Megillah, Daf Gimmel, Part 4

 

Introduction

At the end of last week’s daf we learned that the words "city and city, town and town" from Esther 9:28 are used in a derashah which teaches that areas close to a walled city read the Megillah on the fifteenth, as does the city itself. The verse continues with "family and family"—our Talmud asks what added meaning can we derive from these words?

 

והשתא דאמרת מדינה ומדינה, ועיר ועיר לדרשה, משפחה ומשפחה, למאי אתא?

אמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא: להביא משפחות כהונה ולויה שמבטלין עבודתן ובאין לשמוע מקרא מגילה. דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב: כהנים בעבודתן, ולוים בדוכנן וישראל במעמדן – כולן מבטלין עבודתן ובאין לשמוע מקרא מגילה,

תניא נמי הכי: כהנים בעבודתן, ולוים בדוכנן, וישראל במעמדן – כולן מבטלין עבודתן ובאין לשמוע מקרא מגילה.

 

Now that you have said that the words "city and city, town and town" are there for a derashah, what is the purpose of the words "family and family" [in the same verse]?

R. Yose b. Hanina replied: This refers to the families of the priests and Levites, that they should stop their [Temple] service in order to come and hear the reading of the Megillah. For so said R. Judah in the name of Rav: The Priests at their [Temple] service, the Levites on their platform, the Israelites at their station — all stop their service in order to hear the reading of the Megillah.

It has also been taught: Priests at their [Temple] service, Levites on their platform, Israelites at their station — all stop their service in order to come and hear the reading of the Megillah.

 

The Talmud uses the word "family and family" to teach that even if priests, Levites or Israelites were in the middle of worshipping at the Temple and the time to hear the Megillah came, they should stop their worship service and go hear the Megillah. Clearly this is a value statement and less of an actual practical issue. One certainly would have thought that hearing the Megillah, a mitzvah that is only of "derabanan," rabbinic status, would not supersede Temple worship, one of the main mitzvoth in the Torah. The Talmud, as it is wont to do, comes to teach the opposite. Hearing the Megillah it would seem supersedes all mitzvoth.

 

מכאן סמכו של בית רבי שמבטלין תלמוד תורה ובאין לשמוע מקרא מגילה, קל וחומר מעבודה. ומה עבודה שהיא חמורה – מבטלינן, תלמוד תורה – לא כל שכן?

 

From this the members of the house of Rabbi relied that they were to stop the study of Torah in order to come and hear the reading of the Megillah. They argued a fortiori from the case of the [Temple] service. If the Temple service, which is so important, may be abandoned, how much more the study of the Torah?

 

I think we could have anticipated this line coming next. In the rabbinic world, the study of Torah is one of the religious acts that replaces the Temple worship. So if the priests, Levites and Israelites stopped Temple service to hear the Megillah, all the more so should rabbis interrupt their studying in the Bet Midrash to come and hear the Megillah.   

 

ועבודה חמורה מתלמוד תורה? – והכתיב +יהושע ה’+ ויהי בהיות יהושע ביריחו וישא עיניו וירא והנה איש עמד לנגדו [וגו’] וישתחו (לאפיו). והיכי עביד הכי? והאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: אסור לאדם שיתן שלום לחבירו בלילה, חיישינן שמא שד הוא! שאני התם דאמר ליה כי אני שר צבא ה’. – ודלמא משקרי? – גמירי דלא מפקי שם שמים לבטלה.

 

But is the [Temple] service more important than the study of the Torah? Surely it is written, "And it came to pass when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold there stood a man over against him, . . . and he fell on his face" (Joshua 5:13).

Now how could he do such a thing, seeing that R. Joshua b. Levi has said that it is forbidden for a person to greet another by night, for fear that he is a demon?  It was different there, because he said to him, "I am captain of the host of the Lord." But perhaps he was lying?

We have learned a tradition that they do not utter the name of heaven vainly.

 

The Talmud will now use the above argument to discuss whether the Temple service is really greater than the study of Torah. The discussion begins with a verse from Joshua in which a mysterious man who turns out to be an angel of God approaches Joshua. But before we discuss the larger issue, the Talmud digresses to ask some questions about the verses themselves and Joshua’s behavior.

The issue of demonology returns. One shouldn’t greet an unknown person at night, lest he be greeting a demon, a dangerous act (indeed). The man told him that he was a messenger from God, but why should Joshua have believed him. The answer is that demons don’t take God’s name in vain. They may be demons, but they have their red lines as well!    

