MISHNAH: m.Meg.1.1b.Meg.2aThe Megillah is read on the eleventh, the twelfth, the thirteenth, the fourteenth, and the fifteenth [of Adar], never earlier and never later. Cities which have been walled since the days of Joshua son of Nun read on the fifteenth; villages and large towns read on the fourteenth. The villages, however, may [sometimes] push the reading forward to the court day.
MISHNAH: m.Meg.1.2How does this work out? If [the fourteenth of Adar] falls on Monday, the villages and large towns read on that day and the walled places on the next day: if it falls on Tuesday or on Wednesday, the villages push the reading forward to the court day, the large towns read on the day itself, and the walled places on the next day. If [the fourteenth falls] on Thursday, the villages and large towns read on that day and the walled places on the next day: if it falls on Friday, the villages push the reading forward to the court day and the large towns and walled places read on the day itself. If it falls on Sabbath, the villages and large towns push the reading forward to the court day. And the walled places read on the next day. If it falls on Sunday, the villages push the reading forward to the court day, the large towns read on the same day, and the walled cities on the day following.
GEMARA: The Megillah is read on the eleventh. Whence is this derived? [How can you ask,] `Whence is this derived`? Surely it is as we state further on, `The Sages made a concession to the villages, allowing them to push the reading forward to the Court day, so that [they should have leisure to] supply food and water for their brethren in the large towns`? What we mean [by our question] is this: Let us see now. All these dates were laid down by the Men of the Great Assembly. For if you should [deny this and affirm] that the Men of the Great Assembly laid down only the fourteenth and fifteenth, [is it possible that] the [later] Rabbis should have come and annulled a regulation made by the Men of the Great Assembly, seeing that we have learnt, `One Beth din cannot annul the ordinances of another unless it is superior to it in number and in wisdom`? Obviously, therefore, all these days must have been laid down by the Men of the Great Assembly, [and we ask therefore], where are they hinted [in the Scripture]? R. Shaman b. Abba replied in the name of R. Johanan [PA2]: Scripture says, To confirm these days of Purim in their times. [which indicates that] they laid down many `times` for them. But this text is required for its literal meaning? If that were all, Scripture could say simply `at the [appointed] time`. What then is implied by `their times`? A large number of `times`! But still I may say that [the expression `their` times`] is required to indicate that the time of one is not the same as the time of the other? In that case, Scripture should say [simply], `their time`. Why does it say `their times`? So that you may infer from this all of them. But cannot I say that `their times` means `numerous times`? The expression `their times` is to be interpreted in the same way as we should interpret `their time`: just as `their time` would indicate two [days], so `their times` indicates two [in addition]. But why not make these the twelfth and thirteenth? For the reason given [elsewhere] by R. Samuel b. Isaac [PA3], that the thirteenth is a time of assembly for all, and no special indication is required for it in the text; so we may say here that the thirteenth day is a time of assembly and no special indication is required for it in the text. But why not say that the sixteenth and seventeenth are meant? It is written, and it shall not pass.
R. Samuel b. Nahmani [PA3], however, explained thus. Scripture says. As the days wherein the Jews had rest from their enemies. [The expression] `the days` [would have sufficed] and we have `as the days`, to include the eleventh and the twelfth. But cannot I say rather the twelfth and thirteenth? R. Samuel b. Isaac [PA3] said: The thirteenth is a time of assembly for all, and does not require special indication. But cannot I say the sixteenth and the seventeenth? It is written, `and it shall not pass`. Why did R. Samuel b. Nahmani [PA3] not derive the rule from the expression `in their times`? He does not accept the distinction [made above between] `time`, `their time` and `their times`. And why did R. Shaman b. Abba not derive the rule from the expression `as the days`? He can say to you: This is meant to make the rule apply to future generations. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah [BA3] said in the name of R. Johanan [PA2]: This [rule stated in the Mishnah] is the ruling of R. Akiba [T3] the anonymous authority, who draws the distinction between `time`, `their time` and `their times`, but according to the Sages the Megillah is to be read only on the proper day. The following was adduced in refutation of this: `R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] said, When does this rule hold good? When the years are properly fixed and Israel reside upon their own soil. But in these days, since people reckon from it, the Megillah is to be read only on the proper day`. Now which authority is R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] here following? Shall I say, R. Akiba [T3]? This cannot be, because [according to him] the regulation is in force in these days also. It must be then that he follows the Rabbis, and [even according to them] we read [on the other days] at any rate when the years are properly fixed and Israel reside on their own soil! Is not this a refutation of R. Johanan [PA2]? It is. Some report as follows. