R. Judah. [He said]: Can R. Judah really have said that in these days, since people reckon from it, it is read only on the proper day? To this may be opposed the following: R. Judah said, When [do they push forward the reading]? In places where the villagers go to town on Monday and Thursday; but in places where they do not go to town on Monday and Thursday, it is read only on the proper day. But at any rate in places where they do go to town on Monday and Thursday it is read [on the earlier dates] even in these times’? He accordingly ascribed the statement in the Baraitha to R. Jose son of R. Judah. And because he finds a contradiction between two statements of R. Judah, is he entitled to ascribe the one in the Baraitha to R. Jose son of R. Judah? — R. Ashi had heard some report the statement in the name of R. Judah and some report it in the name of R. Jose son of R. Judah, and to avoid making R. Judah contradict himself he said that the one who ascribed the statement to R. Judah was not [reporting] accurately, while the one who ascribed it to R. Jose son of Judah was [reporting] accurately. CITIES WHICH HAVE BEEN WALLED SINCE THE DAYS OF JOSHUA SON OF NUN READ ON THE FIFTEENTH. Whence is this ruling derived? — Raba replied: Because Scripture says, Therefore do the Jews of the villages that dwell in the unwalled towns, etc. Since the villages [are to read] on the fourteenth, the walled towns [must read] on the fifteenth. But why not say that the villages [should read] on the fourteenth, and those in walled towns not at all? — But are they not also Israelites? And moreover is it not written, From India into Ethiopia? But why not say that the villages [should read] on the fourteenth and those in walled towns on both the fourteenth and fifteenth, as it is written, that they should keep the fourteenth day of the month of Adar and the fifteenth day of the same yearly? — If the text had said, ‘the fourteenth day and [we] the fifteenth’, you would have been right. Now, however, that it is written ‘the fourteenth day and [we-eth] the fifteenth — the eth comes and makes a distinction, so that the one set is on the fourteenth and the other set on the fifteenth. But why not say that the villages are on the fourteenth, and those surrounded [by a wall] can [celebrate] if they like on the fourteenth or if they like on the fifteenth? — The text says, in their seasons, the season of one is not the same as the season of the other. But why not say that they should celebrate on the thirteenth? — [They must do] as Susa [did]. We have accounted for the celebration [of Purim]; how do we know that the recital [of the Megillah must be on these days]? — The text says, that these days should be remembered and kept; ‘remembering’ is put on the same footing as ‘keeping’. Our Mishnah does not take the same view as the following Tanna, as it has been taught: ‘R. Joshua b. Korha says: Cities which have been walled since the days of Ahasuerus read on the fifteenth’. What is the reason of R. Joshua b. Korha? — [They must be] like Susa: just as Susa has been walled since the days of Ahasuerus and reads on the fifteenth, so every city that has been walled since the days of Ahasuerus reads on the fifteenth. What then is the reason of our Tanna? — He draws an analogy between the two occurrences of the word perazi [villagers]. It is written here, Therefore the Jews of the villages [ha — perazim], and it is written in another place, beside the unwalled [ha — perazi] towns, a great many; just as there the reference is to towns which were [not] walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun, so here the reference is to towns which were [not] walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun. I can understand why R. Joshua b. Korha did not adopt the view of our Tanna; he does not accept the analogy of perazi and perazi. But why does not our Tanna accept the view of R.Joshua b. Korha? — [You ask] why does he not? Why, because he draws the analogy of perazi with perazi, of course! What the questioner meant was this: [On the view of our Tanna], whom did Susa follow? It followed neither the villages nor the walled towns! — Raba, or, as some say, Kadi, replied: Susa was an exception, because a miracle was performed in it. We can understand according to the view of our Tanna why the text should say, city and city, town and town; ‘city and city’ to make a distinction between those which were walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun and those which were walled in the days of Ahasuerus; ‘town and town’ likewise to distinguish between Susa and other towns. But according to R. Joshua b. Korha, it is true we can account for ‘city and city’, as being intended to distinguish between Susa and other cities, but what is the purpose of ‘town and town’ ? — R.Joshua b. Korha can answer: And can our Tanna explain the words satisfactorily? Since he draws the analogy between perazi and perazi, why do we require the words ‘city and city’? The truth is that the text is inserted for a homiletical purpose, and to teach the rule laid down by R.Joshua b. Levi. For R. Joshua b. Levi said: ‘A city and all that adjoins it and all that is taken in by the eye with it is reckoned as city’. Up to what distance? — R. Jeremiah, or you may also say R. Hiyya b. Abba, said: As far as from Hamthan to Tiberias, which is a mil. Why not say [simply] a mil? — We learn from this what is the extent of a mil, namely, as far as from Hamthan to Tiberias. R. Jeremiah — or you may also say R. Hiyya b. Abba — also said: The [alternative forms of the] letters M'N'Z'P'K were prescribed by the Watchmen. Do you really think so? Is it not written, These are the commandments, which implies that no prophet is at liberty to introduce anything new henceforward? And further, R.Hisda has said: The Men and the Samek in the tablets^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ

^ᵃᵈnote:Infra n. 4.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lit., ‘assemble’.
