Daf Ditty Megillah 5: Walled Cities

Newly (2010) excavated Jerusalem site includes a wall claimed to have been
built by the biblical King Solomon1

1
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/100226-king-solomon-wall-jerusalem-bible

1
MISHNA: What is considered a large city, where the Megilla is read on the fourteenth of Adar?
Any city in which there are ten idlers. However, if there are fewer than that, it is considered a
village, even if it has many inhabitants.

It was with regard to these times for reading the Megilla that the Sages said that one advances
the reading of the Megilla before the fourteenth of Adar and one does not postpone the reading
to after its proper time. However, with regard to the time when families of priests donate wood
for the fire on the altar, which were times those families would treat as Festivals; as well as the
fast of the Ninth of Av; the Festival peace-offering that was brought on the Festivals; and the
commandment of assembly [hakhel] of the entire Jewish people in the Temple courtyard on
Sukkot in the year following the Sabbatical year to hear the king read the book of Deuteronomy;
one postpones their observance until after Shabbat and does not advance their observance to
before Shabbat.

2
The mishna continues: Even though the Sages said that one advances the time for reading the
Megilla and one does not postpone the reading, one is permitted to eulogize and fast on these
days, as they are not actually Purim; nevertheless, gifts for the poor are distributed on this day.

Rabbi Yehuda said: When is the Megilla read on the day of assembly, before the fourteenth of
Adar? In a place where the villagers generally enter town on Monday and Thursday. However,
in a place where they do not generally enter town on Monday and Thursday, one may read
the Megilla only in its designated time, the fourteenth of Adar.

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Wasn’t Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in Tiberias, and Tiberias was
surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun. Consequently, he was obligated to
observe Purim on the fifteenth. Rather, say just the opposite: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi lived in a
place that observed Purim on the fifteenth, and when he planted the sapling, he planted it on
the fourteenth.

The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it obvious to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that the city of Tiberias was
surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun? Didn’t Hezekiah read the Megilla
in Tiberias both on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth of Adar, because he was uncertain if it
had been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, or not? The Gemara
answers: Hezekiah was indeed uncertain about the matter, whereas it was obvious to Rabbi
Yehuda HaNasi that Tiberias had been surrounded by a wall in the time of Joshua.

3
The Gemara asks further: And when it was obvious to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that the Megilla
should be read in Tiberias on the fifteenth, was it permitted to plant there on the fourteenth? Isn’t
it written in Megillat Ta’anit that the fourteenth day and the fifteenth day of Adar are the
days of Purim, and one is not permitted to eulogize on them?

§ The Gemara examines the matter itself cited in the previous discussion. Hezekiah read the
Megilla in Tiberias both on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth of Adar, because he was
uncertain if it had been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, or not.
The Gemara asks: Was he really uncertain about the matter of Tiberias? Isn’t it written:

,‫ַהִצִּדּים ֵצר‬--‫ ִמְבָצר‬,‫לה ְוָﬠ ֵרי‬ 35 And the fortified cities were Ziddim-zer, and Hammath,
.‫ְוַחַמּת ַרַקּת ְוִכָנּ ֶרת‬ and Rakkath, and Chinnereth;
Josh 19:35

“And the fortified cities were Ziddim-zer, and Hammath, Rakkath, and Chinnereth”

and we maintain that Rakkath is Tiberias? The Gemara answers: This is the reason that he
was uncertain: Although Tiberias was surrounded by a wall in the time of Joshua, Hezekiah was
uncertain about the halakha due to the fact that on one side, there was a wall of the sea, i.e.,
there was no physical wall, but the city was protected due to the fact that it adjoined the sea.

4
The Gemara asks: If so, why was he uncertain? The sea is certainly not a wall. As it is taught
in a baraita with regard to the sale of houses in walled cities, the phrase:

‫ְמל ֹאת לוֹ ָשָׁנה‬-‫ ַﬠד‬,‫ ִיָגֵּאל‬-‫ל ְוִאם ל ֹא‬ 30 And if it be not redeemed within the space of a full year,
‫לא‬-‫ָבִּﬠיר ֲאֶשׁר‬-‫ ְוָקם ַהַבּ ִית ֲאֶשׁר‬--‫ְתִמיָמה‬ then the house that is in the walled city shall be made sure
,‫)לוֹ( ֹחָמה ַלְצִּמיֻתת ַלֹקֶּנה ֹאתוֹ‬ in perpetuity to him that bought it, throughout his
.‫ ַבּ ֹיֵּבל‬,‫ ל ֹא ֵיֵצא‬:‫ְלֹדֹרָתיו‬ generations; it shall not go out in the jubilee.
Lev 25:30

“Which has a wall” indicates that the city has a bona fide wall and not merely a wall of roofs.
If a city is completely encircled by attached houses but there is no separate wall, it is not considered
a walled city. The next verse, which is referring to cities that have no wall

‫ָלֶהם ֹחָמה‬-‫ ֲאֶשׁר ֵאין‬,‫לא וָּבֵתּי ַהֲחֵצ ִרים‬ 31 But the houses of the villages which have no wall round
,‫ ְגֻּאָלּה‬:‫ ֵיָחֵשׁב‬,‫ְשֵׂדה ָהָאֶרץ‬-‫ַﬠל‬--‫ָסִביב‬ about them shall be reckoned with the fields of the country;
.‫ ֵיֵצא‬,‫ וַּב ֹיֵּבל‬,‫לּוֹ‬-‫ִתְּהֶיה‬ they may be redeemed, and they shall go out in the jubilee.
Lev 25:31

“round about them” , excludes Tiberias from being considered a walled city, as the sea is its
wall on one side, and it is not fully encircled by a physical wall. Consequently, Tiberias is not
considered a walled city.

The Gemara answers: With regard to the sale of houses of walled cities, Hezekiah was not
uncertain. Where he was uncertain was with regard to the reading of the Megilla: What are
the unwalled towns and what are the walled cities that are written with regard to the reading
of the Megilla? Is the difference between them due to the fact that these unwalled towns are
exposed, whereas those walled cities are not exposed? If so, since Tiberias is also exposed, as
it is not entirely surrounded by a wall, it should be considered unwalled. Or perhaps the difference
is due to the fact that these walled cities are protected, whereas those unwalled towns are not
protected, and Tiberias is also protected by the sea and should be treated as a walled city. It was
due to that reason that Hezekiah was uncertain when to read the Megilla.

5
Summary

MISHNAH:

The Mishnah begins by defining a large city and village and then notes that generally events are
postponed rather than advanced. Additional halachos related to reading the Megilla earlier are
presented.

Clarifying the Mishnah

A Beraisa clarifies the function of the ten unoccupied men. R’ Abba in the name of Shmuel
explains why the reading of the Megilla is advanced rather than postponed. Another teaching from
R’ Abba in the name of Shmuel is cited. The Gemara explains why the other events mentioned in
the Mishnah are postponed rather than advanced.

Postponing the Chagigah Korban

A Beraisa states that we postpone the Chagiga Korban and all the time of the Chagigah Korban.
Three explanations of the Beraisa are presented.

The practices of Rebbi

R’ Elazar in the name of R’ Chanina reported that Rebbi planted shoots on Purim, he bathed on
the seventeenth of Tamuz and wished to abolish Tisha B’Av. The issue related to Tisha B’Av is
clarified. Regarding the planting of the shoot on Purim, the Gemara concludes that Rebbi was a
resident of Teveriya, and he was certain it was a walled city from the time of Yehoshua and the
planting occurred on the fourteenth. An alternative explanation is presented that maintains that
Rebbi planted on Purim and suggests an explanation why it is permitted. A third explanation why
it was permitted for Rebbi to plant shoots on Purim is presented.

Tiberias

The practice of Chizkiyah to read the Megilla on the fourteenth and fifteenth in Teveriya is cited.
The nature of Chizkiyah’s doubt is explained.

Introduction2

This mishnah continues to deal with the topic of the various days upon which the Megillah might
be read.

2https://www.sefaria.org/Megillah.5a.5?lang=bi&p2=Mishnah_Megillah.1.3&lang2=bi&w2=English%20Explanation%20of%20
Mishnah&lang3=en

6
What is considered a large town? One which has in it ten idle men. One that has fewer is
considered a village.

A large town is one that is considered wealthy enough to support ten men who do not work but
rather sit in the synagogue or study house and study all day. Put another way, a large town is one
that can support a small leisurely class. In Greece and Rome this meant philosophers and in Israel
this meant rabbis. Anything smaller is considered a village and moves the reading of the Megillah
up to the day of the gathering, Monday, or Thursday.

In respect of these they said that they should be moved up but not postponed.

There are other holidays and semi-holidays during the year that are not observed on the day upon
which they fall if they fall on Shabbat. The reading of the Megillah is the only holiday that is
moved up all the rest are postponed. The Talmud provides a midrashic explanation for this. Esther
9:27 states, “the Jews accepted upon themselves and their descendants and all those who might
join them, that these days should not pass without observing them as it is written and in their time,
year after year.” My translation is intentionally slightly awkward so that we can note the midrash.
The words “should not pass” are understood by the rabbis to mean that one cannot observe Purim
after the fourteenth/fifteenth of Adar has already passed.

But with regard to the bringing the wood for the priests, the [fast of] Tisha B’Av, the hagigah,
and assembling the people they postpone [until after Shabbat] and they do not move them up.

I will briefly explain these holidays here. The bringing of the wood for the priests occurred nine
times a year. Certain families would bring wood to the Temple to be used on the altar. This was
discussed in Taanit 4:5. It would not be done on Shabbat. The hagigah is a sacrifice brought on
Yom Tov, the first day of the festival. If Yom Tov falls on Shabbat it is postponed until the next
day. The “assembling of the people” or “Hakhel” in Hebrew occurs during the sabbatical year on
Sukkot, when they would gather all the people together to read the Torah. This would not be done
on Shabbat.

Although they said that they should be moved up but not postponed, it is permissible to mourn,
to fast, and to distribute gifts to the poor [on these earlier days].

On both the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar, one is not allowed to fast or to mourn, because these
are the two days of Purim. However, even though the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth are also days
on which one might read the Megillah, it is still permitted to mourn or fast on those days. The
mishnah says that it is also permitted to give gifts to the poor on those days. Giving gifts to the
poor is one of the central obligations of Purim. Some commentators explain the mishnah to mean
that one who gives gifts to the poor on one of these days has fulfilled his obligation. However,
others say that the mishnah means that one is exempt from giving gifts to the poor on these days.

Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? In a place where people gather on Mondays and Thursdays,
but in places where people do not gather on Mondays and Thursdays, the Megillah is read only
on its proper day.

7
Rabbi Judah points out that the system of moving the reading up to the 11th-13th was done only
when it made realistic sense at a time when Mondays and Thursdays were the days of gathering.
It seems quite certain that by Rabbi Judah’s time this system of gathering on Monday and Thursday
was already defunct and hence everyone would read at the proper time.

How to Deal With A Well-Respected Rebel

Before beginning a new Mishna, we review some of the rabbis' thoughts about what to do when
Purim falls on Shabbat. The notion of "the proper time" is examined. Shabbat is always observed
and always at an understood, predetermined time. But what is "the proper time" to read the
Megilla?3

Our new Mishna teaches us about large cities/villages, observance of the fast of the Ninth of
Av/Hakhel and eulogizing and fasting in villages that read the Megilla on the 14th of Adar/the
15th of Adar.

The Gemara explains that a city must have at least ten idlers, or congregants who are not paid to
be at the service, to qualify as a city. The difference between city and village is important because
it determines whether the Megilla reading might be postponed when Purim falls on Shabbat. The
rabbis note that we count years by months, and we count months by days. Our calendar is
predetermined, and we cannot arbitrarily move celebrations without ample justification.

At length, the rabbis discuss factors that might allow the Megilla reading to be postponed. Those
factors include other guidelines, like the fact that we do not advance calamities, like the observance
of the fast on the ninth of Av, but we might postpone them. The also include practices like
offerings on Festivals, placing hands on Festivals, and moving dates of other Festivals like
Shavuot.

We are presented with the unusual actions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. He planted a sapling on
Purim when labour was prohibited, he bathed on the seventeenth of Tammuz, and he tried to
abolish the fast of the Ninth of Av even when the Sages disagreed with him.

Much of amud (b) is devoted to understanding these actions. The rabbis might have characterized
Rabbi Yehuda HaNavi as a man who has sinned, or they might have understood him as a man with
different interpretations of Torah practice. They did neither of these things. Instead, they walk us
through complicated possible explanations for his behaviour. In each case, Rabbi Yehuda HaNavi
was following halacha to the letter of the law. This type of argument allows the rabbis to present
their community as unified, even when they are fully engaged in argument.

3 http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/07/

8
Our daf ends with a question about walled cities. We know that those living in cities that were
walled from the time of Joshua celebrate Purim on the 15th of Adar, postponed from the 14th of
Adar. All others celebrate on the 14th of Adar. But what if we aren't sure whether or not a city
has four walls? The Gemara uses Tiberius as one of its examples. Tiberius is a walled city, but
the fourth wall is the sea. The sea blocks the city from intruders... but is the sea the same as a wall
for the purposes of reading the Megilla on the 15th of Adar?

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:4

Rav said: If the Megillah is read in the proper time, it may be read even by an individual; but if it
is read in a time that is not the proper time, it must be read with ten men. Rav Assi disagrees and
maintains that the Megillah must be read with ten men in all instances. The Gemora records that
Rav didn’t have ten men and he troubled himself to assemble ten men because of Rav Assi’s
decision. The Gemora asks: But could Rav actually have said this? Didn’t Rav Yehudah the son
of Rav Shmuel bar Shilassay in the name of Rav: If Purim falls on Shabbos, Friday is the proper
time? Now, the Gemora asks: Friday the proper time!? Surely Shabbos is the proper time!

What Rav must have meant therefore is this: The alternative time is like the proper time. Just as at
the proper time, the Megillah may be read by an individual, so at the alternative time, it may be
read by an individual. The Gemora answers: No; for the reading of the Megillah Rab requires ten.
What then did he mean by saying that Friday is the proper time? His intention was to reject the
opinion of Rebbe, who said that since the unwalled towns had to shift their time, they might as
well shift to the day of assembly; therefore, Rav informs us that Friday is the proper day to which
they should shift (and not Thursday).

The Mishna states: What is regarded as a large town? If the town has ten unoccupied men who
will always be available to create a minyan (ten adult males are needed for the prayer service in
the synagogue) for Tefillah. If there are less than ten of these people, it is considered a village and
they may read the Megillah early. Regarding the reading of the Megillah, it was said: They
advance, and they do not postpone. However, regarding the time of the wood offering (the day the
families donated wood for the mizbeach, they brought a korban and if that day fell out on Shabbos,
they would bring the korban on Sunday), the ninth of Av (if it falls out on Shabbos, the fast would
be postponed until Sunday), korban chagigah (korbanos that they would bring on the first day of
the festivals and if it would fall out on Shabbos, they would bring these korbanos on the following
day), and hakhel (the reading of the Torah by the king after the first day of Sukkos on a year
following a Shemitah year) they postpone and they do not advance.

The Mishna continues that even though it was said that they advance and do not postpone; it would
be permitted to eulogize, fast, and give the gifts to the poor on the days that the Megillah was read.
(We wouldn’t fulfill the mitzva of mishloach manos on that day because that is connected to the
seudas Purim, which is eaten on the fourteenth.)

4 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Megillah_5.pdf

9
The Mishna concludes: Rabbi Yehuda states that the ordinance (of reading the Megillah early) was
only in those places where the people from the villages came to the towns on Mondays and
Thursdays; but in the places where they do not enter the towns, the Megillah is only read in its
main time.

The Mishna had stated that the reading of the Megillah may be advanced but not postponed. The
Gemora seeks out the source for this. Rabbi Abba says in the name of Shmuel: The verse in Esther
[9:27] states and it shall not pass. We derive from there that the reading of the Megillah cannot be
postponed.

And Rabbi Abba said in the name of Shmuel: From where do we know that years are not to be
counted by days (and a year is made up of twelve months regardless of the number of days)? It is
because it is written of the months of the year, which implies that you reckon a year by months,
but not by days. The Rabbis of Caesarea said in the name of Rabbi Abba: How do we know that a
month is not reckoned by its hours? It is because it is written until a month of days; you reckon a
month by days, but you do not reckon a month by hours.

The Mishna had stated that the time of the wood offering, Tisha b’Av, Chagigah (the festival
sacrifice) and Hakhel (the reading of the Torah by the king after the first day of Sukkos on a year
following a Shemitah year) are postponed and not advanced. The Gemora explains that we do not
advance Tisha b’Av because there is a principle that calamities are not lamented in advance. We
do not advance Chagigah and Hakhel because their obligation has not arrived yet. (5a) A Tanna
taught in a braisa: The festival sacrifice (Chagigah) and all the period of the festival sacrifice is to
be postponed.

The Gemora asks: We understand what is meant by the festival sacrifice, namely, that if its day
happens to be Shabbos we postpone it until after the Shabbos. But what is meant by the ‘period of
the festival sacrifice’? Rabbi Oshaya replied: What is meant is the following: The festival sacrifice
is postponed if its time occurs on Shabbos, and the olah offering upon appearing in the Beis
HaMikdash is postponed even on Yom Tov, which is the proper time for a festival sacrifice. [The
olah may not be offered on Yom Tov; it can only be offered on Chol HaMoed when the labor
restrictions are not as strict.]