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah [BA3] said in the name of R. Johanan [PA2]: This rule follows the ruling of R. Akiba [T3] the anonymous authority, but the Sages held that in these days, since people reckon from it, we read it only on the proper day. It has been taught to the same effect: `R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] said: When does this rule hold good? When the years are properly fixed and Israel reside upon their own soil, but in these days, since people reckon from it, it is read only on the proper day.` R. Ashi [BA6] noted a contradiction between two statements of R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] b.Meg.2b , and therefore attributed the statement in the Baraitha to R. Jose [T4] son of R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]. [He said]: Can R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] really have said that in these days, since people reckon from it, it is read only on the proper day? To this may be opposed the following: R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] said, When [do they push forward the reading]? In places where the villagers go to town on Monday and Thursday; but in places where they do not go to town on Monday and Thursday, it is read only on the proper day. But at any rate in places where they do go to town on Monday and Thursday it is read [on the earlier dates] even in these times`? He accordingly ascribed the statement in the Baraitha to R. Jose [T4] son of R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]. And because he finds a contradiction between two statements of R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y], is he entitled to ascribe the one in the Baraitha to R. Jose [T4] son of R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y]? R. Ashi [BA6] had heard some report the statement in the name of R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] and some report it in the name of R. Jose [T4] son of R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y], and to avoid making R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] contradict himself he said that the one who ascribed the statement to R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] was not [reporting] accurately, while the one who ascribed it to R. Jose [T4] son of Judah was [reporting] accurately. cities which have been walled since the days of Joshua son of Nun read on the fifteenth. Whence is this ruling derived? Raba [BA4] replied: Because Scripture says, Therefore do the Jews of the villages that dwell in the unwalled towns, etc. Since the villages [are to read] on the fourteenth, the walled towns [must read] on the fifteenth. But why not say that the villages [should read] on the fourteenth, and those in walled towns not at all? But are they not also Israelites? And moreover is it not written, From India into Ethiopia? But why not say that the villages [should read] on the fourteenth and those in walled towns on both the fourteenth and fifteenth, as it is written, that they should keep the fourteenth day of the month of Adar and the fifteenth day of the same yearly? If the text had said, `the fourteenth day and [we] the fifteenth`, you would have been right. Now, however, that it is written `the fourteenth day and [we-eth] the fifteenth the eth comes and makes a distinction, so that the one set is on the fourteenth and the other set on the fifteenth. But why not say that the villages are on the fourteenth, and those surrounded [by a wall] can [celebrate] if they like on the fourteenth or if they like on the fifteenth? The text says, in their seasons, the season of one is not the same as the season of the other. But why not say that they should celebrate on the thirteenth? [They must do] as Susa [did].
We have accounted for the celebration [of Purim]; how do we know that the recital [of the Megillah must be on these days]? The text says, that these days should be remembered and kept; `remembering` is put on the same footing as `keeping`. Our Mishnah does not take the same view as the following Tanna, as it has been taught: `R. Joshua b. Korha [T4] says: Cities which have been walled since the days of Ahasuerus read on the fifteenth`. What is the reason of R. Joshua b. Korha [T4]? [They must be] like Susa: just as Susa has been walled since the days of Ahasuerus and reads on the fifteenth, so every city that has been walled since the days of Ahasuerus reads on the fifteenth. 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 [ha perazim], and it is written in another place, beside the unwalled [ha perazi] towns, a great many; 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. I can understand why R. Joshua b. Korha [T4] 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 [T4]? [You ask] why does he not? Why, because he draws the analogy of perazi with perazi, of course! What the questioner meant was this: [On the view of our Tanna], whom did Susa follow? It followed neither the villages nor the walled towns! Raba, or, as some say, Kadi, replied: Susa was an exception, because a miracle was performed in it.