 

אמר לו: אמש בטלתם תמיד של בין הערבים, ועכשיו בטלתם תלמוד תורה! – אמר לו: על איזה מהן באת? – אמר לו: עתה באתי. מיד +יהושע ח’+ וילן יהושע בלילה ההוא בתוך העמק. אמר רבי יוחנן:מלמד שלן בעומקה של הלכה. ואמר רב שמואל בר אוניא: גדול תלמוד תורה יותר מהקרבת תמידין. שנאמר עתה באתי!

 

He said to him: This evening you neglected the regular afternoon sacrifice, and now you have neglected the study of the Torah. Joshua replied: For which of them did you come? He answered: I have come now.  

Straightway, "Joshua spent that night in the midst of the valley [ha-emek]" (Joshua 8:9), and R. Yohanan said: This shows that he spent the night in the depths [omkah] of the halakhah. 

And R. Shmuel b. Unia also said: The study of the Torah is greater than the offering of the daily sacrifices, as it says, "I have come now."

 

Joshua had been laying siege the previous evening. According to the midrashic reading of the angel’s words, Joshua had not offered the evening sacrifice, reasoning that he was engaged in war. Rashi explains that although one is allowed to stop Temple worship during war, evening is not a time for battle. Therefore, Joshua should have offered the sacrifice. Furthermore, now that it is night he should be studying Torah, for the night is again not a time for battle. Joshua wants to know which of these two accusations really caused the angel to come. He answers: I have come now. Meaning that he came at night because Joshua was not studying Torah—the worse of the two omissions. Thus it seems that the study of Torah is greater than Temple worship.

The Talmud now follows with two more midrashim that are similar. In Joshua 8:9 Joshua spends the night in the "valley." This occurs when he is setting siege to the city of Ai. But this time Joshua has learned his lesson. He spends the night "in the valley" which R. Yohanan interprets as "the depths of halakhah." He does not desist from the study of Torah.  

Finally, R. Shmuel b. Unia restates the earlier midrash—the angel comes "now" when Joshua desists from Torah study, for Torah study is even greater than the offering of the daily sacrifices.

 

לא קשיא: הא – דרבים, והא – דיחיד.

 

There is no contradiction; in the one case [the study] of an individual is meant, in the other that of the whole people.

 

The answer is that the case of Rabbi and his bet midrash referred to the study of an individual. Temple service takes precedence over the study of an individual. But in the case of Joshua and the men with him, Torah study of the many takes precedence over Temple service.  

 

ודיחיד קל? והתנן: נשים במועד מענות, אבל לא מטפחות. רבי ישמעאל אומר: אם היו סמוכות למטה – מטפחות. בראשי חדשים בחנוכה ובפורים – מענות ומטפחות בזה ובזה, אבל לא מקוננות.

ואמר רבה בר הונא: אין מועד בפני תלמיד חכם, כל שכן חנוכה ופורים. –

כבוד תורה קאמרת, כבוד תורה דיחיד – חמור, תלמוד תורה דיחיד – קל.

 

But is that of an individual unimportant? Have we not learned: Women [when mourning] on a festival may make a dirge but they do not beat their chests. R. Ishmael says: If they are near the bier, they can beat their chests. On Rosh Hodesh, Hanukkah and Purim they may make a dirge and beat their chests, but on neither the one nor the other do they wail.

And in reference to this, Rabbah b. Huna said: The festival involves no mourning restrictions in the case of a scholar, still less Hanukkah and Purim.

You are speaking of the honor to be paid to the Torah. The honor to be paid to the learning of an individual is important, the study of an individual is less important.

 

The Talmud now raises a difficulty on the notion that the study of an individual is not so important. The source brought here has to do with mourning practices on a holiday. The festival is treated most seriously—on a festival women may make a dirge but not beat their chests or wail. Rosh Hodesh, Hanukkah and Purim are lesser holidays than a festival so they may beat their chests, but they still do not wail. 

Rabbah b. Huna said that if the person being mourned is a Torah scholar, then all of these restrictions are suspended. That is to say, he is fully mourned, even on a festival.

This implies that we do not take the Torah study of an individual lightly, a difficulty on the conclusion stated above.

The Talmud resolves this by saying that this is not an issue of study but honor. The honor accorded to an individual scholar is indeed of grave significance. But when it comes to the study itself, the individual is still less significant than the many, as we saw above.