The Gemara Megillah, on page 4, dedicated by Norman Jamal in honor of the rabbi's parents, may they live long and good years, amen. We begin today's page on 3b, focusing on the bottom section, where Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi states that Lod, Ono, and Gei HaCharashim, cities from the territory of Binyamin, were surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua ben Nun. This detail is significant for the reading of the Megillah, as it determines that these cities read it on the fifteenth of Adar.
The Gemara questions this, asking if Yehoshua truly built their walls, given that the verse states that Alpa'al built Ono and Lod. The Gemara then further challenges this, noting that Asa also built fortified cities in Judah. Rabbi Elazar reconciles these statements by explaining that these cities indeed had walls from Yehoshua's time, but these walls were destroyed during the wars following the incident of the Concubine at Gibeah. Alpa'al later rebuilt them, and after they fell again, Asa restored them. This interpretation is supported by a verse that speaks of rebuilding cities, implying their prior existence. Rashi elaborates that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's testimony is necessary because the walls appeared new, which might lead one to mistakenly believe they were not ancient walled cities eligible to read the Megillah on the fifteenth.
Tosafot raises a question regarding Ono, as its status as a walled city from Yehoshua's time is explicitly mentioned in a Mishnah in Masechet Arachin. Why then would Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi need to inform us of this? Tosafot answers that Ono was mentioned alongside Lod and Gei HaCharashim as a secondary point, with the primary novelty concerning the other two cities. Tosafot further asks why the Gemara in Masechet Arachin doesn't pose the same challenge about Alpa'al building the walls. The answer given is that in Masechet Arachin, only Ono is mentioned, allowing for the possibility that there were two cities named Ono. However, when three cities are mentioned together, it becomes implausible to suggest that each had a duplicate, thus necessitating a more complex reconciliation of the verses.
A note from the Maharsha points out a discrepancy in Rashi's text, where Rashi states that two out of the three cities are mentioned in Masechet Arachin, while current versions of the Mishnah only mention Ono. The Maharsha also refines Tosafot's argument, suggesting that even two cities having duplicates is a stretch, not just three.
Moving to the next topic, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi declares that women are obligated in the reading of the Megillah, because "they too were part of that miracle." Rashi explains that Haman's decree was against all Jews, men, women, and children, making women equally subject to the danger and thus beneficiaries of the miracle. Tosafot infers from the wording "obligated in the reading of the Megillah" (מקרא מגילה) rather than "obligated to hear the Megillah" (לשמוע מקרא מגילה) that women can fulfill the obligation for others. This is further supported by a Mishnah in Masechet Arachin which states that "everyone is fit to read the Megillah," which is interpreted to include women, even to fulfill the obligation for men.
However, Tosafot presents a difficulty from a Tosefta which states that a tumtum (an individual whose gender is indeterminate) cannot fulfill the obligation for others, nor for one of their own kind, and an androgynos (an individual with both male and female characteristics) can fulfill the obligation for another androgynos but not for a man or a woman. Tosafot argues that a woman is certainly not superior to an androgynos, who possesses some male characteristics, yet cannot fulfill the obligation for a man. Therefore, a woman, lacking any male characteristics, should similarly not be able to fulfill the obligation for a man. The Bahag rules in accordance with this, stating that a woman can fulfill the obligation for another woman but not for men. Tosafot suggests that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's statement might simply be teaching that women are obligated to the extent that they can fulfill the obligation for themselves, as some might have thought they couldn't even do that. The Maharsha questions why Tosafot didn't use the case of the tumtum as a direct proof, as it explicitly states that a tumtum cannot fulfill the obligation for their own kind, implying a concern that they might be a woman fulfilling for a man.
The discussion then touches upon why women might be on a lower footing despite being part of the miracle. Some Rishonim, like the Rashbam, interpret "they too were part of that miracle" to mean that women were central to the miracle, citing Esther in Purim, Yehudit in Chanukah, and the righteous women in Egypt during Passover. Tosafot questions this interpretation, noting that the phrase "they too" (אף הן) implies a secondary role. Tosafot suggests that the phrase simply means they were subject to the decree. Tosafot also raises a question regarding the obligation of women to eat matzah on Passover, which is a positive time-bound commandment from the Torah, from which women are usually exempt. Why is a special derivation needed, when "they too were part of that miracle" could apply? Tosafot answers that this principle, "they too were part of that miracle," is only effective for rabbinic obligations, not for Torah obligations like eating matzah. Another opinion, by Rabbeinu Yosef Ish Yerushalayim, suggests that the principle could apply to Torah obligations, but there is a conflicting verbal analogy (גזירה שוה) that might exempt women, necessitating the derivation to obligate them.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi further states that if Purim falls on Shabbat, the Megillah is not read on Shabbat due to a rabbinic decree. Instead, people should inquire and expound on the laws and themes of Purim on that day. The Gemara questions why this is specific to Purim, as it applies to all holidays, citing a teaching that Moshe ordained that Jews should inquire and expound on the laws of each holiday on that day. The Gemara answers that Purim is a unique case because one might mistakenly think that expounding on the Megillah could lead to reading it, which is forbidden on Shabbat. Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's statement teaches that despite this concern, expounding is permitted. Rashi clarifies that "expounding" refers to a scholar delivering a public discourse on the Megillat Esther. Tosafot adds that this expounding is specifically to compensate for the publicizing of the miracle (פרסומי ניסא) that is lost by not reading the Megillah on Shabbat.
Another teaching from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is that one is obligated to read the Megillah at night and to repeat it during the day, as implied by the verse "My God, I call by day, but You do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest." The students initially thought "repeat it" (לשנותה) meant to study the Mishnah related to the Megillah. However, Rabbi Yirmiya clarifies that it means to read it a second time, similar to a common idiom. Rabbi Chelbo, in the name of Ulla Bira'ah, brings another verse to support this dual reading: "That my glory may sing praise to You and not be silent; O Lord my God, I will give thanks to You forever." Rashi explains that the dual reading commemorates the cries of the Jews day and night during their distress. The Maharsha offers a profound interpretation of these verses, explaining that the first verse implies that reading only by day (like Hallel) is insufficient because God's salvation began at night, and reading only by night is also insufficient because the main celebration and publicizing of the miracle occur by day. Thus, both readings are necessary. The second verse, "That my glory may sing praise to You," is connected to the hidden nature of God's name in the Megillah, where "glory" (כבוד) alludes to God's presence, particularly in the night when "the king's sleep was disturbed" (נדדה שנת המלך), a euphemism for God's awakening to save His people. The phrase "I will give thanks to You forever" (לעולם אודך) alludes to the permanence of Purim, as it will never be abolished, unlike other holidays.
Tosafot then discusses the practice of reciting Al HaNissim in the prayers. Some omit the phrase "just as You performed miracles for our ancestors, so too perform miracles for us" (כשם שעשית נסים לאבותינו כן יעשה לנו נסים) because one should not make personal requests in the first three or last three blessings of the Amidah. Tosafot dismisses this as foolish, arguing that this rule applies only to individual prayers, not to communal prayers. However, Tosafot offers another reason for the omission: the blessing of Modim is a blessing of thanksgiving for past events, and inserting a request for future events would be a change in tense, which is inappropriate. Tosafot then outlines the order of services for Purim night and day, including the three blessings before the Megillah reading and one after, the unraveling of the Megillah like a letter, and the specific prayers recited. It also notes that Shehecheyanu is recited twice, once at night and once by day, because the daytime reading is considered the primary publicizing of the miracle, a new aspect that warrants a new blessing.
The Gemara continues with Rabbi Chanina's statement that villages (כפרים) may read the Megillah earlier, on the day of assembly (יום הכניסה), which was Monday or Thursday, to allow them to supply water and food to their brethren in the large cities (כרכים). The Gemara challenges this, noting that if Purim falls on a Monday or Thursday, the villages read on that day, not earlier. This suggests that the leniency is not always applied. The Gemara answers that the days of assembly are fixed, and the Sages did not institute reading on the tenth of Adar. The Gemara further challenges this, asking why villages don't read on the eleventh of Adar if Purim falls on a Thursday. The answer is that one does not push off from one day of assembly to another. The Gemara then brings Rabbi Yehuda's statement that this leniency for villages only applies in places where they regularly assemble on Mondays and Thursdays. If they don't, they read the Megillah on its proper time, the fourteenth. The Gemara then refines the reason for the leniency: it's not a decree for the benefit of the large cities, but rather a reward for the villagers who already regularly supply food and water to the cities on those days. If they don't perform this service, they don't receive the reward of reading early.
The Gemara then observes a stylistic difference in the Mishnah. In its initial statement, it lists the days of reading in ascending order of the month (eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth). However, when giving examples for specific days of the week, it lists them in a receding order of the month (e.g., if the fourteenth falls on Monday, then Tuesday, etc., which corresponds to the thirteenth, twelfth, etc. of the month). The Gemara explains that this is to avoid confusion for students learning by heart, as it is easier to list the days of the week in their natural order, even if it means the days of the month appear in reverse.