We can understand according to the view of our Tanna why the text should say, city and city, town and town; `city and city` to make a distinction between those which were walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun and those which were walled in the days of Ahasuerus; `town and town` likewise to distinguish between Susa and other towns. But according to R. Joshua b. Korha [T4], it is true we can account for `city and city`, as being intended to distinguish between Susa and other cities, but what is the purpose of `town and town` ? R.Joshua b. Korha [T4] can 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`? The truth is that the text is inserted for a homiletical purpose, and to teach the rule laid down by R.Joshua b. Levi [PA1]. For R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1] said: `A city and all that adjoins it and all that is taken in by the eye with it is reckoned as city`. Up to what distance? R. Jeremiah [PA4], or you may also say R. Hiyya b. Abba, said: As far as from Hamthan to Tiberias, which is a mil. Why not say [simply] a mil? We learn from this what is the extent of a mil, namely, as far as from Hamthan to Tiberias. R. Jeremiah [PA4] or you may also say R. Hiyya b. Abba also said: The [alternative forms of the] letters m`n`z`p`k were prescribed by the Watchmen. Do you really think so? Is it not written, These are the commandments, which implies that no prophet is at liberty to introduce anything new henceforward? And further, R.Hisda [BA3] has said: The Men and the Samek in the tablets b.Meg.3a remained in place by a miracle. That is so; they were in use, but people did not know which form came in the middle of a word and which one at the end, and the Watchmen came and ordained that the open forms should be in the middle of a word and the closed forms at the end. But when all is said and done, [we have the text] `these are the commandments`, which implies that no prophet was destined ever to introduce an innovation hereafter? What we must say therefore is that they were forgotten and the Watchmen established them again.
R. Jeremiah [PA4] or some say R. Hiyya b. Abba also said: The Targum of the Pentateuch was composed by Onkelos [T3] the proselyte under the guidance of R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] and R. Joshua [T2]. The Targum of the Prophets was composed by Jonathan ben Uzziel [T1] under the guidance of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, and the land of Israel [thereupon] quaked over an area of four hundred parasangs by four hundred parasangs, and a Bath Kol came forth and exclaimed, Who is this that has revealed my secrets to mankind? Jonathan b. Uzziel [T1] thereupon arose and said, It is I who have revealed Thy secrets to mankind. It is fully known to Thee that I have not done this for my own honour or for the honour of my father`s house, but for Thy honour l have done it, that dissension may not increase in Israel. He further sought to reveal [by] a targum [the inner meaning] of the Hagiographa, but a Bath Kol went forth and said, Enough! What was the reason? Because the date of the Messiah is foretold in it. But did Onkelos [T3] the proselyte compose the targum to the Pentateuch? Has not R. Ika said in the name of R. Hananel who had it from Rab: What is meant by the text, And they read in the book, in the law of God, with an interpretation. and they gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading? `And they read in the book, in the law of God`: this indicates the [Hebrew] text; `with an interpretation`: this indicates the targum, `and they gave the sense`: this indicates the verse stops; `and caused them to understand the reading`: this indicates the accentuation, or, according to another version, the massoretic notes? These had been forgotten, and were now established again. How was it that the land did not quake because of the [translation of the] Pentateuch, while it did quake because of that of the prophets? The meaning of the Pentateuch is expressed clearly, but the meaning of the prophets is in some things expressed clearly and in others enigmatically. [For instance,] it is written, In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon, and R. Joseph [BA3] [commenting on this] said: Were it not for the targum of this verse, we should not know what it means. [It runs as follows]: `On that day shall there be great mourning in Jerusalem like the mourning of Ahab son of Omri who was killed by Hadadrimmon son of Rimmon in Ramoth Gilead and like the mourning of Josiah son of Ammon who was killed by Pharaoh the Lame in the plain of Megiddo`. And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision; for the men that were with me saw not the vision; but a great quaking fell upon them, and they fled to hide themselves. Who were these `men` R. Jeremiah [PA4] or some say, R. Hiyya b. Abba said: These were Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. They were superior to him [in one way], and he was superior to them [in another]. They were superior to him, because they were prophets and he was not a prophet. He was superior to them, because he saw [on this occasion] and they did not see. But if they did not see, why were they frightened? Although they themselves did not see, their star saw. Rabina [BA6] said: We learn from this that if a man is seized with fright though he sees nothing, [the reason is that] his star sees. What is his remedy? He should recite the Shema. If he is in a place which is foul, he should move away from it four cubits. If he cannot do this, he should say this formula: `The goat at the butcher`s is fatter than I am`. Now that you have decided that the words `city and city` have a homiletical purpose, what is the purpose of the words `family and family` [in the same verse]? R.Jose b. Hanina [PA2] replied: This contains a reference to the families of the Priests and Levites, [and indicates] that they should desist from their [Temple] service in order to come and hear the reading of the Megillah. For so said Rab Judah [BA2] in the name of Rab: The Priests at their [Temple] service, the Levites on their platform, the lay Israelites at their station all desist from their service in order to hear the reading of the Megillah. It has been taught to the same effect: Priests at their [Temple] service, Levites on their platform, lay Israelites at their station all desist from their service in order to come and hear the reading of the Megillah. It was in reliance on this dictum that the members of the house of Rabbi [T5] were wont to desist from the study of the 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 service, which is so important, may be abandoned, how much more the study of the Torah?
