Megillah

, 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:1 R. Judah said, When [do they push forward the reading]? In places where the villagers go to town2 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 Baraitha3 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,4 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?5 — But are they not also Israelites? And moreover is it not written, From India into Ethiopia?6 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?7 — 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 eth8 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,9 the season of one is not the same as the season of the other. But why not say that they10 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 recital11 [of the Megillah must be on these days]? — The text says, that these days should be remembered and kept;12 ‘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],13 and it is written in another place, beside the unwalled [ha — perazi] towns, a great many;14 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.15 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.16 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?17 It followed neither the villages nor the walled towns!18 — Raba, or, as some say, Kadi,19 replied: Susa was an exception, because a miracle was performed in it.20 We can understand according to the view of our Tanna why the text should say, city and city, town and town;21 ‘city and city’22 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.23 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,24 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,25 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 city26 and all that adjoins it and all that is taken in by the eye with it is reckoned as city’.27 Up to what distance? — R. Jeremiah, or you may also say R. Hiyya b. Abba, said: As far as from Hamthan28 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'K29 were prescribed30 by the Watchmen.31 Do you really think so? Is it not written, These are the commandments,32 which implies that no prophet is at liberty to introduce anything new33 henceforward? And further, R.Hisda has said: The Men and the Samek in the tablets sent letters to . . . the hundred and twenty — seven provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus. in the text. The interpretation placed upon it here is rather unusual. 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’. were allowed to celebrate that day (Rashi). ‘province’. were not yet walled in the days of Ahasuerus’, and this seems to be required by the sense. 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). the words zophim (watchmen) and Manzepak. [Perhaps to be read Min Zofeka ‘from thy watcher’ v. G.K. (1910) p. 27, n. 1.]