{"id":10507,"date":"2007-02-08T05:31:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-08T05:31:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/production.ou.org\/life\/other\/masechet_megillah28\/"},"modified":"2015-10-25T07:09:28","modified_gmt":"2015-10-25T12:09:28","slug":"masechet_megillah28","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ou.org\/life\/torah\/masechet_megillah28\/","title":{"rendered":"Masechet Megillah 2a-8b"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Coming Week’s Daf Yomi by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz<\/em><\/p>\n

This essay is based upon the insights and chidushim (original ideas) of Talmudic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, as published in the Hebrew version of the Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud.<\/em><\/p>\n

This month\u2019s Steinsaltz Daf Yomi is sponsored by Dr. and Mrs. Alan Harris, the Lewy Family Foundation, and Marilyn and Edward Kaplan<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Megillah 2<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

From its very inception, the holiday of Purim<\/a> was celebrated on two different days. The megillah<\/a><\/em> clearly indicates that only the Jews living in cities that did not have walls surrounding them kept the holiday’s commandments on the 14th day of Adar, while walled cities celebrated on the 15th of the month (see Megillat Esther<\/a><\/em> 9:19-22<\/a>). Thus it is not entirely surprising to find that the Sages added more dates for the reading of the megillah<\/em>, allowing villagers to hear it on the Monday or Thursday preceding Purim, when they visited the larger cities to participate in the market days, to hear the public Torah<\/a> reading or to appear before the local courts that sat on those days. The first perek <\/em>of Masechet<\/a> Megillah<\/a><\/em> deals with these additional days of Purim, as well as questions of defining which walled cities celebrate on the 15th and how to deal with two months of Adar on a Jewish leap year.<\/p>\n

The Ramban<\/a> asks the most basic question about Purim celebrations. Why were they originally set up to be kept on two different days? In answer to this, he points out that the Purim story takes place in the years of exile between the first and the second Temples<\/a>. By this time, some Jews had returned to the land of Israel, where they were spread out in small towns and villages. It was these Jews who were in the greatest danger from Haman<\/a>‘s decrees, and they were the ones who first established a day of thanksgiving on the 14th of Adar. Only when the Sages sat and decided to formalize a commemoration of the events was a decision made to include all Jews \u2013 even the ones who were in less danger \u2013 by establishing a day of celebration to honor the events in the capital Shushan, which occurred on the 15th of the month.<\/p>\n

\n

Megillah 3<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

There is a long history of the Bible being translated into the vernacular, but the attitude of the Sages to translations is not entirely positive.<\/p>\n

According to our Gemara<\/a>, Chumash<\/a><\/em> was translated into Aramaic by the convert Onkelos<\/a>, based on the teachings of Rabbi Eliezer<\/a> and Rabbi Yehoshua<\/a>. When the Navi<\/a><\/em> was translated by Yonatan ben Uziel<\/a>, based on the teachings of Chagai<\/a>, Zechariah<\/a> and Malachi<\/a>, the land of Israel shook and a heavenly voice called out “who has allowed my secrets to be shared with flesh-and-blood?!” In response, Yonatan ben Uziel accepted the responsibility for having done so, adding that God certainly knew that his intention was not to bring honor to himself or his family, but rather to add to the honor of God. Nevertheless, when he wanted to continue his work and translate Ketuvim<\/a><\/em>, the heavenly voice forbade him from completing his work, since those books include the secrets of the end-of-days.<\/p>\n

In his Pardes Rimonim<\/em>, Shem-Tov ibn Shaprut explains the expression that the land of Israel shook as a metaphor for the objections raised by the Sages throughout Israel against the translation and its publication. The Gemara itself explains that there were greater objections about Navi<\/em> than Chumash<\/em> because the Chumash<\/em> is more straightforward, while Navi<\/em> has parts that cannot be understood without translations and elucidation. Rabbeinu Chananel<\/a> explains that the Sages simply saw it as objectionable to publicize issues that the Torah<\/a> had only hinted to. The Ri”d<\/a> argues that the problem stems from the fact that translations make study too easy, and that people would come to rely on the translation rather than working through the material on their own. The P\u2019nei Yehoshua<\/a><\/em> suggests that there was a fear that only the translation would be studied and the original texts would be ignored.<\/p>\n

Today we have Aramaic translations of the books of the Ketuvim<\/em>, as well (in fact, Megillat Esther<\/a><\/em> has two). Already during the time of the second Temple<\/a> a translation of Sefer <\/em>Iyov<\/a><\/em> was available. Nevertheless, the Geonim<\/a><\/em> write that these were qualitatively different than the translations described here, in that they were never officially sanctioned, were not authored by leading rabbis, and were not seen as necessarily offering the true meaning of the text.<\/p>\n

\n

Megillah 4<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

What level of obligation do women have in the commandments of Purim<\/a>?<\/p>\n

Generally speaking, women are not obligated in Mitzvot aseh she-hazman geramah<\/em> \u2013 positive commandments that are dependant on time. Thus, women are not obligated to sit in a Sukkah<\/a><\/em> on Sukkot<\/a><\/em>, nor are they obligated to wear tzizit<\/a><\/em> or to lay tefillin<\/a><\/em>, which are only done during the day. Based on this principle, we would anticipate that women would not be obligated in the mitzvot<\/a><\/em> of Purim, <\/em>either.<\/p>\n