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. Now how could he do such a thing, seeing that R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1] has said that it is forbidden to a man 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 take it for granted that they do not utter the name of heaven vainly). He said to him: This evening you neglected the regular afternoon sacrifice, and now you have neglected the study of the Torah. Joshua replied: In regard to which of them have you come? He answered, `I have come now`. Straightway, Joshua tarried that night in the midst of the valley [ha-emek], and R. Johanan [PA2] said: b.Meg.3b This shows that he tarried in the depths [`umkah] of the Halachah. And R. Samuel 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` There is no contradiction; in the one case [the study] of an individual is meant, in the other that of the whole people. But is that of an individual unimportant? Have we not learnt: Women [when mourning] on a festival make a dirge but do not beat the breast. R. Ishmael [T3] says: If they are near the bier, they can beat the breast. On New Moon, Hanukkah and Purim they may make a dirge and beat the breast, but on neither the one nor the other do they wail; and in reference to this, Rabbah b. Huna said: The festival involves no restrictions in the case of a scholar, still less Hanukkah and Purim? You are speaking of the honour to be paid to the Torah. The honour to be paid to the learning of an individual is important, the study of an individual is [comparatively] unimportant. Raba [BA4] said: There is no question in my mind that, as between the Temple service and the reading of the Megillah, the reading of the Megillah takes priority, for the reason given by R. Jose b. Hanina [PA2]. As between the study of the Torah and the reading of the Megillah, the reading of the Megillah takes priority, since the members of the house of Rabbi [T5] based themselves [on the dictum of R. Jose [T4]]. As between the study of the Torah and attending to a meth mizwah, attending to a meth mizwah takes precedence, since it has been taught: The study of the Torah may be neglected in order to perform the last rites or to bring a bride to the canopy. As between the Temple service and attending to a meth mizwah, attending to a meth mizwah takes precedence, as we learn from the text or for his sister, as it has been taught: `Or for his sister. What is the point of these words? Suppose he was on his way to kill his Paschal lamb or to circumcise his son, and he heard that a near relative had died, shall I assume that he should defile himself? You must say, he should not defile himself. Shall I assume then that, just as he does not defile himself for his sister, so he should not deflle himself for a meth mizwah? It says significantly, `or for his sister`,` it is for his sister that he may not defile himself, but he may defile himself for a meth mizwah. Raba [BA4] propounded the question: As between the reading of the Megillah and [attending to] a meth mizwah, which takes precedence? Shall I say that the reading of the Megillah takes precedence in order to proclaim the miracle, or does perhaps [the burying of] the meth mizwah take precedence because of the respect due to human beings? After propounding the question, he himself answered it saying, [Burying] the meth mizwah takes precedence, since a Master has said: Great is the [obligation to pay due] respect to human beings, since it overrides a negative precept of the Torah.
The text [above states]: `R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1] said: A city and all that adjoins it and all that is taken in by the eye with it is reckoned as city`. A Tanna commented: 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 [PA4] replied: If it is situated in a valley.