The Gemara then seeks to identify the author of our Mishnah, which states that if the fourteenth falls on a Friday, villages read on Thursday, while large cities and walled cities read on Friday. It considers two possibilities: Rabbi or Rabbi Yose. A Baraisa presents Tanna Kamma's view that if the fourteenth is a Friday, villages and large cities read on Thursday, and walled cities read on Friday. Rabbi disagrees, stating that large cities should not be displaced from their day, so both large cities and walled cities read on Friday. The Gemara analyzes the reasoning behind these opinions, focusing on the interpretation of the phrase "in every single year" (בכל שנה ושנה) from the Megillah. Tanna Kamma interprets it to mean that just as in other years, cities precede walled cities, so too here, cities should read before walled cities. Rabbi, however, interprets it to mean that just as cities are not displaced from their day in other years, so too here they should not be displaced. Each Tanna prioritizes a different aspect of the phrase, acknowledging that one cannot accommodate all scenarios simultaneously.
The Gemara then considers Rabbi Yose's opinion from another Baraisa. If the fourteenth falls on a Friday, Tanna Kamma there holds that walled cities and villages read on Thursday, while large cities read on Friday. Rabbi Yose disagrees, stating that walled cities should not precede large cities, so both read on Friday. Our Mishnah aligns with Rabbi Yose's view. The Gemara again analyzes the interpretations of "in every single year," with Tanna Kamma emphasizing that cities and walled cities read on separate days, while Rabbi Yose emphasizes that walled cities should not precede cities.
The Gemara then questions Rabbi's consistency. If Purim falls on Shabbat (meaning the fourteenth is Shabbat), Rabbi states that villages and large cities are pushed back to Thursday. This contradicts Rabbi's earlier stance that large cities should not be displaced from their day when Purim falls on Friday. Rabbi explains the distinction: if the original time is Shabbat, and reading is forbidden, then once displaced, they should be pushed back further to Thursday. But if the original time is Friday, which is a permissible day for reading, there is no reason to push them back to Thursday.
The Gemara then asks whose opinion is followed by Rabbi Chelbo in the name of Rav Huna, who states that if Purim falls on Shabbat, everyone is pushed back to Thursday. The Gemara clarifies that "everyone" refers to all who are pushed off, meaning villages and large cities, but not walled cities, which read on Sunday. This aligns with Rabbi's view.
The Gemara concludes this section by establishing a fundamental principle: regardless of the differing opinions, everyone agrees that the Megillah is not read on Shabbat. Rabbah provides the reason: because not everyone is expert in reading the Megillah, there is a rabbinic decree that one might carry the Megillah four cubits in the public domain to find an expert, which is a Torah prohibition. This is also the reason why the Shofar is not blown on Rosh Hashanah when it falls on Shabbat, and why the Lulav is not shaken on the first day of Sukkot when it falls on Shabbat. Rav Yosef offers an alternative reason for the Megillah: the eyes of the poor are uplifted to the Megillah reading, anticipating the collection of "gifts to the poor" (מתנות לאביונים), which cannot be given on Shabbat. Therefore, the reading is postponed to a day when the poor can receive their gifts. A Baraisa supports this, stating that even though villages read early, the collection and distribution of "gifts to the poor" also occur on that early day, in anticipation of the needy. However, the meal and celebration (שמחה) must still be observed on the proper day of Purim, the fourteenth.
Tosafot clarifies Rabbah's decree against carrying the Megillah. It questions why the decree isn't against carrying from a private domain to a public domain, which is a more common scenario. Tosafot answers that carrying from a private to a public domain is a more obvious transgression, less likely to be forgotten. Alternatively, the act of picking up an object in a private domain might not be with the intention of carrying it out, thus avoiding a full Torah prohibition. However, carrying four cubits within a public domain is clearly an act of carrying. Tosafot then asks why the same decree doesn't apply to circumcision on Shabbat, where a knife might be carried to an expert. It answers that circumcision is a more stringent commandment, and only experts perform it due to the danger involved, thus reducing the concern of someone carrying a knife to learn. Tosafot also addresses the blowing of the Shofar at the end of Yom Kippur, which occurs before Havdalah, a time when work is generally forbidden. It explains that blowing the Shofar is not considered work, and the concern of carrying it to an expert is minimal because it's only a single blast, a mere remembrance of the Jubilee, unlike the multiple blasts of Rosh Hashanah. Another opinion suggests that the concern of carrying applies only when it would constitute a Torah prohibition, which carrying before Havdalah would not.
Finally, Tosafot discusses the practical difference between Rabbah's and Rav Yosef's reasons for not reading the Megillah on Shabbat. Tosafot concludes that Rav Yosef must agree with Rabbah's reason concerning carrying, as that is the only reason for the Shofar and Lulav. Rav Yosef's additional reason for the Megillah provides a further distinction: in the Beis HaMikdash, where rabbinic prohibitions of carrying might not apply, the Megillah would still not be read due to the concern for the poor, a reason that transcends the location.