Megillah 4
Summary
- Today’s *daf* is Megillah 4, learned *lezekher* Yehoshua ben Yissachar HaLevi (Werner Weil), father of Rav Steve Weil, who rebuilt his life and family, reestablished the family cattle business, and helped rebuild German Jewry and Torah institutions in the Buffalo area, with the learning serving as an *aliyah* for his *neshamah*. The *daf* continues the *halakhic* details of *mikra megillah*, especially how cities are classified for Purim reading, and presents a series of teachings of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi about what defines a *k’rakh* and how Purim obligations apply in various cases. The *daf* then moves to major statements about women’s obligation in *mikra megillah* through *af hen hayu be’oto ha-nes*, the requirement to read the Megillah at night and again by day, and the enactment to teach the laws of the day on the day itself, before returning to the Mishnah’s rules about advancing the reading for villagers and the disputes about scheduling when Purim coincides with Shabbat or Friday.
- Today’s *daf* is learned *lezekher* Yehoshua ben Yissachar HaLevi (Werner Weil), father of Rav Steve Weil, with the Torah learned serving as an *aliyah* for his *neshamah*. The *shiur* resumes from Gimmel Amud Bet after earlier analysis of when *mikra megillah* takes precedence over other *mitzvot*, including *talmud Torah*, *met mitzvah*, and *avodah*, and after citing a fleeting suggestion in the Penei Yehoshua that *talmud Torah derabim* might override Shabbat, a suggestion the Penei Yehoshua rejects. The focus returns to the detailed rules of Purim reading and city status.
- Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi rules that a *k’rakh* and anything near it or visible with it is judged like the *k’rakh*. The *beraita* establishes that “near” applies even if not visible, and “visible” applies even if not near. The Gemara explains “visible but not near” as a settlement atop a mountain and “near but not visible” as a settlement in a valley, and it notes contemporary *safek* cases in Eretz Yisrael near Yerushalayim where communities read on both days while reciting *berakhot* on Yud-Daled because that is the primary day observed by most of *Klal Yisrael*.
- The Rashba states that the definitions used for walled cities in this *derabbanan* context should not automatically be applied to the *de’oraita* laws of *batei arei choma* in Bechukotai. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi teaches that a city settled first and walled later is judged like a village, derived from “בית מושב עיר חומה,” which the Gemara reads as requiring that it be walled first and then settled. Rashi emphasizes this as applying *le’inyan batei arei choma*, and the Rashba infers that this teaching is not necessarily the standard for *mikra megillah*, where the criteria for reading on the fifteenth are more flexible, tied to being protected or enclosed from the days of Yehoshua bin Nun.
- The *shiur* explains that the Torah itself differentiates between walled and unwalled cities, such as the one-year redemption window for a sold house in a walled city that becomes permanent if not redeemed in time, and the Mishnah in Arakhin describes buyers hiding to block redemption until Hillel instituted depositing the money in *beit din*. The Chatam Sofer explains that recalling the walled cities conquered in Eretz Kena’an highlights a greater praise of *HaKadosh Baruch Hu* because walled cities symbolize strength and difficulty of entry, making conquest a greater demonstration of divine aid, even though Rashi in Parashat Shelach associates walled cities with fear.
- Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi rules that a *k’rakh* without ten *batlanim* is judged like a village, and Rashi defines *batlanim* as people supported to be constantly present in the synagogue for Shacharit and Arvit. The Gemara challenges the novelty because a Mishnah defines a “large city” as having ten *batlanim*, and it answers that the case is a *k’rakh* that attracts many passersby, where the requirement is ten fixed residents rather than transient attendees. The explanation ties the institution to the idea that *HaKadosh Baruch Hu*’s presence rests with a minyan and that divine displeasure is associated with arriving at a synagogue and not finding ten.
- Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi teaches that a *k’rakh* that became desolate and was later resettled is again judged as a *k’rakh*. The Gemara rejects the interpretation that “desolate” means its walls fell, since a *beraita* (Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Yosi) derives from “אשר לו חומה” that a city retains its status even if it does not presently have walls as long as it had them before, and Tiberias is cited as a later *safek* because it is bordered by walls and water. The Gemara concludes that “חרב” means it lost its ten *batlanim*, and resettlement means restoring that communal structure, with an initial assumption that an interruption might break its definition.
- Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi states that Lod, Ono, and Gei HaCharashim were walled from the days of Yehoshua bin Nun. The Gemara challenges this because verses attribute their building to Elpaal and also reference Asa’s fortified cities, and Rabbi Elazar answers that the original walled status dates to Yehoshua bin Nun, the cities were destroyed during the era of Pilegesh b’Givah, rebuilt by Elpaal, fell again, and were later refurbished by Asa. The proof comes from the language “נבנה את הערים האלה,” implying prior existence, and the *shiur* connects Pilegesh b’Givah to Tu B’Av’s celebration of restored unity and marriage between the tribes.
- Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi rules that women are obligated in *mikra megillah* because *af hen hayu be’oto ha-nes*, despite the general exemption from *mitzvot aseh shehazman grama*. The *shiur* lists the three *derabbanan* obligations associated with this principle—Megillah, Chanukah lights, and the four cups—and presents a dispute among the Rishonim over what *af hen hayu* means: the Rashbam’s view cited in Tosafot that the main miracle came through them, and Tosafot’s objection that the phrase implies secondary inclusion, leading Tosafot to define it as women being included in the danger and decree. The *shiur* applies the “cause of the miracle” approach to Esther on Purim, Yehudit on Chanukah, and the righteous women in Egypt whose merit sustained redemption, including the narrative of Amram’s despair and Miriam’s intervention and the women’s confidence shown by bringing instruments into the desert.
- Tosafot reads the Gemara as implying that women can fulfill men’s obligation because their obligation is equal, but it cites the Behag who distinguishes women’s obligation as hearing rather than reading, creating a different *chiyuv*. The Shulchan Aruch in סימן תרפ"ט is cited as ruling that one fulfills the obligation by hearing from someone who is obligated, disqualifying a חרש שוטה וקטן, and it records *yesh omrim* that women do not fulfill men’s obligation and that a woman who reads for herself says “לשמוע מגילה” because she is not obligated in “קריאה.” The *shiur* states that practice is to be stringent not to have a woman read for men *lechatchilah*, while acknowledging that women can read for women, and it cites the Mishnah Berurah’s concern of *ziluta milta* about women publicly leading certain rituals.
- The *shiur* cites the Bach’s astonishment that the Shulchan Aruch allows a woman to be *motzi* a man in Kiddush while being stringent in Megillah. The Taz answers that Kiddush is a fully equal obligation due to *zachor* and *shamor* said in one utterance, whereas Megillah has a Behag view that women’s obligation is specifically hearing. The *shiur* notes an Acharonim link between the two Tosafot disputes, suggesting that if *af hen hayu* means shared danger then women’s obligation parallels men’s, while if it means women were uniquely central to the miracle then a distinct form of obligation such as hearing could follow.
- Tosafot questions why women’s obligation in matzah is not derived from *af hen hayu be’oto ha-nes* and answers that this principle is effective to obligate in *derabbanan* but not in *de’oraita* obligations. The *shiur* cites Rabbeinu Tam, quoted by the Ramban and referenced by the Mishnah Berurah, that women are obligated in *lechem mishneh* because *af hen hayu* in the miracle of the manna, and it reports that many Rishonim reject the need for that reason because *zachor* and *shamor* already obligate women in Shabbat’s positive commands. The *shiur* cites Rav Shlomo Kluger’s attempt in האלף לך שלמה (סימן קי"ד) to defend a practice of women not being careful with *lechem mishneh* by claiming each rationale is contested, and it cites Rav Ovadia Yosef’s rejection in יחוה דעת (חלק ד') that since all Rishonim agree women are obligated, differing reasons do not undermine the consensus, supported by the Rema in חושן משפט סימן כ"ה that agreement in ruling outweighs variance in explanation.
- Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi rules that when Purim falls on Shabbat one teaches and expounds the topic of the day. The Gemara asks why Purim is singled out since a *beraita* states that Moshe enacted that Jews expound the laws of Pesach on Pesach, Atzeret on Atzeret, and Chag on Chag, and it answers that Purim needs a special statement because one might think it should be restricted by the forthcoming *gezeirat Rabbah* about carrying the Megillah, yet the teaching obligation remains. The Penei Yehoshua explains that the assumption is coherent only if learning was done from scrolls, which would create a carrying concern, and Tosafot limits the requirement to Purim on Shabbat because on weekdays the Megillah reading itself provides *pirsumei nisa*.
- The *shiur* cites a question in *Chashukei Chemed* about whether a father should give a derashah on *brit milah* when the baby cannot be circumcised on day eight due to illness, drawing from Tosafot’s model of speaking about Purim when the Megillah is not read. Rav Silberstein’s response cites *Leket Yosher* that it is good to learn the laws of shofar when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbat and no blowing occurs, and he distinguishes shofar and Megillah from lulav by claiming lulav is a *ma’aseh mitzvah* that cannot be substituted by speech, whereas shofar and reading are tied to sound and proclamation. The *shiur* also previews the later tension between the obligation to teach the laws on the day itself and the requirement to begin learning thirty days before the festival, citing the Beit Yosef’s explanation that Pesach requires earlier instruction because of extensive preparations like grinding wheat, baking matzah, kashering vessels, and destroying chametz, while Shavuot has fewer special laws and Sukkot and the four species are generally manageable close to the festival.
- Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi rules that one must read the Megillah at night and repeat it by day, deriving it from “אלקי אקרא יומם ולא תענה ולילה ולא דומיה לי.” The students initially infer that one reads at night and learns the Mishnah of Megillah by day, but Rabbi Yirmiyah explains from Rabbi Chiya bar Abba that *לשנותה* means repeating the reading, like the expression “אעבור פרשתא דא ואתני.” A parallel teaching is cited in the name of Rabbi Chelbo quoting Ula of Bira’ah, deriving the rule from “למען יזמרך כבוד ולא ידום ה' אלוקי לעולם אודך.”
- Rav Soloveitchik is cited as explaining that the two verses reflect a dual nature of *mikra megillah* as both prayer and praise. Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev is described as crying through the Megillah, first in anguish as if experiencing Shushan’s danger and later in joy at “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה,” embodying both the potential tragedy of Jewish history and the praise that functions as the hidden Hallel of Purim. The *shiur* links the hidden Hallel to the hidden nature of the miracle and the absence of explicit divine names in the text.
- The *shiur* explains that the day reading is the one anchored in the verse “והימים האלה נזכרים ונעשים,” while the night reading is not explicit in the Megillah, and it cites the radical suggestion of the Binyan Shlomo that night reading may have been instituted later, even after the era of the Mishnah. The Noda BiYehudah and the Turei Even are cited as distinguishing the readings by classifying the day reading as *divrei kabbalah* with greater force and the night reading as a lesser *derabbanan* layer. The Noda BiYehudah’s Prague case is cited where the moon appeared just before Megillah reading and he ruled one may do *kiddush levanah* first because it would otherwise be missed and because night Megillah is not *divrei kabbalah*, while the day reading remains more central.
- Tosafot (in the name of R"י) is cited as the basis for Ashkenazic custom to recite *shehecheyanu* at night and again by day, because the main *pirsumei nisa* is in the daytime reading and the verse prioritizes “יומם.” The Rambam is noted as disagreeing by requiring only one *shehecheyanu*, and the common announcement to have the daytime *shehecheyanu* cover the other mitzvot of the day is tied to Tosafot’s emphasis on the day reading.
- Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah states the rule of advancing to *yom ha-kenisah*, and Rabbi Chanina says the sages were lenient with villagers so they could provide water and food to their brothers in the cities. The Gemara challenges this explanation from Mishnah cases where villagers read on the actual day when Purim falls on Monday or Thursday, and it answers that one cannot advance to the tenth and that one does not push from one *yom ha-kenisah* to another. The Gemara then challenges from Rabbi Yehudah’s condition that the leniency applies only where villagers enter on Monday and Thursday, and it concludes the correct formulation is that they are advanced because they already supply water and food, making the leniency a reward rather than a pure logistical enactment.
- The Gemara asks why the Mishnah first lists the possible dates in month order and then gives the scheduling cases in weekday order, and it answers that weekday presentation avoids confusion created by reversing patterns. The *shiur* adds that the seven-day week is rooted in *ma’aseh bereishit* rather than natural cycles like months and years, and it links weekday structure to the Ramban’s idea of counting days toward Shabbat as part of “זכור את יום השבת לקדשו.”
- The Gemara identifies the Mishnah’s scheduling as aligning with either Rabbi or Rabbi Yosi, and it brings *baraitot* about when Yud-Daled falls on Friday and what happens to villages, big cities, and walled cities. One opinion advances villages and big cities to Thursday and has walled cities read on Friday, deriving from “בכל שנה ושנה” that open cities precede walled cities; Rabbi says cities should not be displaced and both read on Friday because displacement is avoidable. Another opinion advances walled cities and villages to *yom ha-kenisah* while big cities read Friday, and Rabbi Yosi rejects walled cities reading before open cities and rules both read Friday.
- A *beraita* shows that Rabbi agrees cities can be displaced when their proper day is Shabbat, ruling that once displaced they move to *yom ha-kenisah*, while if their proper day is Friday they read on Friday. The final line attributes the statement of Rabbi Chelbo in the name of Rav Huna—interpreted as “כל הנדחה ידחה ליום הכניסה,” that whoever is displaced moves to the *yom ha-kenisah*—as following Rabbi’s view. The *shiur* closes by noting that the coming continuation will begin with *gezeirat Rabbah* on the next session.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions