Megillah, Daf Gimmel, Part 6

 

Introduction

This section returns to discuss the law we saw in last week’s daf, that any area close to the city that reads on the fifteenth also reads on the fifteenth.

 

גופא, אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: כרך וכל הסמוך לו וכל הנראה עמו נדון ככרך.

תנא: סמוך – אף על פי שאינו נראה, נראה – אף על פי שאינו סמוך.

בשלמא נראה אף על פי שאינו סמוך – משכחת לה כגון דיתבה בראש ההר.

אלא סמוך אף על פי שאינו נראה, היכי משכחת לה? אמר רבי ירמיה: שיושבת בנחל.

 

The text [above states]: R. Joshua b. Levi said: A city and all that is next to it and all that is visible with it is reckoned as city.

It was taught: Adjoining, even if it is not visible, and visible even if it is not adjoining.

Now we understand what is meant by visible even though not adjoining: this can occur for instance with a city situated on the top of a hill.

But how can there be adjoining but not visible?

R. Jeremiah said: If it is situated in a valley. 

 

The text explains that if the area next to the city is adjoined to it, meaning it is close by, but is not seen with it, then it still is reckoned with the city. This could occur with a city on the top of the hill. The area could be visible with the city, even though it is not right next to it. But how do you have an area that is adjoining but not visible. The answer is that the city is in the valley. The area near the city might not be able to be seen with it.

 

ואמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: כרך שישב ולבסוף הוקף – נדון ככפר. מאי טעמא – דכתיב +ויקרא כ"ה+ ואיש כי ימכר בית מושב עיר חומה – שהוקף ולבסוף ישב, ולא שישב ולבסוף הוקף.

 

R. Joshua b. Levi said: A city which was first settled and then walled is reckoned as a village.  

What is the reason? Because it is written, "And if a man sell a dwelling house of a walled city" (Leviticus 25:29), one, [that is,] which was first walled and then settled, but not first settled and then walled.

 

If a city was first settled, meaning people lived there, and then only later it was surrounded by a wall, it is reckoned as if it was a village. This means it would read on the fourteenth.

The Talmud backs this up with a midrash from a totally unrelated realm of halakhah. The verse refers to selling a house in a walled city. But the Talmud reads this as if first the city was walled and then it was settled. If the city was first settled and then walled, it is not treated as a walled city but rather as a village.    

 

ואמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: כרך שאין בו עשרה בטלנין – נדון ככפר.

מאי קא משמע לן? תנינא: איזו היא עיר גדולה – כל שיש בה עשרה בטלנין, פחות מכאן – הרי זה כפר. –

כרך איצטריך ליה, אף על גב דמיקלעי ליה מעלמא.

 

And R. Joshua b. Levi said: A city in which there are not ten men of leisure is reckoned as a village. What does he tell us? We have already learned this: What is a large town? One in which there are ten men of leisure. If there are fewer than this, it is reckoned as a village.

He had to point out that the rule applies to a city, even though [leisured] people come there from outside.

 

A city in which there are not men of leisure, meaning ten men who do not have jobs to attend to, then it is reckoned as a village. It seems that people who don’t work are a sign of a certain socio-economic level. There are ten men rich enough so that they don’t need to work.  

The same law was also taught in a baraita, causing the Talmud to ask why R. Joshua b. Levi even needed to state this. The answer is that he had to emphasize that ten men of leisure must actually be permanently located in that city. Many people of leisure come into the city, for that is where the marketplace is located. But these men of leisure do not count towards the required ten for the city to read the Megillah on the fifteenth.  

 

ואמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: כרך שחרב ולבסוף ישב – נדון ככרך.

מאי חרב? אילימא חרבו חומותיו, ישב – אין, לא ישב – לא?

והא תניא, רבי אליעזר בר יוסי אומר: +ויקרא כ"ה+ אשר לוא חומה – אף על פי שאין לו עכשיו, והיה לו קודם לכן.

אלא: מאי חרב – שחרב מעשרה בטלנין.

 

R. Joshua b. Levi also said: A city which has been laid waste and afterwards settled is reckoned as a city.

What is meant by "laid waste"? If you say, that its walls have been destroyed, in which case if it became settled it is reckoned as a city but otherwise not?

But has it not been taught: R. Elazar son of R. Yose says: [The text says], "which has a wall" [which implies that it is to be reckoned as a city] even though it does not have a wall now, provided it had one previously?  

What then is meant by "laid waste"? Laid waste of its ten men of leisure.

 

If a city (with a wall) was laid waste and then resettled it still counts as a city. The problem with this rule is that if we imagine that "laid waste" refers to the walls being destroyed, then it implies that if the walls are not standing, it is not treated as a city. But this contradicts a baraita that says that as long as the city had a wall (at the time of Joshua) it continues to be treated as a walled city.

Therefore, they reinterpret "laid waste" to refer to the last halakhah stated by R. Joshua b. Levi. If the city had ten men of leisure, but then these men of leisure either moved or gained employment, the city retains its status as a city.