The Gemora asks: Which authority does this follow? It must be Beis Shammai, as we have learned
in a Mishna: Bais Shammai maintain that one can offer a korban shelamim on Yom Tov, but one
cannot perform semichah (leaning on the animal, because it is rabbinically prohibited to make use
of an animal on Yom Tov). One cannot, however, bring an olah. Bais Hillel maintain that one can
offer both shelamim and olos on Yom Tov, and one can perform semichah on them. Rava said:
The meaning (of the braisa) is: The festival sacrifice may be postponed for the whole period of the
festival sacrifice, but not more, as we have learned in a Mishna: One who did not offer the korban
on the first day of the festival may bring it on any day during the festival, including Shmini Atzeres
(the last day of Sukkos). If the entire festival passed and the korban was not brought, he is not
responsible to bring it any longer.

Rav Ashi said: It means that the festival sacrifice may be postponed (when the festival occurs on
Shabbos) for the whole period of the festival sacrifice, and even on Shavuos which is only one

10
day, it, nevertheless, is postponed (and one has seven days to offer it), as we have learned in a
Mishna: Beis Hillel agree that if Shavuos falls out on Shabbos, the day for slaughtering the
sacrifice is after the Shabbos.

Rabbi Elozar says in the name of Rabbi Chanina that Rebbe planted a shoot on Purim, bathed
himself publicly in Tzipori on the Seventeenth of Tammuz, and he wanted to abolish the fast of
Tisha b’Av (he wanted the fast of Tisha b’Av to have the same halachos as the other fasts) but
regarding this, the Sages did not agree with him. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said to Rabbi Elozar that
Rebbe did not want to abolish Tisha b’Av every year; rather, that year Tisha b’Av fell out on
Shabbos and it was postponed to Sunday. Rebbe maintained that since the fast was being pushed
off, it should be pushed off altogether (although the ban on eating and drinking still exists, it should
not have the other stringencies of washing - according to Tosfos). The Sages, however, did not
agree with him. When Rabbi Elozar heard this from Rabbi Abba, he applied the following verse:
Two are better than one (for if it would not have been taught to him, he would have remained in
error).

The Gemora asks: How was Rebbe allowed to plant on Purim when there is a braisa that rules that
it is forbidden to fast, eulogize or work on Purim? The Gemora answers that Rebbe lived in a large
town and therefore observed Purim on the fourteenth of Adar; he planted on the fifteenth. The
Gemora asks that Rebbe lived in the city of Teveria (Tiberias) and Teveria was a city that was
surrounded by a wall since the days of Yehoshua? The Gemora answers that Rebbe observed Purim
on the fifteenth and he planted on the fourteenth.

The Gemora states that Chizkiyah was uncertain if Teveria had a wall in the days of Yehoshua and
therefore he would read the Megillah on the fourteenth and the fifteenth there; Rebbe was certain
that it had a wall and therefore read the Megillah on the fifteenth. The Gemora asks further: Even
if Rebbe read the Megillah on the fifteenth; it should nevertheless be forbidden to plant on the
fourteenth. It is written in Megillas Taanis that one is prohibited from eulogizing or fasting on the
fourteenth and the fifteenth of Adar. Rava explains that this prohibition applies regardless of when
he observes Purim. If so, how could Rebbe have planted on the fourteenth? The Gemora answers
that the prohibition for both days applies to eulogizing and fasting, but work will be forbidden for
just one day.

The Gemora asks: But is that so (that work is forbidden only one day and permitted the other day)?
But Rav once observed a man sowing flax on Purim and he cursed him for working on Purim; the
curse took effect, and the flax did not grow.?

The Gemora answers: That man was observing Purim on that day. Rabbah, the son of Rava answers
that it is possible that Rebbe planted on the day that he read the Megillah, and he was permitted to
do so because the Jews only accepted the prohibitions against fasting and eulogizing but they never
accepted upon themselves the prohibitions against working. The Gemora asks: But why did Rav
curse the man for working on Purim?

The Gemora explains that even though the prohibition against working on Purim was not accepted,
in Rav’s city, it was customary to refrain from working on Purim and this man violated the custom.
The Gemora offers an alternative answer: Rebbe was planting for the purpose of joy and that is

11
permitted on Purim. This is proven from the following Mishna: If these days (of fasts) pass and
they are still not answered (with rain), they abstain to a certain extent from business, from
construction and from planting, from betrothing and from marrying, and a Tanna taught a braisa
regarding this: ‘Construction’ here means construction for joy; ‘planting’ means planting for joy.
What is construction for joy? If one builds a wedding residence for his son (on the occasion of his
marriage). What is a planting for joy? If one plants a royal arbor.

The Gemora mentioned earlier that Chizkiyah was uncertain if Teveria was surrounded by a wall
in the times of Yehoshua or not and therefore he read the Megillah on the fourteenth and the
fifteenth. The Gemora asks: It is written in Yehoshua [19:35] And the fortress cities are: Tzidim,
Tzeir, Chamas, Rakas and Kineres. It has been established that Rakas is Teveria. Since Teveria
(Rakas) is referred to as a fortress city, it obviously was surrounded by a wall; why was Chizkiyah
uncertain?

The Gemora answers: There was a body of water on one side of Teveria and he was unsure if this
constitutes a wall. The Gemora elaborates on why he was uncertain. What is the defining
distinction between a walled city and an unwalled city? If the distinction is based on the fact that
an unwalled city is exposed, Teveria is also exposed and the Megillah should be read on the
fourteenth. If the distinction is based on the fact that an unwalled city is not defended, Teveria is
defended (the body of water functioned as a defending barrier) and the Megillah should be read on
the fifteenth.

The Gemora relates that Rav Assi read the Megillah in Hutzal on the fourteenth and the fifteenth,
for he was uncertain if it was a city that was surrounded by a wall in the times of Yehoshua or not.
Other relate that Rav Assi said that Hutzal of the house of Binyomin was surrounded by a wall in
the times of Yehoshua (and therefore, the Megillah was read there on the fifteenth).

TENTH OF TEVES ON SHABBOS

The Mishna states that if Tisha b’Av would fall out on Shabbos, the fast would be postponed until
Sunday. Rashi says that the same halacha would apply if the Seventeenth of Tammuz or the Tenth
of Teves would fall out on Shabbos; its observance would be postponed until Sunday. The Mishna
made special mention of Tisha b’Av since it was the only fast that was compulsory in those times.

The Avudraham writes that all of the fasts could fall out on Shabbos and when that happens, they
will be postponed; however, the Tenth of Teves can never occur on Shabbos. It could fall out on
Friday, and we would fast on Friday. The Avudraham concludes that if the Tenth of Teves would
fall out on Shabbos, we would observe the fast on Shabbos and it could not be postponed. This is
based on a verse in Yechezkel which states: b’etzem hayom hazeh etc. - on this very day, and since
the prophet specifies the precise day in this manner, we cannot postpone the fast. Rashi clearly
does not subscribe to this viewpoint. In his explanation of the Mishna, Rashi states that Tisha b’Av,
the Seventeenth of Tammuz and the Tenth of Teves would all be postponed to Sunday if they
would fall out on Shabbos. The sefer Iturei Megillah explains the Avudraham. The reason that we
do not observe a fast on Shabbos is because there is the option of fasting the following day as a
replacement for the fast on Shabbos.

12
The Avudraham maintains that there is no such possibility by the Tenth of Teves (similar to Yom
Kippur) and the fast must be observed on that day. This explanation is said in the name of Reb
Chaim Brisker as well.

The Chasam Sofer offers a different explanation. He states that one does not fast on Shabbos for a
calamity that has happened in the past. However, one who is compelled to fast on account of a
succession of bad dreams would fast on Shabbos since he is fasting in order to prevent a tragedy
from transpiring. A fast, such as Tisha b’Av or the Seventeenth of Tammuz are fasts which
commemorate episodes of the past and if they would fall out on Shabbos, the fast would be
postponed.

The Chasam Sofer states that the fast on the Tenth of Teves is fundamentally different from all the
other fasts. He explains that in the year that the Beis Hamikdosh was destroyed, Hashem had
decreed on the Tenth of Teves beforehand that there will be a destruction. The Gemora states that
any generation that does not have the Beis Hamikdosh built in is regarded as if they destroyed the
Beis Hamikdosh. Every year, on the Tenth of Teves, there is a judgment from Hashem if the Beis
Hamikdosh will be built this year or not. We are fasting on the Tenth of Teves not on the account
of the past, but rather for the future. This fast can be observed on Shabbos. An interesting aside:

The Chasam Sofer (O”C 9) concludes a responsa by signing his name and dating it Sunday, the
11th of Teves 5578. Was the Tenth of Teves on Shabbos that year? In the Likutei Heoros on the
Chasam Sofer, he comments that the Tenth of Teves cannot fall out on Shabbos and in the year
5578 it happened to be a Friday, so there seemingly is a printer’s mistake and it should say Sunday,
the twelfth of Teves.

READING THE MEGILAH ALONE

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:5

The Gemara records a dispute between Rav and Rav Asi with regard to whether one must read
the Megilah with at least ten people ("b'Asarah") or whether one may read the Megilah by oneself
("b'Yachid"). Rav says that when one reads the Megilah "b'Zemano," on its proper day (the
fourteenth of Adar), he may read it b'Yachid. Rav Asi says that he must read it b'Asarah, with ten
people, whether b'Zemano or not b'Zemano.

The Gemara says that Rav was stringent and conducted himself like Rav Asi. He gathered ten
people for the reading of the Megilah b'Zemano.

The Gemara challenges Rav's original ruling: "Did Rav say this (that when the reading of the
Megilah is not b'Zemano, it must be read with ten people)? But Rav said, 'When Purim occurs on
Shabbos, Erev Shabbos is considered to be b'Zemano, the time for reading the Megilah,'" which
must mean that just as the Megilah may be read b'Yachid when it is read b'Zemano, so, too, it may
be read b'Yachid when it is not read b'Zemano, such as when Purim occurs on Shabbos and the

5 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/megilah/insites/mg-dt-005.htma

13
Megilah is read on Erev Shabbos. This statement of Rav contradicts Rav's first statement, that
when the Megilah is not read b'Zemano it must be read with ten people.

When RASHI comments on Rav's original statement, he explains why the Megilah may be read
b'Yachid when it is read b'Zemano. Rashi says that since, b'Zemano, everyone else is reading the
Megilah, there is Pirsumei Nisa even when an individual reads it by himself at home. In contrast,
when the Megilah is not read b'Zemano and not everyone is reading the Megilah (but only the
villagers who are entitled to read it on the Yom ha'Kenisah), it must be read with ten people in
order to achieve Pirsumei Nisa.

According to Rashi when Purim occurs on Shabbos everyone reads the Megilah on Erev Shabbos.
Consequently, it should be considered b'Zemano and an individual should be permitted to read it
b'Yachid! What is the Gemara's question on Rav from his statement that if Purim occurs on
Shabbos, the Megilah may be read b'Yachid on Erev Shabbos? According to Rashi's explanation,
Rav's second statement does not contradict Rav's first statement. On the contrary, it supports his
first statement.

What is the Gemara's question on Rav according to Rashi's logic? (TUREI EVEN and others)

The SEFAS EMES and CHIDUSHIM U'VI'URIM explain that Rashi understands the Gemara
differently. Rashi learns that when the Gemara says that Rav took into consideration Rav Asi's
opinion and read the Megilah b'Zemano with ten people, it does not mean that he merely conducted
himself stringently. Rather, it means that he changed his mind and adopted the view of Rav Asi.

Accordingly, the Gemara questions whether Rav really changed his mind. The Gemara quotes a
second statement of Rav which clearly shows that he did not change his mind. Rav's second
statement -- that when Purim occurs on Shabbos and the Megilah is read on Erev Shabbos, an
individual may read it b'Yachid -- shows that he maintains that b'Zemano the Megilah may be read
b'Yachid (since everyone is reading it on that day and there is Pirsumei Nisa).6

According to this understanding of the Gemara, the Halachah should follow the view of Rav Asi,
because Rav retracted his opinion and conducted himself like Rav Asi. Thus, even b'Zemano the
Megilah must be read with ten people.

Other Rishonim (such as the RAN) disagree with Rashi and explain that even when Purim falls on
Shabbos and the Megilah is read on Erev Shabbos, it is considered not b'Zemano, and thus the
Gemara is asking a question on Rav's original statement. According to these Rishonim, what is
Rav's logic that the Megilah may be read b'Yachid when it is read b'Zemano?

The TUREI EVEN explains that when Purim falls on Shabbos and the reading of the Megilah is
moved to Erev Shabbos, the Mitzvah of Simchah (the Se'udah) is observed on Purim day itself, on
Shabbos.

6According to this explanation, Rashi's text must have had the words "u'Mi Avad Rav Hachi" -- "Did Rav do this" (i.e. conduct
himself in accordance with Rav Asi), instead of "u'Mi Amar Rav Hachi" -- "Did Rav say this" (i.e. his original statement).

14
Normally, when Simchah is observed on Purim day, on the fourteenth of Adar, that celebration
itself causes Pirsumei Nisa. Hence, there is Pirsumei Nisa even when an individual reads the
Megilah by himself. However, when Simchah is observed on a day other than the day on which
the Megilah is read (such as when Purim falls on Shabbos), there is no Pirsumei Nisa unless the
Megilah is read publicly, with at least ten people.

"PURIM MESHULASH" -- PURIM WHICH FALLS ON SHABBOS

The Gemara says that when the Megilah is read earlier than the actual day of Purim (such as by
the residents of small villages on the Yom ha'Kenisah), the Mitzvah of Simchah (the Se'udah) is
still observed on the fourteenth of Adar.

When is the Mitzvah of Simchah observed when Purim falls on Shabbos? Although the Mishnah
says that the Megilah is read the day before, on Erev Shabbos, it does not mention when the other
Mitzvos of Purim are observed.

(For most cities, this question has no practical relevance. The fourteenth of Adar can never occur
on Shabbos according to the fixed calendar which we follow. However, in walled cities (such as
Yerushalayim) which observe Purim on the fifteenth of Adar, this question is relevant, because the
fifteenth of Adar can occur on Shabbos (such as in the years 5761, 5765, 5768, 5781, and 5785,
or 2001, 2005, 2008, 2021, and 2025).)

(a) The RIF cites the Tosefta which adds to the Mishnah. The Mishnah here mentions that certain
Mitzvos which apply on specific days of the year are fulfilled on an earlier day when their
respective day falls on Shabbos, and they are not deferred to after Shabbos. The Tosefta says that
one such Mitzvah is the Se'udah of Purim.

The RAN cites the Yerushalmi which says that the Se'udah of Purim cannot be observed on
Shabbos because the Simchah of Se'udas Purim must not be mixed with any other Simchah. The
Se'udah must be on a day on which there is no Simchah other than the Simchah of Purim.
Therefore, the Yerushalmi says that the Se'udah of Purim should be conducted after Shabbos, on
the sixteenth of Adar.

The Yerushalmi's ruling is difficult to understand. The Gemara (2a) derives from the verse, "v'Lo
Ya'avor" (Esther 9:27), that although Purim may be observed earlier than its designated date, it
may not be observed after the fifteenth of Adar. The verse refers to the Mitzvos of Purim
("Asiyah") such as Mishlo'ach Manos, Matanos l'Evyonim, and the Se'udah. Why does the
Yerushalmi say that the Se'udah may be celebrated on Sunday, the sixteenth of Adar?

The Ran explains that the verse of "v'Lo Ya'avor" does not refer to the Se'udah and the other
Mitzvos of Purim. Rather, the verse refers to the words from which the Gemara (2a) derives that
the Megilah may be read on two days other than the fourteenth and the fifteenth of Adar. When
the Megilah is read early (such as by the residents of small villages on the Yom ha'Kenisah), only
the reading of the Megilah is performed on an earlier day, but not the Se'udah. Hence, "v'Lo
Ya'avor" applies only with regard to the reading of the Megilah.

15
(b) The RAN and RITVA cite the RE'AH who explains the Yerushalmi differently. As
mentioned above, the Yerushalmi cannot mean that the Se'udah is observed on the sixteenth of
Adar, because the verse says, "v'Lo Ya'avor." Rather, the Yerushalmi means that the Se'udah of
Purim is delayed until after the reading of the Megilah of the people who live in small villages.
That is, the villagers do not conduct the Se'udah of Purim on the same day as they read the Megilah.
Rather, they conduct the Se'udah later, on the fourteenth of Adar, the date on which everyone
celebrates the Simchah of Purim.

According to the Re'ah, since the Mitzvah of Simchah is observed after the Megilah has been read,
when Purim falls on Shabbos the Se'udah is conducted on Erev Shabbos after the Megilah has been
read.

The Ran rejects this explanation because it is not consistent with the words of the Yerushalmi.

(c) The MAHARALBACH (#32) writes that the Gemara here disagrees with the Yerushalmi and
maintains that the Simchah of Purim may be celebrated on Shabbos, because Simchah is always
celebrated in its proper time. He proves this from the Gemara later (30a) which implies that when
Purim falls on Shabbos, the Se'udah of Purim is held on Shabbos.

HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 688:7) records the opinion of the RAN who
rules that the Se'udah is held on Sunday. The Megilah is read and Matanos l'Evyonim are
distributed on Friday. "Al ha'Nisim" and the Torah reading of Purim are said on Shabbos,
the fifteenth of Adar (BEIS YOSEF). Accordingly, when Purim falls on Shabbos it is called
"Purim Meshulash," since it spans three days.

The Acharonim discuss at length whether the Mitzvah of Mishlo'ach Manos should be
performed on Sunday because it is considered part of the Se'udah, or on Shabbos because
that is the actual day of Purim. Because of the doubt, the common practice is to be stringent
and to perform the Mitzvah of Mishlo'ach Manos on both Shabbos and Sunday.