^ᵃᶠnote:The former of the statements quoted.
^ᵃᵍnote:Esth. IX, 19.
^ᵃʰnote:Since no mention is made of walled towns in the context.
^ᵃⁱnote:These words occur in Esth. I, 1, arid are used here loosely instead of the words in Esth. IX, 30. and he (Mordecai) sent letters to . . . the hundred and twenty — seven provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus.
^ᵃʲnote:Ibid. 21.
^ᵃᵏnote:Eth is a sign of the accusative, and as its use is optional, it is usually interpreted as indicating something not specified in the text. The interpretation placed upon it here is rather unusual.
^ᵃˡnote:Ibid. 31.
^ᵃᵐnote:Those in the walled towns.
^ᵃⁿnote:Lit., ‘remembrance’.
^ᵃᵒnote:Ibid. 28.
^ᵃᵖnote:Ibid. 19.
^ᵃᵠnote:Deut. III, 5, referring to the territory of Sihon conquered by the Israelites in the time of Moses.
^ᵃʳnote:The word ‘not’ is not in the text of the original here, but is necessary for the sense. Rashi greatly simplifies the text by reading: ‘Just as there (the villages were such) from the days of Joshua, so here, (the villages must have been such) from the days of Joshua’.
^ᵃˢnote:I.e., he had not learnt this particular gezerah shawah from his teacher, and therefore could not reply upon it.
^ᵃᵗnote:Since there is no evidence that it was walled in the days of Joshua.
^ᵃᵘnote:These last words make no satisfactory sense, and seem to be interpolated. [They do not occur in MS.M.]
^ᵃᵛnote:Aliter: ‘an unknown authority’, v. B.M., Sonc. ed. p. 3, n. 1.]
^ᵃʷnote:Since they were allowed to continue slaying their enemies on the fourteenth and did not rest till the fifteenth, they were allowed to celebrate that day (Rashi).
^ᵃˣnote:Esth. IX, 28. The word medinah which the Talmud here takes as equivalent to lrf is translated in E.V. by ‘province’.
^ᵃʸnote:As much as to say, ‘Some cities one way and some another’.
^ᵃᶻnote:Susa also having been an unwalled town till the time of Ahasuerus.
^ᵇᵃnote:Rashi here reads, ‘to distinguish between those which were walled from the days of Ahasuerus and those which were not yet walled in the days of Ahasuerus’, and this seems to be required by the sense.
^ᵇᵇnote:That the wall must have been in existence since the days of Joshua.
^ᵇᶜnote:lrf v. supra p. 1, n. 3.
^ᵇᵈnote:For purposes of reading the Megillah on the fifteenth.
^ᵇᵉnote:[The Hammath mentioned in Josh. XIX, 35.]
^ᵇᶠnote:The five letters of the Hebrew alphabet, mem, nun, zadi, pe, and kaf, which have two forms — a middle and final form, the latter being more closed than the former. In the case of mem the final is completely closed o, with the other the final form is distinguished by the shaft being drawn straight down as distinct from the middle form where it is bent round towards the left l(f),;(p),.(m), i(b).
^ᵇᵍnote:Lit., said’.
^ᵇʰnote:A name applied to the prophets who flourished towards the end of the period of the first Temple. There is a play on the words zophim (watchmen) and Manzepak. [Perhaps to be read Min Zofeka ‘from thy watcher’ v. G.K. (1910) p. 27, n. 1.]
^ᵇⁱnote:Lev. XXVII, 34.
^ᵇʲnote:I.e., to make any alteration in the written Torah, whether in the wording or the writing.