R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1] further 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, one, [that is,] which was first walled and then settled, but not first settled and then walled. R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1] also 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 learnt this: `What is a large town? One in which there are ten men of leisure. If there are less 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. R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1] also said: A city which has been laid waste and afterwards settled is reckoned as a city. What is meant by `laid waste`? Shall I say, that its walls have been destroyed, in which case if it became settled it is reckoned as a city but otherwise not? [How can this be], seeing that it has been taught: R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] son of R. Jose [T4] says: [The text says], which has a wall; [which implies that it is to be reckoned as a city] even though it has not a wall now, provided it had one previously? What then is meant by `laid waste`? Laid waste of its ten men of leisure. R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1] further said: b.Meg.4a Lod and Ono and Ge Haharashim were walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun. But did Joshua build these? Was it not Elpaal who built them, as it is written, And the sons of Elpaal Eber and Misham and Shemed, who built Ono and Lod, with the towns there of? But on your showing Asa built them, as it is written, And he built fenced cities in Judah? R. Eleazar [T4 in M or PA3] replied: These places were walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun. They were laid waste in the days of the concubine of Gibea, and Elpaal came and rebuilt them. They again fell, and Asa came and repaired them. There is an indication of this in the text also, as it is written, For he said unto Judah, Let us build these cities. From this we can infer that they had already been towns beforehand; and this may be taken as proved. R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1] also said: Women are under obligation to read the Megillah, since they also profited by the miracle then wrought. R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1] further said: If Purim falls on a Sabbath, discussions and discourses are held on the subject of the day. Why mention Purim? The same rule applies to festivals also, as it has been taught: Moses laid down a rule for the Israelites that they should discuss and discourse on the subject of the day the laws of Passover on Passover, the laws of Pentecost on Pentecost, and the laws of Tabernacles on Tabernacles! It was necessary to state the rule [separately] in the case of Purim. For you might suggest that we should forbid this for fear of breaking the rule of Rabbah. We are therefore told that this is not so. R. Joshua b. Levi [PA1] further said: It is the duty of a man to read the Megillah in the evening and to repeat it in the day, as it is written, O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou answerest not, and in the night season and am not silent. The students took this to mean that the [Megillah] should be read at night, and the Mishnah relating to it should be learnt in the morning. R. Jeremiah [PA4]. however, said to them: It has been explained to me by R. Hiyya b. Abba [that the word `repeat` here has the same meaning] as when, for instance, men say, I will go through this section and repeat it. It has also been stated: R. Helbo said in the name of `Ulla [BA3] of Biri: It is a man`s duty to recite the Megillah at night and to repeat it the next day, as it says, To the end that my glory may sing praise to thee [by day] and not be silent [by night]. O Lord, my God, I will give thanks to thee for ever. The villages, however, may push the reading forward to the court day. R. Hanina [PA1, PA3 or PA5] said: The Sages made a concession to the villages by allowing them to push the reading forward to the Court day, in order that they might furnish food and water to their brethren in the cities. b.Meg.4b This would show [would it not] that the regulation is for the benefit of the cities; but we have learnt: `If Purim falls on Monday, the villages and large towns read on that day`. Now if it is as you say, they should push the reading forward to the [previous] Court day? This would bring it to the tenth, and the Sages did not fix the tenth [as a possible day]. Come and hear: `If it falls on Thursday, the villages and large towns read on that same day`. Now if it is as you say, they should push the reading forward to the [previous] Court day which is the eleventh? We do not shift it from one Court day to another. Come and hear [again]: `R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y] says: When [is the reading pushed forward]? In places where the villagers come into town on Mondays and Thursdays, but in places where they do not come into town on Mondays and Thursdays it is read only on the proper day`. Now if you assume that the regulation is for the benefit of the cities, because they do not come into town on Mondays and Thursdays; are the cities to be deprived of the benefit? Do not read [in the dictum of R. Hanina [PA1, PA3 or PA5]] `in order that they may furnish food and water`, but read, `because they furnish food and water to their brethren in the cities`. how [does this work out]? If it falls on Monday, villages and larger towns read on that same day etc. How is it that in the first clause of the Mishnah the dates of the month are mentioned and in the second the days of the week? Since (in the second clause] the dates of the month would have to go backwards, the Mishnah prefers to mention the days. If it falls on Friday etc. Which authority does our Mishnah follow? [You may say], either Rabbi [T5] or R. Jose [T4]. How Rabbi? As it has been taught: `If it falls on Friday, villages and large towns push the reading forward to the Court day, and walled cities react on the day itself. Rabbi [T5] said: I maintain that towns should not have to shift their date, but both one and the other read on the day itself`. What is the reason of the First Tanna? Because it is written, every year: just as every year towns read before cities, so in this case towns should read before cities. But why not argue thus: `Every year`: just as every year towns have not to shift their date, so here towns should not have to shift their date? There is a special reason [for not reasoning thus here] since this is impracticable. What is Rabbi`s reason? [It is written], `every year`: just as in most years the towns have not to shift their date, so here they should not have to shift their date. But why not reason thus: `every year`: just as in most years towns read before walled cities, so here towns should read before walled cities? There is a special reason [for not arguing thus here], because this is impracticable.