REASON FOR DELAYING "ZEMAN ATZEI KOHANIM VEHA'AM"

The Mishnah lists the events which are deferred until the following day when their respective dates
fall on Shabbos -- "Zeman Atzei Kohanim veha'Am, Tish'ah b'Av, Chagigah, and Hakhel."

The Gemara explains that the reason why Tish'ah b'Av is deferred to after Shabbos and is not
observed on the day before Shabbos is because it is a day of mourning and tragedy. It is appropriate
to delay such a day and not to observe it earlier. The Gemara also explains why Chagigah and
Hakhel are delayed a day and are not observed on the day before Shabbos: the time of their
obligation has not yet arrived before Shabbos.

The Gemara, however, gives no reason for why Zeman Atzei Kohanim is delayed. The days of
"Zeman Atzei Kohanim veha'Am" are days observed as Yom Tov by the families who donated the
wood for burning sacrifices upon the Mizbe'ach in the times of the second Beis ha'Mikdash. In
recognition of their Mitzvah, those families and their descendants were granted the privilege of
bringing wood to the Beis ha'Mikdash on certain days every year.

16
Why does the Gemara not discuss this event?
7
The RAN and RASHI on the Rif explain that there is no need to discuss Zeman Atzei Kohanim
because the reason it is delayed is obvious. Each family brought enough wood to last until the next
family brought its contribution of wood. If the new family's day occurred on Shabbos, that family
could not bring wood on the day before Shabbos because the previous family was granted the
privilege of bringing wood on that day. The fact that the second family's day fell on Shabbos did
not entitle that family to infringe on the first family's day.

In contrast, the previous family was not infringing on the next family's day when it brought the
wood for Shabbos, because had it not brought the wood for Shabbos, no one would have brought
it. Therefore, the new family brought the wood only on Sunday, after Shabbos.

THE PROHIBITION OF MELACHAH ON PURIM

The Gemara says that the Chachamim originally enacted that Purim be observed as a Yom Tov
even with regard to the prohibition of Melachah. Subsequently, however, the people did not accept
this enactment. Therefore, one is permitted to do Melachah on Purim.

RAV YITZCHAK HUTNER zt'l (in Pachad Yitzchak) explains why the people did not accept
the prohibition of Melachah on Purim. He cites the VILNA GA'ON who inquiries about the nature
of the two festivals instituted by the Rabanan, Chanukah and Purim. Why is there a Mitzvah to be
especially happy (Marbim b'Simchah) and to make a Se'udah on Purim, but there is no obligation
to recite Hallel on Purim (Megilah 14a)? Conversely, why on Chanukah is there an obligation to
recite Hallel, but there is no obligation to make a Se'udah?

The Vilna Ga'on explains as follows. There are eighteen days of Yom Tov mid'Oraisa in the year:
seven days of Pesach, seven days of Sukos, Shemini Atzeres, Shavuos, Rosh Hashanah, and Yom
Kippur. On eight of those days Hallel (or the full Hallel) is not recited: the last six days of Pesach,
Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur.

The Chachamim established Yamim Tovim d'Rabanan to make up for those eight days mid'Oraisa
on which there is no Hallel. They instituted the eight days of Chanukah, on which Hallel is recited,
to make up for the Yamim Tovim d'Oraisa on which Hallel is not recited. However, since those
eight Yamim Tovim d'Oraisa have an obligation of Simchah and Se'udah, the Chachamim did not
need to enact an obligation of Simchah and Se'udah on Chanukah. Hence, they enacted an
obligation to say Hallel without an obligation to have a Se'udah.

Besides the eight days d'Oraisa on which Hallel is not recited, one of the Yamim Tovim d'Oraisa
lacks a Se'udah, an expression of Simchah through feasting: Yom Kippur. The Chachamim
compensated for that missing Se'udah by instituting the festival of Purim. Yom Kippur is the day
of the greatest Simchah (Ta'anis 26b), and thus the Chachamim established that the Yom Tov of
Purim have more Simchah than any other Yom Tov, since it corresponds to Yom Kippur.

7 They could not bring wood on Shabbos because the Korbanos which they offered at the time they donated the wood could not
be offered on Shabbos.

17
Moreover, it was on Yom Kippur that Hash-m forgave the Jewish people for the sin of the Golden
Calf and gave them the second set of Luchos. Similarly, on Purim, the Jewish people re-accepted
the Torah ("Kiyemu v'Kiblu"), and thus it is an appropriate day to make up for the Simchah of
Yom Kippur.

Rav Hutner suggests that this explains why there is no prohibition of Melachah on Purim. There
was no reason for the Chachamim to enact a prohibition of Melachah because all of the Yamim
Tovim d'Oraisa have a prohibition of Melachah and thus no prohibition of Melachah is missing
(such that it needs to be compensated for on Purim).

Rav Hutner does not explain why the people did observe the prohibition of Melachah the first year
that Purim was instituted. Perhaps during the first year, the people celebrated not only for the
miracle that occurred, but for the personal salvation that they experienced. One who celebrates a
personal salvation offers a Korban Todah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Even though there was no
offering of Korbanos yet at the time of Purim because the Beis ha'Mikdash had not yet been rebuilt,
the people wanted to conduct themselves in the way in which one who brings a Korban Todah
acts. One who brings a personal Korban treats that day as a Yom Tov and does not do Melachah
(Tosfos to Pesachim 50a). Therefore, the people in the first year that the festival of Purim was
established did not do Melachah on Purim!

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:8

As we have learned, the holiday of Purim is celebrated on two separate days. People living in cities
without walls keep Purim on the 14th day of Adar, while Jews living in walled cities celebrate on
the 15th day of the month. What if we are not sure whether a given city had walls around it going
back to the days when Yehoshua entered the land of Israel with the Jewish people?

The Gemara relates that Chizkiya was unsure whether Teverya (Tiberias) was considered a walled
city or not, so he read the megillah on both the 14th and the 15th. The Gemara explains that he
was certain that walls surrounded the city; his dilemma was whether a city which was surrounded
on three sides by a wall and on the fourth side by the sea (Tiberias is built on the shores of the
Kinneret) should be considered a walled city or not.

Can Chizkiya’s ruling with regard to Tiberias be applied to other situations where we are unsure
as to the status of a given city? Based on his decision, it would appear that we should also read
the megillah twice in other cities whose history is not clear, a position that appears to negate the
usual rules that we apply in situations of uncertainty:

1. We usually rule that we follow the rov or majority of cases. Most cities did not have walls,
so we should assume that the city in question did not have them either.

8 https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_megillah28/

18
 2. When faced with cases of uncertainty on a Rabbinic level, we are inclined to choose the
lenient position.

Both of these rules would seem to indicate that the megillah should be read only once – on the
14th.

The Geonim, in fact, argue that we cannot apply Chizkiya’s rule to other cases, since it was a
unique case where he knew that the city had been walled on three sides, and his question was how
the fourth side – protected by the sea – should be viewed. The Ramban argues that Chizkiya’s
behavior was a middat chasidut – a pious practice – that was not meant to be applied by others or
in other cases.

In fact, there are a number of cities where it was common practice to read on both days of Purim
(and perform the other commandments, as well) although blessings were made only on the 14th.
Such communities included Baghdad and Damascus, as well as cities in Israel, like Chevron and
Tzefat.

Chizkiya read the Megilla in Teveriya on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth of Adar.9

The Gemara first thought that he did not know whether or not the city of Teveriya had a wall at
the time of Yehoshua. Therefore, due to the uncertainty of the historical facts, he read the Megilla
on both days.

This is also why Rav Assi read the Megilla in Hutzal on the 14th and on the 15th. The Gemara
concludes that Teveriya definitely had a wall at the time of Yehoshua, but the question of Chizkiya
was whether the configuration of its wall was adequate. It was walled on three sides, but the fourth
side was fortified by the seashore. Due to the halachic doubt whether this constitutes a “wall” in
regard to the halachos of Purim, Chizkiya read on both days.

The Gemara maintains that when there is a doubt, the Megilla should be read on the 14th and the
15th. This is whether the doubt is due to ‫ במציאות ספק‬,unknown facts (did Teveriya have a wall at
the time of Yehoshua), or whether it is due to ‫ בדי ספק‬,an unresolved halachic condition (is the
seashore a “wall”).

Ramban writes in the name of the Teshuvos HaGeonim that if there is an age-old city that has a
wall, and we do not know whether the wall existed from the time of Yehoshua or not, that city
should read on the fourteenth only. The reason is that when we have a doubt, we follow the
majority, and most cities today did not have a wall at the time of Yehoshua. He adds that this

9
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Megilla%20005.pdf

19
would actually be a case of a doubt in a case of a rabbinic mitzvah, and the rule is that we rule
leniently.

Technically, we could exempt them from reading either day, due to this doubt affecting each day,
but this would result in the publicizing of the miracle being totally dismissed, which is absurd.
Therefore, we have them read on the first day possible, the fourteenth.

The fact that Chizkiya and Rav Assi read on both days due to a doubt was only a “ ‫– חסידות מדת‬an
act of piety.” Rashba also writes that in a case of doubt we read on the fourteenth only. He writes
that Chizkiya and Rav Assi read on two days because they knew for a fact that Teveriya and Hutzal
were walled from the time of Yehoshua, and their doubt was whether the cities they knew with
those names were, in fact, the original cities or not. Rambam and Shulchan Aruch write that when
in doubt, we read on the 14th and 15th, but the ‫ ברכה‬is said on the 14th only.

The Chiddushei HaRim, zt”l, said, “In Megillah 5a we find that Rebbi planted a seedling of joy on
Purim. This hints that on Purim one has the ability to plant in his heart joy in Hashem. And just as
a plant sprouts and flourishes, so too should one’s joy take root and flourish. We should become
happier people after each Purim!”

A chassid once asked Rav Aharon Aryeh of Premishlan, zt”l, “The Chessed L’Avraham, zt”l,
writes that between Purim and Pesach, we are each taken out of our personal forty-nine gates of
impurity a little at a time. What can I do so that I will be able to feel this happening and change?”

The Rav responded, “The days between Purim and Pesach are powerful purifiers of the soul. It is
only after we experience the holiness of Purim and the days between the two festivals that we are
able to fulfill the wondrous duties of Pesach. You must think of yourself as a sick person whose
convalescence progresses in stages.

First, the doctor finds a way to strengthen the patient’s constitution so that he can bear the
medications and get treated. After treatment and as soon as the patient is already better, he must
take care not to have a relapse. This is exactly how it is on a spiritual plane.” Rav Aharon Aryeh
continued, “It is well known that joy can heal a person of all ills, but this too comes in stages. First,
one plants the seed of healing with his great joy on Purim. This germinates during the days of
preparation for Pesach—a hectic period that provides ample opportunity for spiritual growth
provided that we hold on to our joy.

Finally, we make it to the Seder night, the culmination of this great time. With great joy, we fulfill
all the lofty mitzvos of the Seder, and this way we conclude the process of healing that began on
Purim. Afterward, we immediately start to count the omer to ensure that we don’t have a relapse!
Focus your mind on this, and you will surely see yourself emerging from your own forty-nine
levels of impurity and entering into the gates of holiness!”

20
 A French Harbour Town by Adrien Gabriel Voisard-Margerie

What is a large town?

Mark Kerzner writes:10

We mentioned that people living in villages can read the Megillah a day or two before Purim, but
those who live in larger towns cannot advance the reading and should do it in its proper time. What
is considered a large town? - A place that has "ten idlers." Some say, these are people supported
by the community who study in the synagogue at all times, and others - that they don't have to be
supported, as long as they are available for prayer.

10 https://talmudilluminated.com/megillah/megillah5.html

21
By contrast, commemoration of sad events may be pushed back, when required, but never forward.
For example, if Tisha b'Av occurs on Saturday, it is observed on the following Sunday. There are
also other cases where the events are pushed back, such as a personal Holiday offering - which
cannot be brought on Saturday - but for a different reason: if the time to bring this offering has not
arrived yet, one cannot possibly fulfill the mitzvah by bringing it early.

Rabbi Yehudah the Prince did three unusual things: he planted a tree on Purim, bathed on the fast
of the Seventeenth of Tammuz, and sought to abolish the fast of Tisha b'Av, but the Sages did not
agree to this. Each of his actions is analyzed by the Talmud. For example, how could he do work
on Purim? Actually, there is nothing wrong with it, but if the community has the custom to abstain
from work on this day (as many communities do nowadays), then one should follow. However,
Rabbi Yehudah planted a special tree for a joyous occasion, which is permitted.

Sara Ronis writes:11

When the Israelites left Egypt, the Torah tells us, God performed a miracle: The waters of the Reed
Sea parted, and “the Israelites went into the sea on dry ground, the waters forming a wall for
them on their right and on their left.” (Exodus 14:29) This scene serves as the epic climax to the
1956 blockbuster film The Ten Commandments. As Charlton Heston, playing Moses, majestically
spreads his arms, a gale force wind blows apart the sea into two towering walls of water through
which the formerly enslaved Israelites walk to freedom. The special effects deployed to create that
scene pushed the boundaries of what technology at the time could do, and it remains a powerful
cinematic moment.

But, astonishing miracles and slick movie effects aside, can water really be a wall? That’s the
question today’s daf tries to answer.

We have already learned that cities that were walled in the days of Joshua (who, of course, crossed
through those walls of water with Moses and the Israelites) observe Purim a day later than all other
localities, on the 15th of Adar instead of the 14th. But what exactly counts as a wall? Can a water
boundary — one that does not miraculously stand on end but lies flat — be considered a city wall?

According to today’s daf, the Judean king Hezekiah would read megillah in the lakeside city of
Tiberias on both the 14th and the 15th of Adar because he was not sure if it was walled in the days
of Joshua. At first the Gemara offers this solution to Hezekiah’s uncertainty:

Isn’t it written: “And the fortified cities were Ziddim-zer, and Hammath, Rakkath, and
Chinnereth” (Joshua 19:35), and we maintain that Rakkath is Tiberias?

If you follow the rabbinic tradition and identify Tiberias with the biblical Rakkath, which this text
describes as fortified, then it was certainly walled in the days of Joshua!

11
Myjewishlearning.com

22
But then we learn that this was not actually the source of Hezekiah’s uncertainty. Rather:

This is the reason that he was uncertain: due to the fact that on one side, there was a wall of the
sea.

Tiberias sits on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, and therefore it would have had stone walls only
on three sides. What Hezekiah wondered was whether the sea counted as the fourth wall.

To answer this question, the Gemara quotes an earlier tradition, a beraita, about the different rules
that apply about selling one’s home in walled and unwalled cities. The upshot of this beraita is
that, for the purposes of real estate, Tiberias was not considered a halakhicallywalled city, because
it was not completely surrounded by a wall. Clear enough. So why was Hezekiah confused?

The Gemara explains:

With regard to the sale of houses of walled cities, Hezekiah was not uncertain. Where he was
uncertain was with regard to the reading of the megillah: What are the unwalled towns and
what are the walled cities with regard to the reading of the megillah? Is it that these are exposed,
whereas those are not exposed? If so, Tiberias is also exposed. Or perhaps it is that these are
protected, whereas those are not protected, and it is also protected.

Hezekiah asks what we even mean when we say the word “wall.” Is a wall something that offers
privacy or protection? After all, walls can keep certain things in or they can keep certain things out.
If the purpose of a wall is to offer privacy, then certainly we cannot consider Tiberias to be fully
walled — after all, anyone sailing the Sea of Galilee can see into the city! If, however, a wall is
meant to offer protection from harm, then Tiberias, with the protection offered by three walls and
the sea, should be considered walled. When is the sea a wall, and when is it just water? Hezekiah
was just not sure.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:12

In one of his stand-up performances, British comedian Ashley Blaker speaks of those Jews who
go to synagogue just twice a year on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, and he then says: “If you
only want to go to shul twice a year, spread it out a bit! Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are eight
days apart! Also, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are really long and difficult services. And that’s
why if I was only going to go to shul twice a year - I’d go on Purim and Simchat Torah. I’d go for
the fun ones!”.

12
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

23
Admittedly, there is some tongue-and-cheek in this observation. But what is undoubtedly true is
that a less-frequent-shulgoer would experience a very different vibe were they to attend shul on
Purim than, say, Rosh Hashanah, and that the Purim service has great potential in terms of
conveying the powerful message of joy that we celebrate on Purim.

I mention this because a major subject of our daf (Megillah 5a-b) explores the meaning of the
statement made by Rabbi Elazar, in the name of Rabbi Chanina, about Rabbi Yehuda HaNassi -
otherwise known as Rebbi, that: ‫‘ – רבי נטע נטיעה בפורים‬Rebbi planted a shoot on Purim’.

Significantly, there are a variety of ways of understanding this statement and, in particular, those
that follow relating the 17th of Tammuz and 9th of Av, and for this I would suggest that readers
take a look at Dov Zakheim’s recently published, ‘The Prince and the Emperors: The Life and
Times of Rabbi Judah the Prince’13

However, I would like to explore this teaching in light of the later statement in today’s daf that ‫רבי‬
‫נטיעה של שמחה נטע‬, which, though explained literally means: ‘Rebbi planted a shoot for the purpose
of bringing joy [on Purim]’, can also be understood to mean ‘Rebbi planted a shoot of joy [on
Purim]’, and the reason for doing so is because, as I mentioned above, I believe that the Purim
service has great potential in terms of conveying the powerful message of joy that we celebrate on
Purim.

