The Gemora mentioned earlier that Chizkiyah was uncertain if Teveria was surrounded by a wall in the times of Yehoshua or not and therefore he read the Megillah on the fourteenth and the fifteenth. The Gemora asks: It is written in Yehoshua [19:35] And the fortress cities are: Tzidim, Tzeir, Chamas, Rakas and Kineres. It has been established that Rakas is Teveria. Since Teveria (Rakas) is referred to as a fortress city, it obviously was surrounded by a wall; why was Chizkiyah uncertain? The Gemora answers: There was a body of water on one side of Teveria and he was unsure if this constitutes a wall.
The Gemora elaborates on why he was uncertain. What is the defining distinction between a walled city and an unwalled city? If the distinction is based on the fact that an unwalled city is exposed, Teveria is also exposed and the Megillah should be read on the fourteenth. If the distinction is based on the fact that an unwalled city is not defended, Teveria is defended (the body of water functioned as a defending barrier) and the Megillah should be read on the fifteenth. (5b)
The Gemora elaborates on why he was uncertain. What is the defining distinction between a walled city and an unwalled city? If the distinction is based on the fact that an unwalled city is exposed, Teveria is also exposed and the Megillah should be read on the fourteenth. If the distinction is based on the fact that an unwalled city is not defended, Teveria is defended (the body of water functioned as a defending barrier) and the Megillah should be read on the fifteenth. (5b)
Rabbi Yochanan said that when he was a child, he said something and subsequently asked the elders and it was found that he was indeed correct. Rabbi Yochanan said: The city mentioned in the Torah called Chamas is in fact Teveria. It is called Chamas because of the hot springs that are located in Teveria. The city mentioned in the Torah called Rakas is in fact Tzipori. It is called Rakas because it is situated on the top of a mountain, as the banks of a river are more elevated than the river. The city mentioned in the Torah called Kineres is in fact Genosar. It is called Kineres because the fruit of this city are as sweet as the sound of a harp.
Rava asks: Can anyone state that Rakas is not Teveria? It is well known that if a great man dies here in Bavel, they eulogize him in Teveria as follows: The man was great in Sheshach (Bavel, based on At-Bash) and his name has reached Rakas. Evidently, Rakas is Teveria.
Rava learns differently. Chamas is Chamei-Grar, Rakas is Teveria and Kineres is Genosar. Teveria is referred to as Rakas because even the sinners that reside there are full of religious merits just as a pomegranate is full of seeds.
Rabbi Yirmiyah states that its actual name is Rakas. It is referred to as Teveria because it is located in the center (navel) of Eretz Yisroel. Rabbah states that its actual name is Rakas. It is referred to as Teveria because of its nice appearance.
Zeira said that Kitron is Tzipori. It is referred to as Tzipori because it is located on the top of a mountain like a bird. The Gemora asks: Is Kitron Tzipori? This cannot be because Kitron was part of the land appropriated to the tribe of Zevulun and Zevulun complained about his portion of land.
The Gemora interrupts the proof and elaborates on Zevulun’s complaint. Zevulun said before Hashem: You gave to me mountains and hills while You gave to my brothers fields and vineyards. You gave to me lakes and rivers while You gave to my brothers land. Hashem responded: All your brothers will need to rely on you for the chilazon (a creature that comes up from the water and the blue dye for tzitzis is created from its blood). Zevulun asked Hashem: Who will notify me if anyone attempts to steal the chilazon from me? Hashem answered him that the dye produced from a stolen chilazon will be ruined.
The Gemora returns to its proof that Kitron is not Tzipori. The Gemora says: If Kitron would be Tzipori, Zevulun would have no reason to complain. Tzipori is certainly a better quality land than most others. Perhaps you will say that Tzipori is not a land that flows with milk and honey; this is false. Rish Lakish stated that he saw the milk and honey of Tzipori and it measured sixteen mil squared. Perhaps you will say that the milk and honey found in Tzipori pales in comparison with the rest of Eretz Yisroel; this is also false. Rabbi Yochanan stated that he saw the milk and honey that came from the entire Eretz Yisroel and it measured twenty-two parsah long and six parsah wide. This shows that Tzipori comprised a major part of the entire land that flowed with milk and honey.
The Gemora concludes that Kitori is in fact Tzipori and nevertheless, Zevulun complained because he favored fields and vineyards and there were none in his portion. (5b – 6a)
Rabbi Avahu says: The verse in Tzephaniah [2:4] states: Ekron shall be uprooted. This is understood to be the referring to the city of Caesaria, a city in Edom. Caesaria was a regular source of aggravation towards the Jewish people until the Chashmanoim came and defeated it.