How R. Jose [T4]? As it has been taught: `If it falls on Friday, walled cities and villages push the reading forward to the Court day, and large towns read on the day itself. R. Jose [T4] said: Walled cities do not read before towns, but both read on the day itself`. What is the reason of the First Tanna? Because it is written, every year`: just as in most years towns react on the fourteenth and their time is not the same as the time of the walled cities, so here towns should read on the fourteenth and their time should not be the same as the time of the walled cities. But why not reason thus: `Every year`: just as in most years walled cities do not read before towns, so here walled cities should not read before towns? Here the case is different, because it cannot be avoided. What is R. Jose`s [T4] reason? [It says], `every year`: just as in most years walled cities do not read before towns, so here walled cities should not read before towns. But why not reason thus: `Every year`: just as in most years the time of one is not the same as the time of the other, so here the time of one should not be the same as the time of the other? Here the case is different, because it cannot be avoided.
But did Rabbi [T5] really hold that towns should not shift their time to the Court day? Has it not been taught: `If it falls on Sabbath, villages push the reading forward to the Court day, and large towns read on Friday and walled cities on Sunday. Rabbi [T5] said: My view is that, since the towns have to shift their time, they may as well shift it to the Court day`? Are the two cases parallel? In this last case, the proper time is Sabbath, and since they must shift they can shift [further]; but in our case the proper time is Friday. Whose authority is followed in this dictum enunciated by R. Helbo in the name of R. Huna [BA2 or PA4]: `If Purim falls on Sabbath, all shift the reading to the Court day`? `All shift their reading`, do you say? [How can this be] seeing that we have the walled cities which read on the Sunday? What we should say is, `All who are shifted are shifted to the Court day`.Which authority, [you ask]? Rabbi.
But at any rate all agree that the Megillah is not to be read on Sabbath. What is the reason? Rabbah [BA3] replied: All are under obligation to read the Megillah, but not all are competent to read it, and there is therefore a danger that one may take the scroll in his hand and go to an expert to be instructed and [in doing so] convey it four cubits in a public domain. This is also the reason for [not blowing] the shofar on Sabbath and [for not carrying] the lulab. R. Joseph [BA3] said: It is because the poor are anxiously awaiting the reading of the Megillah. It has been taught to the same effect: `Although it has been laid down that villages push the reading forward to the Court day, contributions are collected and distributed on the same day`. `Although it has been laid down`! On the contrary, it is because it has been laid down! Read therefore: Since it has been laid down that villages push the reading forward to the Court day, contributions are collected and distributed on the same day, because the poor are waiting anxiously for the reading of the Megillah, but b.Meg.5a rejoicing is kept only at the proper season.
Rab [BA1] said: On the actual day of Purim the Megillah can be read even by an individual, but on the alternative days it should be read only in a company of ten. R. Assi [BA1 or PA3], however, said: Whether on the actual day or on the alternative days, it should be read only in a company of ten. In a case which actually occurred, Rab [BA1] gave weight to the opinion of R. Assi [BA1 or PA3]. But could Rab [BA1] actually have said this? Did not Rab Judah [BA2] the son of R. Samuel b. Shilath say in the name of Rab: `If Purim falls on Sabbath, Friday is the proper time`? Friday the proper time! Surely Sabbath is the proper time! What Rab [BA1] must have meant therefore is this: The alternative time is like the proper time. Just as at the proper time [the Megillah may be read] by an individual, so at the alternative time [it may be read] by an individual. No. For the reading of the Megillah Rab [BA1] requires ten. What then did he mean by saying `Friday is the proper time`? His intention was to reject the opinion of Rabbi, who said that since the towns had to shift their time they might as well shift to the Court day. Here, therefore, Rab [BA1] informs us that Friday is the proper day [to which they should shift].