Yet you will note that I have used the word ‘potential’. True, almost every shul service on Purim
is lighthearted. There is the Megillah, the noisemakers, and the many people who come to shul
wearing fancy dress. At the same time, many Purim parties unfortunately invoke an easily
misinterpreted Gemara as license for getting drunk. But as I have previously explained14 the
simcha that we celebrate on Purim is not one of drunken stupor. Instead, it is one that helps us see
good in the bad, make peace with the challenges that we confront in our lives, and overcome
feelings of stress and worry. Moreover, the simcha that we draw from Purim is not meant to end
the day after Purim, but instead, is meant to last with us for the rest of the year.

13
https://www.amazon.com/Prince-Emperors-Times-Rabbi-Judah-ebook/dp/B09KM3YX7M p261-271
14
see http://bit.ly/2VkwVDM

24
With this in mind, imagine a Purim shul service as not only being one with the Megillah, the
noisemakers, and the many people who come to shul wearing fancy dress, but also one that
provides those present with wisdom and tools to carry simcha with them beyond the day of Purim.
It would be a fun service, but also one that consciously ‘plants shoots of joy’ into the hearts and
minds of all those present.

I believe that this is what Purim can and perhaps should be, and if done right, I believe that it has
the potential of transforming the ritual of reading the Megillah into a workshop of simcha that
inspires all those present and helps make sure that the joy that we celebrate on Purim – like a
sapling that is planted – continues to grow.

25
Rabbi Mendel Weinbach writes:15

The Megillah is read on the 14th of Adar in cities which were not walled at the time when Joshua
led the Jewish nation in conquest of Eretz Yisrael. In cities which were surrounded by walls at that
time, the Megillah is read a day later, on the 15th of Adar.

In a city about which there is uncertainty as to whether it was walled at that time or not, its
inhabitants must read the Megillah on both the 14th and 15th. This includes the ancient cities of
Jaffa, Lod, Akko, Tsefas, Haifa, Beersheva, Hebron, Shechem and Gaza, according to the "Luach
Eretz Yisrael" of Rabbi M. Tuchichinski. Feasting and gift giving are also done on both days. The
blessing on the Megillah reading is said only on the 14th when most of the world reads the
Megillah.

In Tiberias, too, the Megillah must be read on both days. But this is not because there is any doubt
that the city had walls in the time of Joshua. A passage in Joshua 19 describes Rekes as a walled
city, and we know that Rekes is another name for Tiberias. What then is the question that arises in
regard to Tiberias?

Tiberias is located on the Sea of Galilee, also called the Kinneret. Thus, it was protected from
invaders by a combination of walls and the sea. If we define a "walled city" literally, as one
completely surrounded by walls, then Tiberias does not qualify. But if we view "walled city" as
one protected from invasion, then Tiberias' combination of walls and sea qualifies it as such.

This is why the Sage Chezkiyahu instituted in Tiberias the Megillah reading on both days, a ruling
cited in the Shulchan Aruch as a precedent for all cities whose status is uncertain.

(Orach Chaim 68 8:4, Mishneh Berurah 9)

15
https://ohr.edu/1514

26
Rav David Brofsky writes:16

Introduction

One of the unique aspects of Purim relates to the different times and places in which it is

celebrated. The Megilla (chapter 9) describes how on the thirteenth of Adar, the Jewish people

gathered in their cities throughout the Persian Empire and waged battle against their enemies.

Esther then requested that the Jews of Shushan be granted an additional day to fight, and they

continued their battle on the fourteenth of Adar.

The Megilla (9:17-22) then relates:

16
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/halakha/orach-chaim/holidays/laws-purim-unique-status-walled-city-purim-laws-traveler-purim

27
 While throughout the Empire the Jews designated the fourteenth of Adar as a day of

celebration, in Shushan, they celebrated on the fifteenth of Adar, commemorating the day on which

they rested.

Accordingly, the Mishna (Megilla 2a) teaches:

According to the Mishna, the Rabbis instituted that not only residents of Shushan read on

the fifteenth of Adar, but residents of other walled cities should also read on the fifteenth. The

Talmud (Megilla 2b) derives this from the verses, "Therefore do the Jews of the villages, that

dwell in the unwalled towns, make the fourteenth day of the month Adar a day of gladness and

28
feasting, and a good day, and of sending portions one to another..." The Megilla emphasizes

that the Jews in unwalled cities observe Purim on the fourteenth, suggesting that Jews of walled

cities observe the holiday on the fifteenth.

R. Yehoshua b. Korcha (Megilla 2b) asserts that only cities that were surrounded by walls

during the days of Achashveirosh read the Megilla on the fifteenth. The Mishna, however, rules

that the observance on the fifteenth is restricted to cities that were walled already during the time

of Yehoshua ben Nun, when Benei Yisrael first conquered the Land of Israel. Halakha follows

the opinion of the Mishna.

Notwithstanding the historical basis for celebrating the victory over Haman on different

days, some Rishonim note the seeming peculiarity in the institution of a holiday which different

locations celebrate on different days. Furthermore, they questioned why the distinction is drawn

between walled and unwalled cities, and why a city’s status is determined based upon its condition

at the time of Yehoshua ben Nun.

The Ramban (Megilla 2a) writes that the different celebrations during the year of the

miracle do not suffice to explain why two different days were established. Even in Shushan, he

notes, the holiday should be observed on the fourteenth of Adar, the day when the nation as a

whole was spared the fate of Haman’s decree. In order to explain this unique halakhic phenomenon

of two different days of celebration, the Ramban resorts to historical and exegetical conjecture. He

explains that in response to the miracle of Purim, the Jews who resided in villages and cities

independently began to celebrate annually on the fourteenth of Adar, as they felt most vulnerable

to the threat of Achashveirosh. However, the residents of the walled cities did not celebrate, as

they had felt secure in their fortified cities during the events of Purim, and therefore did not see

29
their survival as a miraculous salvation. For this reason, the Megilla speaks only of the

celebrations instituted in the unwalled cities (Esther 9:19), and makes no mention of celebration

in walled cites. Even in Shushan, the Ramban contends, the Jews only celebrated during the first

year, as the Megilla relates.

Later, Mordekhai and the Sages followed the lead of the inhabitants of the villages and

cities, and (basing themselves upon a Biblical precedent – Megilla 7a, Yerushalmi Megila 1:5)

they instituted a holiday to commemorate the salvation of Purim. Since these Jews had already

grown accustomed to celebrating on the fourteenth, the Rabbis established their day of celebration

on the fourteenth. In addition, they established that even the Jews in walled cities, who felt less

vulnerable to Haman’s threat, should celebrate Purim, as the Purim miracle in reality saved them,

as well. These communities, however, should celebrate on the fifteenth, the day upon which the

inhabitants of Shushan initially rested and celebrated their victory.

The Ramban continues to explain that at the time of the Purim story, the majority of the

Jewish people had already returned to Israel from the Babylonian exile, and therefore most of the

Jews affected by this miracle lived in Israel. However, the land of Israel was still in ruins as a

result of the Babylonian conquest and ensuing exile, and the cities and their walls had yet to be

rebuilt. Had the Sages made the celebration in walled cities dependent upon the presence of a wall

during Achashveirosh’s time, this would have highlighted the state of ruin that prevailed in

the land of Israel at that time. The Ramban cites in this context the comment in the Talmud

Yerushalmi (Megilla 1:1), "They afforded honor to Eretz Yisrael which was desolate at that time,

and they [made the date for the reading of the Megilla] dependent upon the days of Yehoshua bin

Nun." In other words, the Ramban explains, the Rabbis made the distinction between the

30
celebrations on the fourteenth and fifteenth dependent upon the state of the cities in the days of

Yehoshua ben Nun in order to give honor to the land of Israel.

The Ran (Megilla 1a) challenges the Ramban’s theory. Firstly, he claims that the majority

of the Jewish people still lived in Persia during the time of the Purim events. Furthermore, he

disagrees with the Ramban's assumption that those in walled cities were more secure and hence

less "traumatized" by the threat of Haman. Jews and gentiles lived together in the walled cities,

the Ran notes, and their Jewish population therefore faced no less danger than those in other cities.

To the contrary, the primary miracle occurred in Shushan, and for that reason other walled cities

commemorate Purim on the fifteenth, to emphasize the miracle which took place in Shushan.

The Ran therefore attributes the two days of celebration to the original events, during which

the residents of the villages and cities celebrated on the fourteenth, while the residents of Shushan

celebrated on the fifteenth. As for the days of Yehoshua ben Nun determining the status of a city,

he agrees with the Ramban and the Talmud Yerushalmi, that this provision was enacted to avoid

“embarrassing” the land of Israel, which lay in ruins during the time of Achashveirosh.

In the pages that follow, we will attempt to define more precisely a “walled city” for the

purpose of this halakha and discuss the situation of those who travel from a walled city to an

unwalled city, and vice versa.

Definition of a Walled and Unwalled City

The Rishonim disagree in defining the term kerakh – "walled city" – in this context. Later

scholars, and, more specifically, the Poskim of the last century, struggled to determine whether

there are "walled cities" besides Jerusalem in Israel (such as Akko, Bet El, Tiberias, Lod, Shilo

31
and Tzfat), or even outside Israel (such as Damascus, Istanbul, and Prague), which must read on

the fifteenth of Adar. Indeed, there are some cities in Israel in which some individuals read on both

the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar, to satisfy all opinions. This issue lies beyond the scope of our

discussion; for our purposes, we will assume that Jerusalem is the only city that definitely observes

Purim on the fifteenth of Adar.

The Talmud establishes that not only do residents of a walled city observe Purim on the

fifteenth, but residents of some "satellite" villages and towns also observe the holiday on this date.

The Gemara (Megilla 3b) teaches:

According to the Gemara, a village which can be seen from, or which is close to, a walled city

reads on the fifteenth of Adar, even though it does not have a wall itself.

The Poskim discuss the specific parameters of “nireh” – “being seen” – with respect to

this halakha. Rav Yechiel Michel Tukitchinsky, in his Ir Ha-kodesh Ve-ha’mikdash (3:27:11),

contends that one must be able to see the ground of the village while standing on the ground of the

walled city. However, if a person in the walled city can see only the houses of the village or can

see the ground of the village only while standing on the rooftops of the walled city, then the village

is not considered "nireh imo," and its residents observe Purim on the fourteenth. Furthermore, even

32
if there are trees or buildings which obstruct one's view, or if the village can be seen from only

certain parts of the city, this suffices to render the village “nireh imo.” These questions, and others,

were crucial in determining whether distant neighborhoods of Jerusalem, such as Ramot, should

celebrate Purim on the fourteenth of fifteenth of Adar.

Regarding villages which are deemed "samukh" (“close”) to a walled city, there has been

much discussion during the past one hundred years concerning the precise definition of this term,

especially as it applies to Jerusalem neighborhoods.

During the years between 1948 and 1967, the Old City of Jerusalem was under Jordanian

rule and there was no Jewish presence in the city. Rabbi Yitzchak Herzog (1888 – 1959), who

served as the Chief Rabbi of Israel from 1937 until his death, records (Heilkhal Yitzchak 63-5) the

discussions held by the Rabbinic Council (Moetzet Ha-rabbanut) of the Israeli Rabbinate in 1949,

immediately preceding the first Purim after the Old City of Jerusalem fell into Jordanian control.

R. Tzvi Pesach Frank addressed this issue, as well, in his work Har Tzvi (O.C. 2:131). Their

discussions focused upon a difficult passage in the Talmud Yerushalmi (1:1), as well as different

archeological theories regarding the route of the original wall of Jerusalem. These sources imply

that the laws of a walled city, and its satellite neighborhoods, may not apply to a city void of Jewish

inhabitants. Incidentally, they concluded that the neighborhoods of the “New City” should

continue to read on the fifteenth of Adar. Be-chasdei Hashem, the entire city of Jerusalem was

miraculously returned to the Jewish people in 1967, and, God willing, this question will forever

more remain a historical issue, rather than a practical one.

Since the reunification of Jerusalem in 1967 and the ensuing building of Jewish

neighborhoods outside Jerusalem’s OldCity across many hills and valleys, the Poskim were called

33
upon to determine whether the residents of these neighborhoods should observe Purim on the

fourteenth or fifteenth.

The Gemara (Megilla 2b) teaches that a village within one mil of a walled city should read

the Megilla on the fifteenth. The Rishonim debate the question of whether a city which can be

seen from a walled city must also be within a mil (approximately one kilometer) of that city. The

Rambam (Hilkhot Megilla 1:10) and Tur (688), for example, rule that even a city which can be

"seen with" a walled city should not read on the fifteenth if it is located beyond 2000 amot from

the walled city. By contrast, Rashi, Rabbenu Chananel, the Ritva (in the name of his teachers), the

Meiri and others understood that even a distant village which can be seen with the walled city

reads on the fifteenth, while a village which cannot be seen with the walled city must be within

a mil of the walled city in order to read on the fifteenth. The Shulchan Arukh (O.C. 688:1) rules in

accordance with the second opinion (see Mishna Berura 6).

Additionally, the Acharonim raise the question as to the status of a village that only part of

which is “near” a walled city. Some (including Rav Yechiel Michel Tukitchinsky, in his Ir Ha-

kodesh Ve-ha’mikdash 3:27) suggest that "samukh" refers only to houses within a "mil" of the

walled city. All the houses situated beyond a mil from the walled city, and which cannot be seen

from the walled city, would read on the fourteenth, even though they are connected territorially to

the walled city! R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin (1888-1978), in his Mo’adim Ba-halakha (p. 237, note

25), expresses his amazement that R. Tukitchinsky would each year call for residents of the

Jerusalem’s "New City" (the neighborhoods beyond a mil from the Old City) to read on the

fourteenth, even though common custom did not follow his view. To this day, in R.

34
Tukitchinsky’s yeshiva, Yeshivat Etz Chayim, the Megilla is read on the fourteenth, though by

someone who lives outside of Jerusalem (Mikra’ei Kodesh – Purim, p. 100).

Nowadays, all of Jerusalem’s neighborhoods have been connected to the Old city through

residential expansion, thus rendering this question no longer relevant. Indeed, two recent chief

rabbis of Jerusalem – R. Shalom Messas (1908 - 2003), in his Shemesh U-magen (1:51-52, 2:16-

7), and R. Yitzchak Kulitz (1922 – 2003) – ruled that the outer neighborhoods of Jerusalem should

read the Megilla on the fifteenth. Furthermore, some (including R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, in

his Halikhot Shlomo 20:8-9) maintained that any neighborhood which pays municipal taxes to

Jerusalem and is connected to the city with an eiruv should be considered "samukh" and thus read

on the fifteenth. Common custom seems to follow this position.

One Who Travels To and From a Walled City on Purim

With the return of the Jewish people to Israel in large numbers toward the end of the

19th century, the establishment of the State of Israel and the reunification of Jerusalem, the once

theoretical questions regarding one who travels from a walled city to an unwalled city on Purim

35
have taken on critical practical importance. In turn, the Poskim have discussed this issue in great

depth. We will attempt to briefly summarize the basic laws and guidelines relevant to this issue.

For the purpose of our discussion, a person categorized here as a ben ir (resident of an

unwalled city) must read the Megilla and observe Purim on the fourteenth of Adar, while the

term ben kerakh (resident of a walled city) refers to somebody who must observe the holiday on

the fifteenth of Adar.

The Mishna (Megilla 19a) establishes that a person’s presence in a city, even for a single

day, can, under certain circumstances, define a person as either a ben kerakh or ben ir:

The Gemara, commenting on this Mishna, states:

36
 Rava’s comments address only the situation of a resident of a walled city who travels to an

unwalled city, whose status is determined by his location on "the night of the fourteenth” –

meaning, when the night ends, in the morning of the fourteenth. Rava does not, however, address

the opposite case, of one who travels from an unwalled city to a walled city. Does the morning of

the fourteenth determine his status, as well, or is his status determined by his location on the

morning of the fifteenth?

Another question raised by the commentators relates to the condition that one "INTENDS to

return to his own place." The Talmud does not clarify the role of "intention," and whether one's

intention determines his status even if he ultimately acts differently.

Additionally, the Gemara does not discuss the fascinating question of whether one could

theoretically be obligated to observe Purim on both days, and not at all, by traveling from one kind

of city to the other.

37
 Regarding the situation of one who travels from a walled city to an unwalled city, Rashi

(s.v. shanu) writes:

Rashi explains that the while the one’s location at sunrise on the morning of the fourteenth

determines whether he reads in the unwalled city or not, one’s location at sunrise of the

morning of the fifteenth determines whether he must read on the fifteenth, on Shushan Purim.

The Rosh (2:3), explaining Rashi, writes:

The Rif (6a, as understood by the Ran), Ramban (Rif; 6a), Ritva (Megilla 19a), Riaz

(Rif; 6a), and Rambam (Hilkhot Megilla 1:10, as understood by the Maggid

Mishneh and Kessef Mishneh) all concur with Rashi's interpretation and halakhic conclusion.

38
 The Rosh himself, however, and the Tur (688), disagree, and maintain that the

morning of the fourteenth determines everyone’s status, regardless of the situation. If one

wakes up outside a walled city on the morning of the fourteenth, then he must read

the Megilla on that day. However, if one rises in Jerusalem on the morning of the

fourteenth, then he must read the Megilla in Jerusalem on the fifteenth! As the Rosh writes:

The Ra'avad (Rif, 6a) agrees, fundamentally, with the Rosh, but adds that in order to become

obligated to read on the fifteenth, one must remain in the walled city through the fifteenth. If,

however, the traveler returns to the unwalled city after the morning of the fourteenth, he will be

exempt from reading the Megilla altogether! (The Ritva cites his opinion, as well.)

To summarize, while Rashi maintains that one’s status is determined by his location at dawn

on the fourteenth and the fifteenth, the Rosh maintains that the morning of the fourteenth

determines where should read, either on the fourteenth or fifteenth.

