Megillah, Daf Bet, Section 6
Introduction
According to the Mishnah the status of a city as "walled" or "unwalled" is based on whether it was walled when Joshua initially conquered Canaan. Our sugya notes that other tannaim hold that the status is determined according to the city’s status at the time of Ahashverosh, when the Purim events actually occurred.
מתניתין דלא כי האי תנא, דתניא, רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר: כרכין המוקפין חומה מימות אחשורוש קורין בחמשה עשר.
מאי טעמא דרבי יהושע בן קרחה? – כי שושן, מה שושן מוקפת חומה מימות אחשורוש וקורין בחמשה עשר – אף כל שמוקפת חומה מימות אחשורוש קורין בחמשה עשר.
Our Mishnah is not like the view of the following Tanna, as it has been taught: R. Joshua b. Korha says: Cities which have been walled since the days of Ahashverosh read on the fifteenth."
What is the reason of R. Joshua b. Korha? [They must be] like Shushan: just as Shushan has been walled since the days of Ahashverosh and reads on the fifteenth, so every city that has been walled since the days of Ahashverosh reads on the fifteenth.
R. Joshua b. Korha holds that the city’s status should be based on Shushan. Shushan was walled when the Purim events occurred and rested from the fighting on the fifteenth, so too all cities walled at the time of the Purim events read on the fifteenth of Adar.
ותנא דידן מאי טעמא? – יליף פרזי פרזי, כתיב הכא +אסתר ט’+ על כן היהודים הפרזים, וכתיב התם +דברים ג’+ לבד מערי הפרזי הרבה מאד, מה להלן מוקפת חומה מימות יהושע בן נון – אף כאן מוקפת חומה מימות יהושע בן נון. –
What then is the reason of our Tanna?
He draws an analogy between the two occurrences of the word perazi [villagers]. It is written here, "Therefore the Jews of the villages [haperazim]," and it is written in another place, "Beside the unwalled [haperazi] towns, a great many (Deuteronomy 3:5); just as there the reference is to towns which were [not] walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun, so here the reference is to towns which were [not] walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun.
The tanna who authored our mishnah understood Esther 9 which refers to walled cities (also translated as villages) in light of Deuteronomy 3 which uses the exact same word. Deuteronomy refers to the conquering of the land right before the Israelites entered Canaan, so too Esther refers to cities walled at the time of Joshua.
בשלמא רבי יהושע בן קרחה לא אמר כתנא דידן – דלית ליה פרזי פרזי, אלא תנא דידן מאי טעמא לא אמר כרבי יהושע בן קרחה?
I can understand why R. Joshua b. Korha did not adopt the view of our Tanna; he does not accept the analogy of perazi and perazi.
But why does not our Tanna accept the view of R. Joshua b. Korha?
The Talmud here seems to accept that the more reasonable position is that of R. Joshua b. Korha. There is no reason why he should accept the comparison drawn by our tanna between the two appearances of the word.
However, it does not make sense why our Tanna would not accept the view of R. Joshua b. Korha.
מאי טעמא? דהא אית ליה פרזי פרזי!
הכי קאמר: אלא שושן דעבדא כמאן, לא כפרזים ולא כמוקפין! – אמר רבא ואמרי לה כדי: שאני שושן הואיל ונעשה בה נס.
[You ask] why does he not? Why, because he draws the analogy of perazi with perazi, of course!
What he really meant to ask was this: [On the view of our Tanna], whom did Shushan follow?
It followed neither the villages nor the walled towns!
Rava, or, some say, Kadi said: Shushan was an exception, because a miracle was performed in it.
The Talmud rephrases the question of why the Tanna of our mishnah held that the status follows the time of Joshua. The question really is what they did in Shushan, according to the view of the Mishnah. Shushan was walled at the time of the events, but not at the time of Joshua. So if they read on the fifteenth, our tanna would seem to say they read on the wrong date.
The answer is that Shushan is an exception to the rule because the miracle actually occurred there. They read on the fifteenth, but the status of all other cities follows their whether they were walled or unwalled at the time of Joshua.
בשלמא לתנא דידן – היינו דכתיב +אסתר ט’+ מדינה ומדינה ועיר ועיר. מדינה ומדינה – לחלק בין מוקפין חומה מימות יהושע בן נון למוקפת חומה מימות אחשורוש, עיר ועיר נמי – לחלק בין שושן לשאר עיירות.
We can understand according to the view of our Tanna, for that is why it is written, "city and city, town and town" (Esther 9:28) "city and city" to distinguish between those which were walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun and those which were walled in the days of Ahashverosh; "town and town" likewise to distinguish between Shushan and other towns.
The Tanna of our Mishnah makes two distinctions: 1) Walled cites and unwalled cities at the time of Joshua; 2) Shushan (unwalled at time of Joshua) and all other cities unwalled at time of Joshua. This accords with a midrash on Esther 9:28.
אלא לרבי יהושע בן קרחה, בשלמא מדינה ומדינה – לחלק בין שושן לשאר עיירות, אלא עיר ועיר למאי אתא?
אמר לך רבי יהושע בן קרחה: ולתנא דידן מי ניחא? כיון דאית ליה פרזי פרזי מדינה ומדינה למה לי?
But according to R. Joshua b. Korha, it is true we can account for "city and city", to distinguish between Shushan and other cities, but what is the purpose of "town and town"?
R.Joshua b. Korha could answer: And can our Tanna explain the words satisfactorily? Since he draws the analogy between perazi and perazi, why do we require the words "city and city"?
But R. Joshua b. Korha does not make two distinctions, just one, between cities walled at time of the events and those not walled. So what does he do with the verse?
Rather than answer the question, R. Joshua b. Korha throws it back at the author of the Mishnah. The Mishnah derived the distinction between walled and unwalled cities at the time of Joshua from the use of the word "perazi" in Esther and Deuteronomy. So this tanna should not even need the distinction between "city and city" made in Esther 9. Therefore, this midrash does not accord with him either.
אלא, קרא לדרשה הוא דאתא, וכדרבי יהושע בן לוי הוא דאתא. דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: כרך וכל הסמוך לו וכל הנראה עמו נידון ככרך.
The truth is that the text is there for a midrash, and to teach the rule of R.Joshua b. Levi. For R. Joshua b. Levi said: "A city and all that adjoins it and all that is taken in by the eye with it is reckoned as city."
The real meaning of that verse is not as we thought above. Rather, it is used by R. Joshua b. Levi to teach that the environs of a city count as part of that city. If the city was walled at the time of Joshua, then the area around it also reads on the 15th.
עד כמה? – אמר רבי ירמיה ואיתימא רבי חייא בר אבא: כמחמתן לטבריא, מיל. ולימא מיל! – הא קא משמע לן: דשיעורא דמיל כמה הוי – כמחמתן לטבריא.
Up to what distance? — R. Jeremiah, or you may also say R. Hiyya b. Abba, said: As far as from Hamtan to Tiberias, which is a mil.
Why not say [simply] a mil? It teaches us what is the measure of a mil—as far as from Hamtan to Tiberias.
Any area within a mil of a walled city reads on the fifteenth, as is the distance from Hamtan to Tiberias. A mil is about 1 km.