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi<\/a> teaches that women are obligated to hear the reading of the megillah<\/a><\/em>, she’af hen hayu be-oto ha-nes<\/em> \u2013 that they were involved in the miracle of Purim. There is a difference of opinion regarding this teaching. According to Rashi<\/a> and most of the commentaries, Jewish women were included in Haman<\/a>‘s decrees of destruction, and are therefore obligated to participate in the thanksgiving festivities that celebrate the rescue of the Jewish people. Rav Hai Ga’on<\/a>, the Rashbam<\/a> and others argues that the Gemara<\/a>‘s intent is that Jewish women played a crucial role in the miracle, in that Esther<\/a> orchestrated the events that led to Haman’s discovery and hanging.<\/p>\n

In either case it is clear that women are obligated in the mitzvot<\/em> of the day. How this affects women and their own reading of the megillah<\/em> is the source of some dispute.<\/p>\n

According to Rashi<\/a> and the Rambam<\/a> it appears that women are obligated in reading the megillah<\/em> and therefore can read for others, as well. The Me’iri<\/a> and the Ritva<\/a> rule that women are obligated in the mitzvah<\/em>, but they nevertheless cannot read for others because of an external reason, for example because it is not appropriate for the honor of the community for women to play such a public role. Finally there are those who suggest that women cannot read for others because their obligation is not to read the megillah<\/em>, but only to hear the megillah<\/em>.<\/p>\n

A full discussion of this issue appears at http:\/\/www.daat.ac.il\/daat\/english\/tfila\/frimer2.htm<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Megillah 5<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

As we have learned, the holiday of Purim<\/a> 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<\/a> entered the land of Israel with the Jewish people?<\/p>\n

The Gemara<\/a> relates that Chizkiya<\/a> was unsure whether Teverya (Tiberias) was considered a walled city or not, so he read the megillah<\/a><\/em> on both the 14th and the 15th. \u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n

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<\/em> 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:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. We usually rule that we follow the rov<\/em> or majority of cases. Most cities did not have walls, so we should assume that the city in question did not have them either.<\/li>\n
  2. When faced with cases of uncertainty on a Rabbinic level, we are inclined to choose the lenient position.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Both of these rules would seem to indicate that the megillah<\/em> should be read only once \u2013 on the 14th.<\/p>\n

    The Geonim<\/a><\/em>, in fact, argue that we cannot apply Chizkiya\u2019s 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 \u2013 protected by the sea \u2013 should be viewed. The Ramban<\/a> argues that Chizkiya\u2019s behavior was a middat chasidut<\/em> \u2013 a pious practice \u2013 that was not meant to be applied by others or in other cases.<\/p>\n

    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.<\/p>\n

    \n

    Megillah 6<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    On yesterday’s daf<\/em>\u00a0we learned that Chizkiya<\/a> asserted that Tiberias was a walled city dating back to the time that the Jewish people entered the land of Israel at the end of their exodus from Egypt. This assertion is supported by a passage in Sefer <\/em>Yehoshua<\/a><\/em> (19:35<\/a>) that lists walled cities included in the area set aside for the tribe of Naftali<\/a>, and includes cities in the vicinity of the Kinneret, including one that is identified as Tiberias.<\/p>\n

    Contemporary Tiberias was established in the year 18 CE by King Herod, who named the new city in honor of the Roman Caesar Tiberius. Although the city was built anew, it was established on the ruins of an ancient city \u2013 according to most opinions in the Gemara<\/a>, of the city Rakat. Due to its having been built on an ancient Jewish city, the Sages dealt with the problems of burial grounds that were no longer marked, and kohanim<\/a><\/em> did not settle in the city.<\/p>\n

    The discussion of identifying ancient cities (a practice that still inspires debate and discussion in Israel today) leads the Gemara to discuss other cities and their history. One of the cities is Caesarea, an ancient city on the Mediterranean coast. The city was established at the beginning of the second Temple<\/a> era by the king of Sidon. Over the generations it became less and less important, and Alexander Yannai<\/a> captured it and included it in the Kingdom of Judea. By the end of the second Temple period, King Herod had once again built it into an important port city. Nevertheless, from its beginning it was a city with a non-Jewish and even pagan quality to it. Caesarea became the administrative center of the Roman rule in Israel in the year 6 CE, and the tension between Jerusalem, the symbol of Jewish rule and independence, and Caesarea, is clearly expressed in the stories related in our Gemara. With the destruction of Jerusalem, Caesarea became the de facto capital of the country until the Muslim capture of the country.<\/p>\n

    \n

    Megillah 7<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

    Everyone knows that Purim<\/a> is the single day on the Jewish calendar that we are commanded to get drunk. Or are we?<\/p>\n

    Rava<\/a> teaches that a person is obligated livsumei<\/em> (Rashi<\/a> interprets this to mean “to get drunk with wine”) on Purim until he does not know the difference between “cursed be Haman<\/a>” and “blessed be Mordechai<\/a>.”<\/p>\n

    There are many approaches to this statement. Some include –<\/p>\n