39
 What conceptual issue underlies this debate between Rashi and the Rosh? Seemingly, Rashi

believes, very simply, that one’s location on the morning of his Purim, on the fourteenth or the

fifteenth, determines his status. The Rosh likely believes that even for the residents of walled cities,

the fourteenth is still considered Purim, even if practically they observe the holiday on the next

day. Said differently, a ben kerakh, according to the Rosh, would omit tachanun on the fourteenth

of Adar not merely as a sign of identification with his brethren in unwalled cities who observe

Purim that day, but rather because for the ben kerakh, too, that day is, fundamentally, Purim day.

The Shulchan Arukh (O.C. 688:5) follows Rashi’s view that the status of a ben kerakh is

determined by his location on the morning of the fifteenth, and the Mishna Berura (12) and most

other Acharonim concur.

A second question concerns the role played by one’s intention with regard to

this halakha. The Rishonim address the situation of a resident of a walled city who visits an

unwalled city on the fourteenth intending to return to his walled city before morning but was

delayed and remained in the unwalled city. Must he celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, in

accordance with his location on the morning of the fourteenth, or on the fifteenth, as he had

intended to be in a walled city on the morning of the fifteenth?

Rashi and the Ba'al Ha-Ma’or (Rif, 6a) rule that one's identity is fully determined by his

physical presence in a given place on Purim morning. On the other hand, the Rif (6a), Ramban,

Ra'avad, Ran, Rosh, and Tur insist (based upon the Gemara’s formulation and the Rif's

interpretation) that one's status is determined based on where he had intended to be at the critical

time (as discussed above).

40
 Among those who recognize the importance of intention, we find a debate as to whether

the determining factor is one’s intention upon leaving home (Rif, Rosh, Tur), or his intention as

Purim begins on the night of the fourteenth (Ramban, Ran).

The Shulchan Arukh (O.C. 688:5) rules:

The Mishna Berura (12) explains that the Shulchan Arukh accepts Rashi’s view, that the critical

moment which determines one's obligation is the morning of the fourteenth for a ben ir, and the

morning of the fifteenth for a ben kerakh.

Furthermore, the Mishna Berura adds, the Shulchan Arukh follows the view of the Rif, Rosh, and

Tur, that one's intention upon leaving home regarding his location at the critical moment (the

morning of the fourteenth or the fifteenth) determines his identity with respect to the obligation

of Megilla. Many Acharonim, including the Chazon Ish (O.C. 152:6) and R. Tzvi Pesach Frank

Har Tzvi O.C. 119), concur.

41
Summary of the Laws of a Traveler

As I hope we demonstrated with great clarity, the halakhot of a traveler on Purim are

extremely complex and confusing! Indeed, a cursory perusal of the responsa literature and

contemporary halakhic compendiums reveals numerous different approaches and conclusions

which can leave the reader perplexed.

However, based upon what we have seen, we can succinctly summarize the basic

guidelines:

If a resident of Jerusalem (a walled city) traveled to Alon Shevut (an unwalled town - and

home to Yeshivat Har Etzion and the Virtual Beit Midrash!) with the intention of remaining there

after dawn of the fourteenth, and he indeed remained in Alon Shevut through dawn, should observe

Purim on the fourteenth of Adar. However, if his plans changed and he returned

to Jerusalem before dawn, he should not observe Purim on the fourteenth. (This follows the

42
position of the Taz and Mishna Berura; according to the Chazon Ish, even if his plans change he

observes Purim on the fourteenth.)

If the traveler intends to return to Jerusalem before dawn, then he should not observe Purim

on the fourteenth, even if in the end he remained in Alon Shevut through the morning of the

fourteenth. Even in such a case, however, some authorities (see Rav Yechiel Michel

Tukitchinsky's Ir Ha-kodesh Ve-hamikdash and R. Tzvi Pesach Frank's Har Tzvi 2:128) advise

reading the Megilla without a berakha on the fourteenth, in deference to the aforementioned

opinions (Rashi, Ba'al Ha-ma’or) which base one's status solely on his physical location.

In the converse case, if an Alon Shevut resident travels to Jerusalem before the morning of

the fourteenth with the intention of returning to Alon Shevut before dawn, he should observe Purim

on the fourteenth regardless of whether or not he actually returned to Alon Shevut before dawn.

Similarly, if his intention upon leaving home was to remain in Jerusalem until after dawn on the

fourteenth, but to return before dawn of the fifteenth, he should still observe Purim on the

fourteenth (Mishna Berura 12), as his intention was not to observe Purim in Jerusalem on the

fifteenth. If he intended to return to Alon Shevut only after dawn on the fifteenth, then he should

celebrate Purim on the fifteenth of Adar.

Is it possible for one to become obligated in BOTH days of Purim? In other words, if one

leaves Alon Shevut after dawn on the fourteenth of Adar and plans to stay in Jerusalem until after

dawn the following day, should he observe two days of Purim? Seemingly, according to the Rosh

(cited above), one can only incur one obligation, depending on his location on the morning of the

fourteenth. According to Rashi, however, could such a person be obligated on both days?

43
 The Talmud Yerushalmi (Megilla 2:3) teaches that one who "uproots his residency" (akar

dirato) can be obligated to observe two days of Purim, or be exempt from Purim altogether,

depending on whether he moves to or from a walled city. On the basis of this passage in the

Talmud Yerushalmi, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Minchat Shelomo 1:23:4) contends that a

traveler can indeed be obligated to celebrate Purim twice. However, some authorities recommend

in such a case that one hears the berakhot on the Megilla from somebody else on the second day,

rather than reciting them himself.

By contrast, R. Tzvi Pesach Frank (Har Tzvi, O.C. 2:118-9) understands the Yerushalmi’s

comment as referring only to those who move residences permanently, and not to travelers, and

thus it would not apply to the case described above. Moreover, R. Frank claims that the Talmudic

dictum, "a resident of a walled city for one day is called a resident of a walled city" is limited in

scope and application, and it only applies to one who has yet to hear the Megilla is his own

hometown. However, one who visits a village on the fourteenth, and returns to his home in a wall

city for the fifteenth, would indeed read again on the fifteenth, as that is where he really lives.

Finally, can one be completely exempt from both days of Purim? For example, if

a Jerusalem resident travels to Alon Shevut on the morning of the fourteenth, planning to remain

there until at least the morning of the fifteenth, must he observe Purim at all? According to

many Rishonim, it appears that in such a case one would most likely be entirely exempt from

observing Purim. Interestingly, R. Tzvi Pesach Frank (Har Tzvi 2:128:11, 20-21) writes that one

should preferably gather ten people and read the Megilla on the fourteenth, with a berakha; if this

44
is not possible, he should read it privately without a berakha. Clearly, one should avoid this

scenario, so that he does not avoid the wonderful holiday of Purim!

It should be noted that in any situation where one’s obligation is in doubt, he should not

read the Megilla on behalf of others who are clearly obligated to observe Purim that day.

Walled Cities “from the Time of Joshua” Celebrate Shushan Purim

– Why?

Hidden behind the strange rabbinic definition of walled cities is a polemical

response to the notorious claim of Emperor Hadrian, who rebuilt Jerusalem

as the pagan city Aelia Capitolina.

45
Prof. Eyal Ben-Eliyahu writes:17

The Two Days of Purim

Explaining the origins of the Purim festival, Esther chapter 9 describes how the Jews throughout
Persia defeated their enemies on the 13th of Adar and celebrated on the 14th (v. 17). We are also
told that in Shushan itself (generally identified with Susa), the war continued on the 14th and that
the Jews there celebrated on the 15th (v. 18).

The next verse states:

This verse suggests that Purim is celebrated on the 14th in Jewish villages and towns. However, in
the next verse (v. 20), Mordechai writes a letter to all the Jews in Persia,

17
https://www.thetorah.com/article/walled-cities-from-the-time-of-joshua-celebrate-shushan-purim-why

46
The Jews then accept Mordechai’s request (v. 23),[2] a claim that is in tension with v. 19, which
says that village Jews celebrate (present tense!) Purim on the 14th. Putting aside the question of
how to interpret the biblical text from a critical perspective, a number of basic interpretations have

emerged among the Jews:

Two-Day Purim (Karaites)—The Karaites follow Mordechai’s enactment and celebrate Purim
as a two-day holiday.[3]

Villages 1 Day, Cities 2 Days (LXX)—The LXX’s text for v. 19, which is longer than
MT,[4] explains that while village Jews celebrate on the 14th, city Jews celebrate a two-day Purim
on the 14th and 15th:

Therefore, for this reason, the Judeans who are scattered in every land outside celebrate the
fourteenth day of Adar as a holiday with gladness, each sending portions to those nearby. But those
living in the large cities also celebrate the fifteenth of Adar as a joyful holiday, sending portions
to those nearby.[5]

Village Jews 14th, City Jews 15th (Rabbinic)—In rabbinic interpretation, Purim is always a one-
day holiday; villages or small towns celebrate on the 14th, whereas walled cities should celebrate
on the 15th, which the rabbis call Shushan (Susa) Purim because, as noted above, the Jews of
Shushan celebrated on this day.

Walled Cities from the Time of Joshua

Following the reference to ‫( פרזים‬villages/unwalled towns) in verse 19, the rabbis understand that
the distinction between city and village is based on whether the place is walled or not. Intuitively,
it would make sense for every generation to determine whether the city in which they live is now

47
walled, and thus fulfills this criterion. Nevertheless, the Tosefta (Megillah 1:1)[6] records two
opinions that tie the distinction to a particular historical period:

Both opinions ignore the question of whether cities are walled in contemporary times. In fact, the
rabbis note that whether or not a given city actually has a wall is irrelevant (b. Meg 3b):

If halakha (Jewish law) defines whether a city is walled or not based on history, R. Joshua ben
Qorha’s position seems the logical choice, since the distinction between cities and villages is
modeled on the experience of Jews in Shushan versus that of other Jews during the war.
Nevertheless, only the first opinion, connecting the law to the time of Joshua, is cited
authoritatively in the Mishnah (Megillah 1:1) and is canonized in later rabbinic tradition.[9] But
what does Joshua have to do with the realities of battle in Shushan in the time of Ahasuerus?

Respect for Israel (Yerushalmi)

One explanation, found in the Jerusalem Talmud (y Meg, Ms. Leiden 1.1; 70a), is that the decision
that the time of Joshua is determinative was a way of honoring Israel:

48
In other words, no real connection exists between Joshua and Shushan Purim. Tradition simply
wished to make Israelite cities and their history primary rather than Persian cities and theirs.

Gezeirah Shava (Bavli)

The Babylonian Talmud’s explanation for connecting the laws of Shushan Purim to the time of
Joshua is based on a gezeirah shavah, a word analogy (b. Meg. 2b):

Both of these talmudic sources underscore the problematic nature of the connection drawn by the
rabbis between walls dating from Joshua’s son of Nun’s day and the rules of celebrating Purim
and reading the scroll of Esther.

Redeeming a Dwelling House in a Walled City

Another set of laws is connected to the question of whether a given city was walled in the time of
Joshua or not. These are found in Leviticus 25, which deals with what happens when an Israelite
sells his ancestral land because of debt. As one of the protective provisions, we are told that an

49
Israelite has the right to redeem the property that he sold under duress, but this right is limited
when the property is found in a city.

The law refers to houses in cities that are walled at the time of the sale and the redemption.
Nevertheless, here as well the rabbis introduce the same unusual provision that the city was walled
at the time of Joshua (m. Arakhin 9:6 [=Sifra Behar 4]):

Here again, the rabbis connect the halakha to ancient as opposed to contemporary times. In some
ways, this case is even more problematic since the law would seem to be based on economic
realities of contemporaneous city versus country life. Why do the rabbis insist on using the time
of Joshua as the determining factor? I suggest that in both the case of the date of Purim and of
selling dwellings, the rabbis are responding to Emperor Hadrian’s attempt to redefine a number of
ancient Jewish cities, including and especially Jerusalem, as Roman.[13]

Hadrian Establishes Aelia Capitolina

Emperor Hadrian (117–138 C.E.) was a great builder and renovator of cities throughout the Roman
Empire.[14] Among the cities that he rebuilt was Jerusalem, which he renamed Aelia Capitolina.

50
“Aelia” was Hadrian’s family name, and Capitolina referred to the Capitoline Triad: Jupiter, the
head of the Roman pantheon, his wife and sister Juno, and his daughter Minerva. The name
expressed that the new city was founded by Hadrian in honor of the deity Jupiter.

The Roman Historian Cassius Dio (ca. 155–235 C.E.) wrote that the establishment of this city was
the cause of the Bar-Kokhba rebellion (Roman History, 69:12.1–2; LCL trans.):

At Jerusalem, Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground,
naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the [Jewish] god, he raised a new
temple to Jupiter. This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, for the Jews
deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites
planted there.[15]
In fact, the many archaeological excavations carried out west and south of the Temple Mount
Archaeology confirm that the plowing and renewal of the city took place early in Hadrian’s reign,
before the Bar-Kochba rebellion.

The Rhetoric of Hadrian’s Coin

The coins that Hadrian minted also highlight his building project in Jerusalem.

51
 A coin struck to commemorate the founding of Aelia Capitolina by Hadrian.
The inscription reads: COL[ONIA] AEL[IA] KAPIT[OLINA], in exergue:
COND[ITA], which translates as “The Foundation of Colonia Aelia
Capitolina.”[16]
One side of the coin depicts Hadrian while the other side shows a person plowing with a bull and
cow to mark the boundaries of the new colony.[17]

The Roman Pomerium and the Ritual of Plowing

According to Roman legend, the plowing and boundary-setting ritual was part of the establishment
of the city of Rome in the eighth century B.C.E. and was carried out by Romulus himself, after
killing his brother Remus. As the Greek historian Plutarch (46–ca. 120 C.E.) wrote in his Life of
Romulus (11.1-4):

The plowing of a pomerium for establishing cities was not limited to Rome but was used
throughout the Roman provinces. Thus, the ritual that Hadrian carried out was meant to express
that just as Romulus was the one who established Rome, Hadrian was the one to establish Aelia
Capitolina.

Hadrian’s Plowing of Jerusalem

The rabbis were well aware of Hadrian’s act—some of Hadrian’s coins remained intact well into
the rabbinic period and are mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud (Bekhorot 50a). The Mishnah

52
even lists Hadrian’s act as one of the catastrophes that happened to the Jews on the ninth of the
month of Av (m. Taanit 4:6):

I suggest that the concept of “cities that were walled from the time of Joshua son of Nun” can be
seen as their adaptation of the Roman notion of a “founding father,” a strategy that represents
adaptation by the governed of the system and terminology of the ruler for the purpose of contesting
its actions.[18] As the Harvard University sociologist Homi K. Bhabha has noted, it is not
uncommon for conquered peoples to adopt the symbols and terminology of the conqueror, in order
to preserve its own identity while coming to terms with the presence and symbolic language of its
rulers.[19]

Joshua as a Foil to Hadrian

Whereas for the Romans, the establishment of the pomerium marked their status as the founders
of the new colony, the rabbis were aware that the Jewish entitlement to the cities in the land of
Israel was vested not in their status as founders, but in the divine promise to the patriarchs, fulfilled
with Joshua’s conquest of the cities in Canaan. This makes Joshua an ideal figure for them to
utilize.

Joshua did not establish Jerusalem, rather, according to Joshua 10:1–27, 12:10, he defeated the
king of Canaanite Jerusalem, and ostensibly reestablished the city as Israelite.[20] As the conqueror
of Jerusalem, who established it as Israelite, Joshua becomes a polemical mirror-image of what
Hadrian claimed on his coin.

53
Romulus and Jeroboam

The rabbis were acquainted with the foundation myth of Rome; this is clear, e.g., from tannaitic
traditions such as Sifre Deut. (MS British Museum Add. 16406, piska 52):

This midrash combines the establishment of Rome with Jeroboam’s rebellion against Jerusalem,
which likely is meant to hint at the tension between the success of Rome (represented by Jeroboam)
and the continuance of Jerusalem as a Jewish city (represented by Solomon). As I argue above,
this is not only because of Rome’s having destroyed Jerusalem in 70 C.E., but because of Hadrian’s
rededication of the city as Roman and founded by him.

Asserting Jerusalem and Israel’s Eternal Jewishness

The image of Joshua as the Jewish Romulus was designed to counteract Hadrian’s claim that the
city was not Roman, having been plowed and rebuilt, and to reestablish in perpetuity the Jewish
claim on Jerusalem and other ancient cities in Israel. As a result of this ideological move, the
concept of cities from the time of Joshua entered the halakhic discourse, causing the rabbis to
reimagine both the law of redeeming houses and the law of Shushan Purim, linking them
inextricably to Israel’s ancient history and the conquest of the land under Joshua.

54
Addendum

The List of Cities Established by Joshua

Mishnah Arakhin 9:6 [=Sifra Behar 4] lists cities established by Joshua:

This is a strange list. Of all the cities noted in this source, only Jerusalem is mentioned in the book
of Joshua.[22] Most likely, the rabbis are responding to Hadrian’s reappropriation of Jerusalem and
other Jewish cities. It was in their interest to argue that these Jewish cities in the land—even those
not mentioned in the Bible—were not Roman at all, regardless of what Hadrian said or did. Instead,
these cities go all the way back to the time of Joshua’s son of Nun, the first Israelite conqueror,
and their status as Jewish cannot be reversed by any Roman ritual.

Footnotes

1. See discussion in Adele Berlin, Esther ‫( אסתר‬JPS Bible Commentary; Philadelphia, 2001),

87-88.

55
2. The point is reiterated later in the chapter:

3. See Shawn Joe Lichaa, “Comparing Purims,” TheTorah (2015). This may also be

Josephus’ understanding, who mentions the celebration on two dates, on the 14 and 15 of

4. Adar, but does not explain the distinction between the two.

56
5. between Greek and Hebrew Esther, see Aaron Koller, “A More Religious Megillah: A

Jewish-Greek Version of Esther,” TheTorah (2014); Elsie Stern, “Megillat Esther: A

Godless and Assimilated Diaspora,” TheTorah (2014).

See discussion in Jon D. Levenson, Esther: A Commentary, Old Testament Library

(London: SCM Press, 1997), 123. Frederick W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, Word Bible

Commentary 9; (Waco, TX: Word, 1996), 478, sees this as the adaptation of a gloss from

vv. 21–22.

6. This text also appears in the Jerusalem Talmud (yMeg 1.1; 70a).

7. The Tosefta continues with the third position, noted above, which is more difficult to

interpret:

57
‫אמ' ר' יוסה בן יהודה היכן מצינו לשושן הבירה שמוקפת חומ' מימות יהושע בן נון אלא משפחה ומשפחה מדינה‬
‫ומדינה עיר ועיר‬

Yose b. Judah seems to be arguing with the first opinion, noting that because we do not

know if Shushan was surrounded by a wall from the time of Joshua in Shushan the scroll

would be read there on the fourteenth, not the fifteenth of Adar, which is absurd. He may

have made this argument in support for Joshua b. Qorha, or alternatively, he may be arguing

that every generation should determine the status of its city based on whether it is is

presently surrounded by a wall or not. So Saul Lieberman (Tosefta Ki-fshutah: Mo‘ed [vol.

5; Jerusalem, 1992], 1122-23) following yMeg 1.1, 70a.

8. The Talmud here relies on the ketiv of the word ‫( לוא‬lo) with aleph, which reflects a

negative. However, in that context the keri ‫ לו‬makes sense; reliance on the ketiv leads to a

grammatically incoherent sentence that simply serves as support for the lack of need for a

wall. Although the Bavli uses this Tannaitic source, which originates in the Sifra

(Behar, parasha 4; See also and t. Arak 5:13), to make a point about Shushan Purim, its

contexts is actually in a very different set of laws, that of redeeming houses sold because

of debt, which will be discussed below.

9. The Mishnah reads:

‫כרכין המוקפין חומה מימות יהושע בן נון קורין בחמשה עשר כפרים ועיירות גדולות קורין בארבעה עשר‬

58
10. This is the same derasha (homily) found in the Yerushalmi in the name of R. Judah ben

Pazzi. The text there is obscure, but it seems to be related to a different point. One

interpretation, suggested by R. David Fraenkel (1707–1762), is that R. Judah ben Pazzi is

trying to prove that even if a city was walled in the time of Ahasuerus, if it was not walled

in the time of Joshua, they should read on the 14th (see Korban HaEidah ad loc.).

11. The opposite is true of houses in villages, which can be redeemed and revert to their

original owner in the jubilee year (Lev 25:31). The usual explanation tendered for the

difference between walled cities and fields, or open cities is the importance of the jubilee

year in an agricultural society; in urban walled cities, the sale of houses was more in the

nature of a business activity. See Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with

Introduction and Commentary (AB 3B; New York, 2001), 2198-2200. Editor’s note: For a

discussion of the archaeology of walled vs. unwalled cities in biblical times, see Avraham

Faust, “The Jubilee Real Estate Law,” The Torah (2014).

12. For a discussion of the rest of the text, including its strange list, see addendum.

13. The great scholar of ancient Judaism, Samuel Krauss (1866–1948) remarked on the affinity

between the halakhah requiring the full quorum of the Sanhedrin for the act of enlarging

the city of Jerusalem and the laws governing the enlarging of the pomerium in Rome. I

argue that the features shared by the tannaitic halakhot concerning "cities which are

surrounded by wall from the days of Joshua" and the Roman pomerium are even more

profound. See Samuel Krauss, ‫[ קדמוניות התלמוד‬The Antiquities of the Talmud], (Berlin-

Vienna, n.d.), 1/1, 41

59
14. On Hadrian as a founder of new cities and also of renewed cities throughout the Roman

Empire, see Mary T. Boatwright, Hadrian, and the Cities of the Roman Empire (Princeton,

2000), 172–203.

15. Editor’s note: For more on this, see Meir Ben Shahar, “Rabbi Akiva's Laugh: The Hidden

Call for the Bar-Kokhba Revolt,” The Gemara (2016).

16. Colonia here is short for Colonia Civium Romanarum, meaning a colony of Roman

citizens. Beginning in the time of Augustus, veterans of the Roman military would settle

in cities in the east, and their neighborhoods would receive the status of Roman colonies.

These veterans would receive benefits from Rome such as exemption from taxes.

17. Meshorer, Coinage of Aelia Capitolina, 21.

18. See Feldman, "Observations on the Name of Palestine," 1-23, and Eyal Ben-Eliyahu,

“Judea and Israel: The Territorial Dimension of National Identity” (Hebrew), Zion 75

(2010): 127-51.

19. Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London: Routledge Classics, 1994).

20. The Bible has contradictory traditions on who was responsible for making Jerusalem

Israelite, and when this happened. See Zev Farber, “The Israelite Conquest of Jerusalem:

When and Who?” The Torah (2016).

21. For a discussion of this source, see David Adan-Bayewitz, "The Tannaitic List of ‘Walled

Cities’ and the Archaeological Evidence from Iotapata and Gamala” (Hebrew), Tarbiz 66

(1997): 449-70, who adduces that this is a list of cities fortified by Gentiles before passing

into Jewish hands, dating it to the period between the conquest of Gamala by Alexander

Jannaeus (c. 82-79 B.C.E.) and its destruction in 67 C.E. Stuart Miller (Studies in the

60
 History and Traditions of Sepphoris [Leiden, 1984], 13-30) dates the list to the early

second century C.E., before the Bar-Kokhba revolt.

22. The absence of the other cities listed from the book of Joshua may have been what

motivated Ishmael son of Rabbi Yose to define a “walled city” as every city that was,

according to tradition, resanctified by the returnees from Babylonia (Sifra: Behar, 4; Ms.

Vatican):

23.

Rabbi Ishmael’s opinion reflects the rabbinic premise that there was a dual sanctification

of the land of Israel: an initial, primary sanctification by Joshua, which they

called kedushah rishonah (initial sanctification), and a subsequent, secondary one by

Nehemiah, termed kedushah sheniyah (resanctification). This notion broadly impacts the

tannaitic and amoraic halakhot relating to agriculture in the land of Israel. See Eyal Ben-

Eliyahu, Between Borders (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 2013), 159. With respect to Jerusalem, this

second sanctification is reflected in the dedication ritual performed by Nehemiah after

rebuilding its walls (Neh 12:27-44), thus linking two founding figures and strata. The

Mishnah (Sheb 2.1) and the Babylonian Talmud (Shebu 15a-16a) based the sanctification

ceremony and its requirements on the biblical description of the ceremony of Nehemiah’s

dedication of the Jerusalem city wall (Neh 12). Note that, in Megillat Ta'anit, 14 and 15

61
Adar are the days of Purim, whereas 16 Adar is the day on which the building of the walls

of Jerusalem began. This is one of three dates dedicated to the building of the wall of

Jerusalem, but it is difficult to determine if it relates to Nehemiah, the Hasmoneans, or even

Agrippa I’s day. See Vered Noam, Megillat Ta'anit: Versions, Interpretation,

History (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 2003), 180-83. This dual sanctification underscores the link

made in tannaitic literature between the building of walls and the “starting point” for the

sanctification of the city, for marking the point from which these cities belong to the Jewish

people and require adherence to the laws of the land of Israel.

62
The Case for Observing Purim on Both the 14th and 15th of Adar in

Beit Shemesh and Ramat Beit Shemesh

Rabbi Ari Enkin writes:18

Introduction

In most of the world, Purim is observed on the 14th of Adar. This is because in the Purim story the
vast majority of Jews were forced to go to war against their enemies on the 13th of Adar. They then
enjoyed the next day, the 14th of Adar, to rest and celebrate their speedy victory. The Jews who
lived in Shushan, however, continued to fight on the 14th of Adar as well, and were only victorious
a day later, on the 15th of Adar. As such, Purim is observed on the 14th of Adar in most of the
world, while in places which had a wall around it, similar to Shushan, Purim is observed on the
15th of Adar.[1]

Although Mordecai and Esther only decreed that walled cities similar to Shushan were to observe
Purim on the 15th of Adar, our sages saw Purim as an opportunity to bestow honor upon the Land
of Israel. During the Purim era Jerusalem lay in ruins and it was felt that it would be unbecoming
to highlight a Persian city as the example for which cities are to observe Purim on the 15th of Adar.
As such, the sages modified Mordechai and Esther’s original decree and extended the observance
of Purim on the 15th of Adar to include any city which had a wall around it in the days of Yehoshua
Bin Nun, which would include Jerusalem in this distinction.[2]

The ancient city of Beit Shemesh (hereafter referred to as “Tel Beit Shemesh” or “the Tel”) is also
among those cities which had a wall around it in the days of Yehoshua Bin Nun.[3] According to
halacha, any city which had a wall around it or even if it might have had a wall around it in the
days of Yehoshua Bin Nun, is to observe Purim on the 15th of Adar.[4] It would follow, therefore,

18 https://www.ou.org/holidays/the-case-for-observing-purim-on-both-the-14th-and-15th-of-adar-in-beit-shemesh-and-ramat-
beit-shemesh/

63
that observing Purim exclusively on the 14th of Adar in the modern day city of Beit Shemesh,
which sits just adjacent to Tel Beit Shemesh, is problematic.

There are only two contemporary halachic authorities who are known to have written on this
issue. The first we will cite is Rabbi David Avraham Spektor, rabbi of the Givat Sharett
neighborhood in Beit Shemesh and author of “Beit Shemesh – Ir Hatanach”. In his sefer, Rabbi
Spektor presents the relevant halachic, Scriptural, and archeological sources[5] on when Purim
should be observed in Beit Shemesh. He concludes, nonetheless, that Beit Shemesh is to observe
Purim exclusively on the 14th of Adar just like most other cities in Israel and around the world. It
appears, however, that his treatment of the issue is somewhat too simplistic and lacking a number
of other sources and arguments which would have assisted in better presenting the subject.

The second authority to write on this issue is Rabbi Elazar Cheshin. In his paper, “Regarding Purim
in the Newer Ultra-Orthodox Cities” (Heb.), published in the Otzrot Hatorah 5765 journal,[6] he
argues that Purim should be observed in Beit Shemesh exclusively on the 15th of Adar. Again, his
treatment of the issue is also far too simplistic and lacking many sources and arguments which
would have assisted in better presenting the subject. His position is also difficult to accept, not to
mention that he is mysteriously quick to arrive at his conclusions.

Following a study which consisted of extensive research, a review of historical precedents, and the
halachic effects of growth and development in Beit Shemesh, this writer has come to the
conclusion that there is a case for Purim to be observed, as a chumra, an added stringency,
on both the 14th and 15th of Adar in the modern city of Beit Shemesh. As we will see, there are
even additional reasons why this should be true for Ramat Beit Shemesh.

Nevertheless, Purim should continue to be observed elaborately on the 14th of Adar, while on the
15th one can take a more minimalist approach regarding the performance of the Purim mitzvot. For
example, one need not hold an equally elaborate meal as was done on the “first day” of
Purim. Additionally, those who observe the 15th of Adar as an additional day of Purim are to read
the Megilla, though the accompanying blessings are only recited upon the Megilla reading of the
14th of Adar.[7] While those who observe an additional day of Purim are to fulfill all the mitzvot of
Purim on the 15th of Adar,[8] there is some debate, however, whether or not this includes re-reading

64
the Purim Torah portion as well.[9] One is to include the “al hanissim” in the shemoneh esrei and
birkat hamazon when observing a second day of Purim.[10]

Beit Shemesh – A Walled City?

Archeological and Biblical scholars agree that the ancient city of Beit Shemesh was surrounded
by a wall during the days of Yehoshua Bin Nun.[11] In fact, there is also a Talmudic tradition that
any city which is mentioned in Sefer Yehoshua had a wall around it during Yehoshua’s
lifetime.[12] The Shulchan Aruch rules very clearly that even cities where the existence of an
ancient wall is in doubt must observe Purim on the 15th of Adar as well.[13] The Chazon Ish
similarly ruled that even a city which may have had a wall around it in the days of Yehoshua should
observe Purim on both the 14th and 15th of Adar.[14] In fact, the Chazon Ish, who lived in Bnei
Brak where Purim was typically observed only on the 14th of Adar, would also observe Purim on

65
the 15th of Adar due to the residential continuity from Bnei Brak right through to Biblical Yaffo, a
city whose walled status is itself doubtful.[15]

There are a number of modern cities in Israel which may have been walled in the days of Yehoshua
Bin Nun. Such cities include, Lod, Chevron, Akko, Beit Shan, Tzfat, Teveria, Kiryat Yearim, and
others. Indeed, there are Torah observant communities in all of these places which observe two
days of Purim due to the doubts involved. In fact, in the city of Tzfat a second day of Purim is
widely observed due to that city’s proximity to Teveria – a city which in itself is in doubt as to
whether or not it has the status of a walled city. It is also deemed a “middat chassidut” to observe
Purim on the 15th of Adar in a place whose walled status is in doubt.[16] It is worth noting that
according to some authorities the reading of the Megilla has the status of a Torah based mitzva
(mitzva d’oraita) and therefore greater efforts to properly observe Purim are warranted.[17] As
mentioned, however, there is very little room for doubt that ancient Beit Shemesh had a wall
around it.[18]

Samuch and Nireh – Historical Precedents

The requirement for cities which had wall around them in the days of Yehoshua to observe Purim
on the 15th of Adar applies not only to the city itself but also to any other cities or settlements
which are “samuch” (adjacent) or “nireh” (can be seen from) to such a place.[19] The city of Beit
Shemesh is both “samuch” and “nireh” to Tel Beit Shemesh and therefore should assume the status
of a walled city accordingly.

Nevertheless, a number of halachic authorities rule that in the event that, for whatever reason,
Purim is not observed at the actual site of the ancient walled city then the principles of “samuch”
or “nireh” are negated and surrounding cities do not assume the status of a walled city. According
to this approach, since Tel Beit Shemesh currently lies desolate and no one observes Purim there,
it forfeits its prominence and is unable to extend its “walled city” status to the neighboring
settlements, including modern day Beit Shemesh.[20] Those who disagree with the notion of
establishing a second day of Purim in Beit Shemesh cite this argument as their primary source.

66
This approach, however, appears to be in contradiction to historical precedent and normative
halacha. A number of rishonim, including the Ran, Rashba, and Meiri insist that the principles of
“samuch” and “nireh” apply even to an ancient walled city which currently lies desolate and
abandoned. So too, the principles of “samuch” and “nireh” apply even if the only presence in these
ancient sites are Gentiles and even when Purim is not observed at these places for any other
imaginable reason. This was said to be the view of Rabbi Pinchas Epstein, Rabbi Isser Yehuda
Unterman, and Rabbi Shlomo Zevin, among others, who ruled that the issue of whether or not
there is currently Jewish settlement at the actual site of the ancient walled city is irrelevant.[21] This
was also the view of Rabbi Tzvi Pesach Frank.[22] The Chazon Ish felt and explicitly ruled that
even when non-Jews govern an ancient walled site, the principles of “samuch” and “nireh” still
apply.[23] Therefore, according to this approach, even when an ancient walled city lays desolate or
is inhabited by Gentiles, it still maintains its ability to extend a “walled city status” to adjacent
neighborhoods.[24]

Indeed, many Torah communities in the city of Haifa observe two days of Purim due to that city’s
adjacency to the ancient site of Tel Shikmona which currently lies desolate, similar to Tel Beit
Shemesh. Furthermore, there remains some doubt whether or not Shikmona even had a wall around
it in the days of Yehoshua Bin Nun. Even so, a number of rabbinical authorities have ruled that
Purim is to be observed in Haifa on the 15th of Adar as well, and as mentioned, many communities
do so. This is also the published opinion of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv.[25]

Though there are a number of cities whose status is similar to Haifa, perhaps the most convincing
argument that even a walled city which lies desolate nevertheless maintains its influence to extend
a “walled city status” to adjacent neighborhoods is none other than Jerusalem. When the Old City
of Jerusalem lay in waste without a single Jewish inhabitant between the years of 1948 to 1967,
the newer neighborhoods of Jerusalem, “West Jerusalem”, continued to observe
Purim exclusively on the 15th of Adar.[26]

Beit Shemesh, right through to Ramat Beit Shemesh Alef, forms one continuous residential area.
As such, the entire area should be required to read the Megilla on the 15th of Adar. As we have
seen, this should be true even if there is a doubt whether or not ancient Beit Shemesh even had a

67
wall at all.[27] This is similar to the situation in Jerusalem where the entire city observes Purim on
the 15th of Adar even though the newer neighborhoods are actually situated many miles away from
the Old City. Indeed, even a single neighborhood situated adjacent to the site of an ancient walled
city will in turn create a chain reaction in which all successive neighborhoods will be required to
observe Purim on the 15th of Adar, as well. This can theoretically continue ad infinitum for as
long as there exists an unbroken chain of residential continuity.[28] This is especially true when a
rather large population lies immediately adjacent to the ancient site.[29] It appears, therefore, that
there are grounds for residents of Beit Shemesh to observe an additional day of Purim, on the
15th of Adar, as well.[30] As the Piskei Teshuvot writes: “According to the Chazon Ish one should
conduct oneself stringently in all settlements in Eretz Yisrael that are adjacent to cities which might
have had a wall around them during the days of Yehoshua Bin Nun [even if this is doubtful] and
read the Megilla on the 15th of Adar…and perform the mitzvot of mishlo’ach manot, matanot
l’aevyonim, and the seuda.” [31]

The Location of Ancient Beit Shemesh

Until now, our argument has been that Beit Shemesh should observe Purim on the 15th of Adar
due to it being “samuch” (adjacent) and “nireh” (within sight) to Tel Beit Shemesh. However,
there is reason to believe that parts of the modern city of Beit Shemesh may have unintentionally
been built directly on top of territory belonging to ancient Beit Shemesh which would inherently
designate all of modern-day Beit Shemesh as a “walled city” for the purposes of Purim. In fact,
there are those who suggest that the reason residents of Jerusalem continued to observe Purim on
the 15th of Adar between 1948 and 1967 even though the Old City was devoid of any Jews is
actually unrelated to the principles of “samuch” or “nireh”, but rather, because there is no doubt
that the ancient walled city of Jerusalem was a much larger territory than today’s “Old City”
actually occupies. As such, much of “newer Jerusalem” is actually built on top of territory which
was once part of “ancient Jerusalem” making the entire region inherently a place in which Purim
should be observed on the 15th of Adar.[32] Indeed, it is noted that archeologists have noted that
due to insufficient funding excavations of Tel Beit Shemesh to date have been far from exhaustive
and have only uncovered negligible segments of the ancient city.

68
As such, there are certainly grounds to suggest that much more of ancient Beit Shemesh has yet to
be revealed and much of it may actually lie below modern Beit Shemesh. Indeed, excavations of
Tel Beit Shemesh reveal a very small area while historical records indicate that ancient Beit
Shemesh was a large and well populated city. It follows to reason, therefore, that the ancient city
must have extended further in all directions than is currently visible. Consequently, neighborhoods
such as Nofei Aviv which are situated closest to the site of the Tel may actually be situated upon
territory which would have been within the borders of ancient Beit Shemesh.[33] There would
actually be no need to even invoke the principles of “samuch” or “nireh” in order to assign Beit
Shemesh the status of a walled city.[34]

Additionally, according to the principles of “Techumim” any area within seventy amot of another
area is deemed to be an extension of the original area.[35] With residential areas within this distance
of the Tel, it can be said that according to the principles of Techumim alone, the Tel and the city
of Beit Shemesh are merged as one.

Furthermore, there is a new residential project currently being erected upon land situated between
Highway 38 and Nofei Aviv, virtually touching parts of the already revealed Tel site. It is difficult
to deny that this new neighborhood will likely be situated directly above a section of ancient Beit
Shemesh. It may just be that this project alone will become the catalyst which will positively affect
the status of all of Beit Shemesh, regardless of the other considerations.

The Eruv

There is yet another consideration which contributes to Beit Shemesh assuming the status of a
walled city: the city-wide Eruv. The Beit Shemesh community Eruv not only surrounds the entire
city, but sections of the Tel are included within the Eruv’s perimeter as well, thereby combining
modern and ancient Beit Shemesh into a single domain. The ability of the Eruv to halachically
unite the new city along with the ancient one for the purposes of Purim is independent of the
applications of “samuch” and “nireh”.[36] In fact, it might just be that the only reason the
neighborhood of Ramot observes Purim on the 15th of Adar along with the rest of Jerusalem is by
virtue of the municipal Eruv which connects it with the rest of the city.

69
Indeed, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach insisted that an Eruv which includes an area which is to
observe Purim on the 15th of Adar will compel all other neighborhoods included in the same Eruv
to observe Purim on the 15th of Adar, as well. In fact, he himself observed Purim on the 15th of
Adar in the neighborhood of Ein Karem long before it had any territorial (residential) continuity
with the rest of Jerusalem.[37] He felt very strongly that since Ein Karem had been included along
with the Jerusalem city-wide Eruv it assumed the status of Jerusalem for the purpose of
Purim.[38] Following the same approach, Beit Shemesh would also assume the status of a city
which is to observe Purim on the 15th of Adar.

Ramat Beit Shemesh

From among the many archeological excavations of biblical cities in Eretz Yisrael very few have
been so positively identified as the ancient site of Yarmut.[39] Yarmut was a prominent kingdom
in ancient Israel and is mentioned several times in Sefer Yehoshua. It is not only mentioned in
Tanach, but also in the El Amarna Tablets as a main city in the Late Canaanite period. It is also
one of the largest “Tel” sites in all of Israel. Therefore, from both archeological and scriptural
sources, there is no doubt whatsoever that the city of Yarmut had a wall around it in the days
of Yehoshua.[40]

The site of Tel Yarmut is well within one kilometer of Ramat Beit Shemesh Alef neighborhoods
(the area referred to as “Ramat Shilo”), as well as the shopping area, and possibly even right
through to Nachal Dolev street.[41] As such, it appears to this writer that Ramat Beit Shemesh
inherently assumes the status of a walled city due to its adjacency (“samuch” and “nireh”) to Tel
Yarmut. Furthermore, construction has already begun on the neighborhood of “Ramat Beit
Shemesh Gimmel” which is being built directly on top of territory belonging to the site of Tel
Yarmut. In fact, it has already been reported in local and national newspapers that valuable
antiquities have been found on the construction site which continues to impede the speed of the
construction.

The archeological site and ruins of Tel Yarmut are easily accessible. On the eastbound side of
Nachal Tze’eilim about 600 meters from Highway 38 one will see two benches. Just behind the
area of the benches there is clearly visible steeply inclined dirt trail. Once at the top of this hill

70
keep left and the archeological site of Tel Yarmut will be visible.[42] So too, the remains of ancient
Beit Shemesh can be visited at any time and are located alongside Highway 38. There is parking
available at both the entrance to Tel Yarmut and Tel Beit Shemesh.

Tel Beit Shemesh / Tel Yarmut – Abandoned or Settled?

It can also be argued that Tel Beit Shemesh and Tel Yarmut are no longer to be categorized as
“desolate” but rather, in our day and age, they are to be categorized as “settled” and “inhabited”.
This is because these sites are under Jewish sovereignty, protected by national law, and designated
as “National Parks”. They are also within the municipal boundaries and administration of the city
of Beit Shemesh. There can be no greater assertion of sovereignty (“settlement”) than the full
administration and maintenance of the site. The fact that the authorities made the decision to
preserve Tel Beit Shemesh and Tel Yarmut as a tourist and archeological site, and not as a
residential one, is of no concern.

According to this approach, “settled” and “inhabited” refers to the area having an organized power
of authority, such as the right of eminent domain, security, and other decision-making abilities.
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach ruled that an ancient walled city which is within the municipal
boundaries and jurisdiction of a modern day city forces the entire city to assume a” walled city
status” as well.[43] It follows, therefore, that based on this approach as well, Tel Beit Shemesh and
Tel Yarmut are certainly able to extend a “walled city status” to neighboring areas. In fact, anyone
can camp out and spend the night at either of these sites if they’d like.

Historical Precedents

It is recorded that in ancient times, most cities in Eretz Yisrael read the Megilla on both the 14th and
15th of Adar, due to the concern that they may have had a wall around it in the days
of Yehoshua.[44] In fact, there was once a custom to observe Purim exclusively on the 15th of Adar
in any city which is mentioned in the Tanach and its environs.[45] As a result of these precedents,
Rabbi Yechiel Michel Tukatchinsky writes that the Megilla should be read on both days of Purim
in all the [modern-day] Biblical cities of Eretz Yisrael.[46] Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv has
encouraged such communities to adhere to Rabbi Tukatchinsky’s ruling in a number of published

71
forums. As such, observing Purim on the 15th of Adar in Beit Shemesh is not a radical innovation,
but rather, the application of normative halachic principle and the restoration of the original custom
which existed prior to the renewal of modern settlement in Eretz Yisrael![47]

Removing Oneself from a Doubt

The issues related to halachic doubts regarding Purim apply in a number of other circumstances
besides those relating to Beit Shemesh. In what is a mirror image of the halachic issues relating to
Purim in Beit Shemesh we find that there are those who observe Purim on “both days” even in
Jerusalem in order to discharge the mitzvot of Purim without a doubt.[48] Although observing
Purim on the 15th of Adar in Jerusalem is virtually universal there are a number of neighborhoods
within the city whose halachic status is in doubt. For example, there are Torah communities in the
Jerusalem neighborhoods of Romema, Eitz Chaim, Ramot, and Ein Karem, which also observe
Purim on the 14th of Adar as halachic stringency since these neighborhoods are located so many
miles away from the Old City.

There are also a number of contemporary authorities in Israel who have promoted the practice of
observing Purim on both the 14th and 15th of Adar in any place where even the most minimal
considerations warrant doing so.[49]

To quote but a few:

• Rabbi Ovadia Yosef: “It is proper to observe two days of Purim as per the ruling of the
“Divrei Yosef” who says that in ancient times they observed two days of Purim in all the
ancient cities of Eretz Yisrael.
• Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu: “Places indentified as possibly having a wall around them in
the days of Yehoshua Bin Nun…have an obligation to observe two days.”
• Rabbi Avraham Shapira: “Those who choose to be machmir…tavo aleihem beracha.”
• Rabbi Moshe Shternbuch: “Those who are machmir…tavo aleihem beracha“[50]

72
Mishtatef Imo B’inyanav

There is yet another consideration for observing Purim on the 15th of Adar in Beit Shemesh
although it’s admissibility from a halachic perspective is somewhat questionable. According to
some authorities, any city which is dependent upon another city for much of its everyday life will
often assume the halachic status of that city as well. This is referred to as “mishtatef imo
b’inyanav” – any city which is dependent upon another for vital services assumes the status of the
feeder city itself.[51] With so many Beit Shemesh residents working in or otherwise commuting to
Jerusalem each day along with it being the closest destination for hospitals and other vital services
not found in Beit Shemesh, it is possible that Beit Shemesh may be considered to be somewhat of
a suburb of Jerusalem from the perspective of halacha.

Observing Purim on the 15th in Beit Shemesh

Although it is certainly preferable for residents of Beit Shemesh who choose to observe Purim on
both the 14th and 15th of Adar to read the Megilla again on the second day, it is interesting to note
that in the event that the residents of a walled city (which is to observe Purim on the 15th of Adar),
read the Megilla on the 14th of Adar, they will have nevertheless discharged their obligation
regarding the mitzva of Megilla, b’dieved.

What this essentially means is that one who read or heard the Megilla on the 14th of Adar in a place
which was truly meant to observe Purim on the 15th of Adar will have discharged their obligation
to read the Megilla without the need to do so again on the 15th of Adar if doing so is not
possible.[52] The remaining mitzvot of Purim, however, such as mishlo’ach manot, matanot
l’evyonim, and the Purim meal, cannot be discharged on the 14th of Adar in a walled city
even b’dieved, and must be repeated on the 15th of Adar. As such, those who for whatever reason
are unable to hear the Megilla on the 15th of Adar can still participate in observing the 15th of Adar
as Purim in Beit Shemesh by performing the remaining Purim mitzvot.

It is interesting to note that even in chutz la’aretz there are a number of cities which have observed
Purim on both days due to the possibility that they may have had a wall around them during the
days of Yehoshua. Such cities include Tyre,[53] Damascus, Bagdad,[54] and Prague.[55]

73
Conclusion

Make no mistake, this writer is well aware that there are sources and authorities which take issue
with every one of the arguments presented here. So too, due to the number of doubts which are
inherent in the issue, the observance of the 15th of Adar is certainly only a “chumra” and is not
halachically required. Nevertheless, the amount of literature (and by no means is this paper a
comprehensive review of the issue) which clearly favors observing a second day Purim in Beit
Shemesh is more than compelling. Observing a second day of Purim in Beit Shemesh is also
consistent with the widespread practice to observe mitzvot b’hiddur, in a more preferred and
meticulous manner.[56] This may be particularly true for residents of Ramat Beit Shemesh.

There is also no reason to suggest that such a practice should be prohibited under the clause of “lo
titgodedu”, the prohibition to create a situation where it may appear that the community is
fragmented. Even in the Talmudic era we find that there were a number of cities in which there
was some doubt as to their status with regards to Purim. This resulted in some of the residents of
such cities observing Purim on the 14th of Adar while others would also observe it on the 15th of
Adar as an added precaution, with full rabbinic endorsement for doing so.[57]

There is reason to suggest that had the city of Beit Shemesh been founded by Torah scholars, the
observance of Purim on the 15th of Adar may have been implemented from the very beginning
similar to other such cities in Israel.[58] It is only in more recent years that Torah scholars have
made Beit Shemesh their home which makes changing the existing practice awkward and difficult.
Nevertheless, there are a number of individuals who do indeed observe a second day of Purim in
Beit Shemesh and have been doing so since their arrival.[59]

Let us recall that the entire purpose that the sages decreed that walled cities are to read the Megilla
on the 15th of Adar was in order to bring honor and attention to Eretz Yisrael which lay desolate
at that time.[60] The sages were actually looking for ways to institute the observance of the 15th of
Adar as widely as possible. Ignoring the premise that Purim might truly have been intended to be
observed in Beit Shemesh on the 15th of Adar can be misinterpreted as shameful and degrading to
the honor due to Eretz Yisrael. The original honor and glory of our wonderful city continues till
this day and should be acknowledged as such.[61] Indeed, no longer do the cities of Judea lie in

74
ruins and perhaps making the effort to observe Purim in its original manner on the 15th of Adar
may also serve as an awakening that we are just that much closer to the final redemption.

“…And the people of Beit Shemesh…rejoiced!” (Shmuel 1 6:13)

The following rabbis have agreed that observing two days of Purim in Beit Shemesh and Ramat
Beit Shemesh is “a worthwhile chumra”:

Rabbi Shlomo Aviner

Rabbi Ephraim Greenblatt
Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Hagar
Rabbi Yehuda Henkin

[1] Esther 9:20-22

[2] Megilla 2b

[3] Yerushalmi Megilla 1:1

[4] Megilla 5a,O.C. 688:4

[5] For sources on the admissibility of archeological evidence in the halachic decision making process see: Smag Mitzva 22,

Nefesh Harav p.53 note 26, Letters of the Chazon Ish 2:22, 3:19. See also: http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/14-

22%20The%20Role%20of%20Archaeology%20in%20Halachic%20Decision%20Making%201.htm for an extensive

discussion of archeology and halacha

[6] Retrievable from the “Otzar Hachachma” database

[7] Magen Avraham 688:6, Rambam Megilla 1:11

[8] Pri Megadim M.Z. 688:3, Mishna Berura 688:17, 693:6

[9] Piskei Teshuvot 688:6, Eretz Hachaim p.93

[10] Mishna Berura 693:6

75
[11] Dr. Yoel Elitzur provided me with much archeological documentation attesting to this

[12] Yerushalmi Megilla 1:1, Divrei Yosef 2 (Rav Yosef Schwartz)

[13] O.C. 588:4

[14] Chazon Ish 153:3

[15] Teshuvot V’hanhagot 3:235

[16] Ran;Megilla 3b s.v. “V’linyan”. Though some authorities require it “mikkar hadin”.

[17] Chatam Sofer O.C. 161, Pri Megadim E.A. 688:4. See also Chatam Sofer Y.D. 233

[18] See: http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/archaeology/projects/proj_bethshemesh.html and

http://www.indiana.edu/~relstud/betshem/background.shtml

[19] Megilla 2b

[20] Yerushalmi Megilla 1:1;Korban Ha’edah, Biur Halacha 688 s.v. Oh Shesmuchin Lahem. This interpretation of the Gemara

is far from unanimous.

[21] See Mishpacha Magazine (Hebrew Edition) 5 Tevet 5769 for an interesting historical episode as a result of their ruling.

(Source provided by Rabbi Raffi Goldmeier)

[22] Har Tzvi O.C. 2:131

[23] The Chazon Ish took issue with the Mishna Berura’s assertion that if a site lies desolate than it does not have the influence of

“samuch” and “nireh”. He leaves the matter “undecided”. A number of authorities assume the Chazon Ish would require one to

observe a second day of Purim in any situation of doubt. Piskei Teshuvot 688:5,7

[24] Yerushalmi 1:2, Chazon Ish O.C. 154, Har Tzvi O.C. 2:131

[25] Kovetz Teshuvot 1:68

[26] Halichot Shlomo 20:10, Har Tzvi O.C. 2:131, Chazon Ish 154:3

76
[27] Chazon Ish O.C. 154

[28] Shu”t Maharal Diskin;Kuntres Acharon 103, Har Tzvi 2:133, Teshuvot V’hanhagot 2:347

[29] Yabia Omer 7:58,59

[30] Piskei Teshuvot 688:5

[31] Piskei Teshuvot 688:5

[32] Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhoffer in his shiur to Yerushalmi;Megilla 2b available at: http://www.yerushalmionline.org/

[33] See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tel_Beit_shemesh_009.jpg and

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tel_beit_shemesh_027.jpg

[34] Dr. Yoel Elitzur informs me that based on the laws of techumin – even if new Beit Shemesh is not built directly above

ancient Beit Shemesh but is nevertheless within seventy amot of the site – it is still considered to be a part of the city. Hence,

according to this approach, there would be no need to invoke “samuch” or “nireh”.

[35] O.C. 398:6, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 90:3

[36] Minchat Yitzchak 8:62

[37] Shalmei Mo’ed 57

[38] Halichot Shlomo 20:9 based on Magen Avraham O.C. 401

[39] http://www.iaa-conservation.org.il/Projects_Item_eng.asp?site_id=25&subject_id=6

[40] Yehoshua 10:3,5,23, 12:11, 15:35

[41] See: http://travelingluck.com/Asia/Israel/Yerushalayim/_293337_Tel+Yarmut.html#local_map and

http://www.gpsupload.com/show_gallery.php?yahoo=0&route=8897&picture=6561 and

http://www.gpsupload.com/show_gallery.php?yahoo=0&route=8897&picture=6562

[42] http://www.govisitisrael.com/articlenav.php?id=248

77
[43] Halichot Shlomo 20:8

[44] Divrei Yosef 2, also cited in Kaf Hachaim 688:17

[45] Ran;Megilla 5, Minhagei Eretz Yisrael (Gallis) 35:2

[46] Luach Eretz Yisrael, Ir Hakodesh V’hamikdash 3:26

[47] Ran 2a s.v. “Aval”, See Also Dr. Yoel Elitzur’s remarks on this issue in Techumin Vol. 9

[48] Teshuvot V’hanhagot 3:235

[49] Cited in Techumim Vol 1 & Vol 9:367-380

[50] Teshuvot V’hanhagot 3:235

[51] Shaar Hatziun 688:5, Shoalin V’dorshin 2:24:4

[52] Yerushalmi Megilla 2:3

[53] Teshuvot Harambam L’tzur (Blau Ed.) 124

[54] Piskei Teshuvot 688:8

[55] Chayei Adam 155:8

[56] See Minchat Yitzchak 8:61

[57] Megilla 5b, Shoalin V’dorshin 2:24:5

[58] Mr. Yossi Louk who arrived in Beit Shemesh 35 years ago tells me that Purim was observed for two days during those

years, however, shortly thereafter there was a wave of secularism in Beit Shemesh which made observing a second day of Purim

uncomfortable and impractical. It seems the custom was established but then lost.

[59] See Otzrot Hatorah 5765

78
[60] Yerushalmi Megilla 1:1, Ran 2a

[61] Rambam Beit Hebechira 7:13

Defining Residence for Purim

R. Gidon Rothstein writes:19

Since this responsum is about Purim, I don’t want to blur focus by mentioning my Pesach
book As If We Were There (see what I did there?). Happy Purim!

14 Adar: R. Zvi Pesach Frank on Defining Residence for Purim

In most years, 14 Adar is Purim, so few responsa are written on the date (true, 7 out of 19 years,
we have an Adar Aleph in which to write a 14 Adar responsum, and anyone in Yerushalayim can
write one, since Purim is 15 Adar there). For my larger project, a responsum unrelated to Purim
on 14 Adar doesn’t matter, but for those who have a thing for relevance, I offer Shu”t Har Tzvi
Orach Chayyim 2;118, [click for audio] which discusses issues related to Purim. The choice also
offers us the rare pleasure of learning from R. Tzvi Pesach Frank.

The responsum is the first of a series he wrote on how to figure out when to celebrate Purim, in
Yerushalayim and out, but we’ll only get to see this one. The question posed to him reminds us of
a time when the experience of enough Jews in Yerushalayim and out, travelling from one place to

19
https://www.torahmusings.com/2019/03/defining-residence-for-purim/

79
the other, was still new enough for people to want to know how they should fulfill the obligation
to hear Megillah, eat the festive meal, and the other mitzvot of the day.

The Fundamentals of an Underdiscussed Topic

R. Frank notes the paucity of clear direction in earlier sources. Shulchan Aruch Orach
Chayyim 688;5 only repeated Rambam’s brief formulation, Rema stayed silent, and Mishnah
Berurah also did not expound on the issues, the latter two perhaps because the question rarely
arises outside Israel (we’ve seen a responsum of R. Eleazar Fleckeles about reading on both the
fourteenth and fifteenth in Prague, but few if any cities outside Israel read only on the fifteenth).
In Yerushalayim, though, the question arises annually, so R. Frank has decided to review the topic
fully. A Mishnah on Megillah 19a discusses a person from one kind of a city who finds him/herself
in the other kind. According to the Mishnah, if the person still intends to return to his/her usual
place, s/he fulfills Purim in line with the practice of his/her place, i.e. a ben ‘ir (person from an
ordinary city) would celebrate on the fourteenth, a ben kerach (from a walled city) on the fifteenth.
Rava limits this to where the person intends to return on the night of the fourteenth, which sparked
a debate about two issues. First, did he mean to include a ben ‘ir who found him/ herself in a walled
city on the night of the fourteenth? The fourteenth has no Purim aspect in a walled city, which
makes it unclear why the ben ‘ir’s Purim status should be affected. Second, Rava’s language
might imply an absolute standard for the person from a walled city. If s/he is in an unwalled city
once they read Megillah, perhaps Rava obligated him/her to observe Purim with that city.

The Fourteenth Is Purim Only in Unwalled Cities

Rashi, followed by Ramban in his Milchamot Hashem (where he responds to Ba’al HaMaor’s
comments on the Rif) and Ritva, Rambam (according to Maggid Mishneh and Kessef Mishneh),
and Gr”a, thought Rava stated his rule only for people from walled cities who found themselves
in an unwalled city on the fourteenth. They would observe Purim there, because their presence
when Purim started turns them into members of the city for that year (even if they intend to return
to their city by the fifteenth, I think he means).

However, these authorities held people from an unwalled city who spend the fourteenth in a walled
city are unaffected, halachically. The fourteenth has no Purim aspect in a walled city, giving no
reason to think the city would absorb this person because of his/her being there on the fourteenth.
If the person plans to return to his/her unwalled city before the fifteenth, s/he would have to read
Megillah on the fourteenth in the walled city, since for him/her, the fourteenth counts as Purim.

Ritva writes the reasoning explicitly. He knows of an opinion which thinks the fourteenth sets
Purim status for a person in a walled city as well, and rejects it exactly as we’ve said, the fourteenth
is in no way Purim in a walled city, leaving no reason for it to affect one’s status.

80
Nope, It’s the Fourteenth

Rosh, Ra’avad, Tur, and Levush held the view Ritva rejected, the fourteenth establishes
everyone’s Purim status for that year. Vilna Gaon (688;5) thought a Yerushalmi disagreed. That
Gemara said someone from an unwalled city (a perazi) who went to a walled city (mukaf) on the
night of the fifteenth would have to read again.

He seems to understand Yerushalmi to mean only the fifteenth determines Purim status regarding
a walled city, but R. Frank does not understand how the source says anything about what happens
on the fourteenth. The Yerushalmi might have also thought someone in the walled city on the
fourteenth would be treated as a mukaf for that year as well, and was adding a new fact, walled
cities can re-obligate someone who arrives there the night of the fifteenth, despite their already
having observed Purim in their original unwalled city.

Meiri’s Split Ruling

R. Frank notes a Peri Megadim which seems to have ignored (or not known) this Yerushalmi, as
did Meiri. The latter exempts a ben ‘ir, someone from an unwalled city, from reading Megillah
again should s/he arrive in a walled city (in direct contradiction of the Yerushalmi) but then doesn’t
require a ben kerach to read again if s/he returned to his/her walled city on the night of the
fifteenth.

R. Frank does not initially understand how both could be true, the ben ‘ir is finished with his/her
Purim obligations once fulfilled on the fourteenth, while the ben kerach might need to read again.
He suggests the key to understanding Meiri lies in remembering Megillah 19a, where the Gemara
notes how Ester 9;19 stresses “ha-perazim, ha-yoshevim be-‘arei ha-perazot.” The Gemara
wondered why the verse would say “who live in unwalled cities,” which is exactly what the
word perazi means. The unnecessary words tell the Gemara one can become a perazi for a day.

Usually, formal halachic residence takes thirty days’ presence, or a decision to reside permanently.
Barring either of those, a Jew continues the practices of his/her official place of residence.
When Megillat Ester told us Purim defined residence by where a person was that day, perhaps it
focused more on the person in the unwalled city (the Gemara spoke mostly of perazi ben yomo, a
resident of an unwalled city for a day). R. Frank adduces the well-established halachic idea, ein
lecha bo ela chiddusho, we read innovative halachic ideas in limited rather than expansive ways.
A Jew from a walled city would become a prazi ben yomo, a citizen for a day, but perhaps the
reverse isn’t quite as true; perhaps a Jew from an unwalled city, who has already fulfilled his/her
obligation, would not be affected by then going to a walled city on the night of the fifteenth.

If so, Meiri now makes sense—arriving in a walled city on the night of the fifteenth would not re-
obligate a resident of an unwalled city but would for someone who generally lived there. The
citizen of Yerushalayim who was in Tel Aviv on the fourteenth became a perazi ben yomo; as s/he
returns to Yerushalayim the night of the fifteenth, s/he is back in residence, where it’s Purim.

[The discussion assumes the obligation of Purim is to join the city in celebration; the prazi fulfills
his/her obligation completely with the unwalled city and need not also join the residents of a walled

81
city, even if s/he happens to be there. A citizen of a walled city does convert to a citizen of the
unwalled city for the day; upon returning home, however, his/her city is celebrating Purim, as must
each resident, regardless of what they may have done yesterday.]

Once Established, Have to Stay?

(I am skipping his quotation of a view of Rem”a mi-Fano because he rejects it as oxymoronic, so

we’ll leave it). Among those who think the fourteenth determines one’s status even for a walled
city, Rosh and Ra’avad disagree about the ramifications. Rosh thinks the person need not stay in
the walled city until the fifteenth (but would have to read on the fifteenth, wherever s/he was),
whereas Ra’avad thinks he does.

R. Frank’s focusing on the views of Rosh and Ra’avad because Sefer Eliyahu Rabbah and Zuta are
surprised at Beit Yosef’s adopting Rashi and Rambam’s idea, as if they completely rule the day.
Since Rambam in the Mishnah commentary sounds more like Rosh, Seder Eliyahu Rabbah re-
reads Rambam in Mishneh Torah, and assumes he, too, agrees with Rosh (which makes ruling
according to Rashi and his camp less obvious).

As I said at the outset, this is the first of a series of responsa on Megillah-related issues, and R.
Frank does not come to a clear conclusion here or in the next responsum, so we will end the
discussion as he has, aware of different perspectives on what it is that establishes a person’s date
of obligation for Purim each year.

Should Prague Read Megillah Twice?

82
R. Gidon Rothstein writes:20

15 Adar: R. Eleazar Fleckeles on Whether Prague Should Read Megillah Twice

The standard for celebrating Shushan Purim, observing Purim on the fifteenth of Adar rather than
the fourteenth, is that the city had a wall during Yehoshu’a’s conquest of Israel. Until I
encountered Shu”t Teshuva me-Ahavah 1;210, dated 15 Adar 5565 (1805), I thought that was a
possibility in the original Shushan and some cities in Israel (most prominently, Jerusalem).

The Age of Prague and Its Wall

R. Eleazar Fleckeles starts with the news that his fathers and teachers in Prague had the practice
of reading the Megillah (and fulfilling the other obligations of Purim) on both the fourteenth (with
a beracha) and the fifteenth, without (his main teacher was R. Yechezkel Landau, the Noda Bi-
Yehudah, although R. Fleckeles does not name him as one of the “fathers and teachers” who
adopted this custom). They would give gifts to the poor, send food to fellow Jews, and have a
festive meal.

That’s because they thought there was a possibility that Prague had a wall that went back to the
time of Yehoshu’a. [Wikipedia thinks that Prague was settled long before Yehoshu’a, but only
mentions a fortified settlement around the 9th Century CE.] R. Fleckeles himself acted this way
from his youth, but noted that most of the Jews in town, including ones who cared deeply about
proper observance, did not. This responsum is his analysis of whether keeping both days was
required, a proper stringency for the particularly punctilious, or unnecessary.

When the History Is In Doubt

The issue itself has a bit of a history. Beit Yosef to Orach Chayyim 5688 quotes Mahari Abohav,
who was bothered by a custom to read Megillah twice in any city with a wall. Rambam mentioned
such a practice, but Mahari Abohav limited that to where there was an assertion that the wall goes
back to Yehoshu’a. Without such a claim, there would not be any halachic doubt that the fifteenth
might have Purim status.

He parallels it to Rambam’s Laws of Sacrifices to Atone for Unwitting Sins 8;2, which discusses
an asham talui, a sacrifice offered where a Jew does not know whether he unwittingly violated a
serious sin. A classic example is where a Jew ate one of two pieces of fat, and now does not know
if s/he ate the cheilev, fat which incurs the punishment of karet if eaten deliberately, or the
permissible shuman. For such cases, where the Jew does not know if s/he sinned, and the sin would
have been unwitting if committed, the Torah prescribes an asham talui.

That sacrifice can only come into play once we have established the presence of prohibited
materials. If a Jew ate a piece of fat and then worries it might have been cheilev, no asham talui can
be offered, because s/he has no knowledge a prohibited item was there.

20
https://www.torahmusings.com/2018/03/prague-read-megillah-twice/

83
R. Abohav says that’s true for cities with walls as well, that without some meaningful question as
to the age of its wall, some reason to believe the wall extended back to the time of Yehoshu’a (such
as a group who claimed to know it did), keeping the fifteenth as Purim was a non-starter.

What Counts as Possible Fact

Beit Yosef questioned R. Abohav’s conclusion for a few reasons, of which R. Fleckeles focuses on
the fact that a vague idea like a claim about a wall does not suffice to obligate an asham talui; we
need instead the well-established presence of prohibited material. If the rules for Shushan Purim
are based on asham talui, no situation should fit Rambam’s idea of reading on both the fourteenth
and fifteenth—either we would have testimony that a city had a wall going back that far or we
wouldn’t. But if we wouldn’t, like in asham talui, there would be no issue.

R. Fleckeles in turn questioned Beit Yosef. In Laws of Sacrifices to Atone for Unwitting Sins 8;3,
Rambam did obligate an asham talui where one witness told a Jew s/he had eaten cheilev and
another witness said the Jew ate shuman (permitted fat). To R. Fleckeles, that’s the same as where
one group asserts a tradition this city’s wall went back to Yehoshu’a.

[He seems to understand Rambam to hold that one witness was enough to make us certain that
prohibited material had been present. That does not seem to me the easiest way to read that
passage, but we’re here to learn from R. Fleckeles. If one witness creates ikba issura, presence of
prohibited items, then a group with a tradition about a city’s wall could be enough for a doubt
about Purim].

He is so certain one group’s tradition creates a possible fact that he continues to parallel Shushan
Purim to asham talui. Ran quotes Geonim who thought two days of Purim was a stringency,
a middat chasidut, , and included in that the case of Hutzal, a city in Israel which had a conflicted
tradition about whether its wall was old enough (exactly our case).

R. Fleckeles concludes that those Geonim must have agreed with Ra’avad, that if witnesses
contradict each other, with one on either side of the claim about what kind of fat the Jew ate,
that’s not ikba issura, an established fact that prohibited items were present, so it’s only a
stringency to keep two days of Purim. For Rambam, the one witness who claims it was cheilev (or
that this city had a wall in the time of Yehoshu’a) is enough for ikba issura, so reading on two
days is necessary.

Standard Halachic Doubt

Another way to read the debate between Rambam and the Geonim has to do with how we view
Purim, a holiday created by Esther and the sages of her time in the book that bears her name.
Perhaps the Geonim viewed the institution as Rabbinic because it was created by authorized Torah
scholars. We rule leniently in cases of doubt of Rabbinic matters, so there’s no reason to keep a
second day of Purim. Unless one wishes to be supererogatorily stringent.

84
In this reading, Rambam instead focused on Purim’s status as divrei kabbalah, a practice set up in
a book of Tanach, written with a certain level of Divine inspiration, with the support of literal
prophets. The Divine element in divrei kabbalah means that we treat doubtful issues stringently.

Prague’s Further Weaknesses as a Candidate for Shushan Purim

There are more reasons to think Prague need not keep two days of Purim. First, one of its walls is
the sea, and Megillah 5n leaves unresolved the question of whether the sea can count as a wall.
The sea wall does protect the city, but it does not enclose it.

Another problem is that Rashi and others held that Shushan Purim is only possible within Israel,
in line with Chazal’s choice to time the qualifying factor to the days of Yehoshu’a as a way to
remind us of the centrality of Israel to the Jewish people. (That also answers a question posed
by Orchot Chayyim, why Chaza”l didn’t require these walls to go back to the time of Moshe and
Aharon—Yehoshu’a reminds us about the conquest of Israel).

Common practice follows Rambam and Ramban, that walled cities outside of Israel do
keep Shushan Purim if they qualify. However, Levush (a student of Rema) limited that to more
southerly cities. Northern cities were clearly settled later, he said, such that none of them would
possibly keep a second day of Purim. Levush knew of Prague (R. Fleckeles had heard
that Levush lived there for two years; the Bar-Ilan biography says R. Mordechai Yoffe, author
of Levush, was in fact a rabbi of Prague), so his blanket statement about cities of the north seems
again to take Prague out of the running for Shushan Purim observance.

Against the Grain of Tradition

All these doubts lead R. Fleckeles to believe that there is no middat chasidut, worthy stringency,
for people of Prague to keep Shushan Purim. On the other hand, he recoils from treating leniently
that which his forefathers did. Radvaz had written that Cairo, too, had no halachic reason to read
on the fifteenth. He had added, however, that since the reading is without a berachah, there’s
no halachic cost, and what’s bad about remembering Hashem’s saving the Jewish people?

That reasoning applies to Prague, and therefore fit the Talmudic tradition that some unnecessary
practices nonetheless have mitzvah value (there are cases, as Ran points out,
where halachah disapproves of taking on the unnecessary, so the Gemara will tell us when it’s
reasonable or worthy to be stringent where not required.) Reading Megillah is such an example,
where those who do not read on the fifteenth are doing nothing wrong, even as those who do are
being worthily careful in their observance.

85