Rabbi Yitzchak expounds on a different verse in Tzephaniah that teaches us regarding Yerushalayim and Caesaria. If someone tells you that both are destroyed, or both are settled, do not believe him. That Caesaria is destroyed and Yerushalayim is settled, or Yerushalayim is destroyed and Caesaria is settled, believe him. (Rabbi Winston says: From this statement, it seems that the two cities, Caesaria belonging to the Romans, and Yerushalayim belonging to the Jewish people, are polar extremes, radically different. Apparently, the world as it was created does not support the coexistence of such two contrary realities.) (6a)
The Gemora cites other teachings from Rabbi Yitzchak. Rabbi Yitzchak explained the verse in Tehillim [140:9]: Grant not, Hashem, the desires of the wicked one, do not remove his nose-ring that they should be exalted, selah. Yaakov Avinu said before Hashem: do not grant Esav the wicked the longing of his heart and do not allow Germamia of Edom to go forth for if they would go out, they would destroy the entire world.
Rabbi Yitzchak said: If someone tells you, "I labored (studying Torah) but I did not succeed," don't believe him. If he tells you "I haven't labored, yet I did succeed," don't believe him. If, however, he tells you "I have labored and did succeed," you may believe him. The Gemora qualifies this teaching to be referring only to the study of Torah, but regarding business; his fortune depends on Hashem’s assistance. The Gemora qualifies further: If a person labors to understand Torah, he will succeed but regarding retaining that which he learned; that would require Hashem’s assistance. (6a - 6b)
Rabbi Yitzchak said: If you have seen a wicked man who enjoys good fortune, do not provoke him – and furthermore, his ways will be successful. Not only this, but he will always win in a lawsuit. Furthermore, he will see vengeance on his enemies. The Gemora asks: Didn’t Rabbi Yochanan say in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai that one has permission to provoke the wicked in this world? The Gemora answers that Rabbi Yitzchak is referring to one’s own interests but regarding heavenly matters, one can defend the Torah and the mitzvos. Alternatively, we can answer that it depends if the person antagonizing the wicked is entirely righteous or not. A third explanation is offered that Rabbi Yitzchak is referring to a wicked person who is enjoying success but otherwise, one may contend with the wicked. (6b)
Ula said: Italia of Yavan is the great Roman city. It measured three hundred parsah squared three hundred and sixty-five market places. The smallest of the markets is for the chicken sellers, which measured sixteen mil squared. The king eats in one of them each and every day. Every person that was born there or presently resides there receives a stipend from the king’s palace. There were three thousand bathhouses in the city and five hundred windows positioned higher than the walls in order to prevent the smoke from blackening the walls (as a symbol of the city’s magnitude). One side faces the sea, one side faces mountains and hills, one side is an iron barrier, and one side is rocks and a swamp. (6b)
The Mishna states: If they read the Megillah in the first Adar and the year was intercalated, they are required to read the Megillah again in the second Adar. There is no difference between the first Adar and the second Adar except regarding the reading of the Megillah and the gifts to the poor.
The Gemora states that we can infer from our Mishna that there is no difference between the first Adar and the second Adar in respect to the four special portions of the Torah that must be read. They can be read in either month.
This is seemingly inconsistent with all three Tannaim recorded in the following braisa. The braisa states: If they read the Megillah in the first Adar and the year was intercalated, they are required to read the Megillah again in the second Adar because all the mitzvos that are obligatory in the second Adar apply also in the first Adar except for the reading of the Megillah. Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Yosi said: They are not required to read it in the second Adar because all the mitzvos that are obligatory in the second apply also in the first. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel in the name of Rabbi Yosi said: It must be read also in the second Adar because all the mitzvos that are obligatory in the second Adar apply also in the first Adar All three Tannaim agree that they are forbidden to eulogize or fast in the first Adar and the second Adar.
The Gemora asks: Isn’t Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel and the Tanna Kamma saying the same thing? Rav Papa answers: There is a dispute between them regarding the four special portions of the Torah. The Tanna Kamma maintains that it is preferable to read the four portions in the second Adar and if they are read in the first, it is nonetheless valid. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the four portions must be read in the second Adar.
The Gemora proves that our Mishna is not in accordance with any of the Tannaim mentioned in the braisa. The Tanna of our Mishna is not in accordance with the Tanna Kamma because of the gifts to the poor, which according to the Tanna Kamma may be given in the first Adar also. The Tanna of our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that we are not required to read the Megillah at all in the second Adar. The Tanna of our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel for he holds that the four portions must be read in the second Adar.
The Gemora answers that the Tanna of our Mishna is the Tanna Kamma in the braisa and when the braisa states that the Megillah must be read in the second Adar; the gifts to the poor are included in this ruling.
Alternatively, we can say that the Tanna of our Mishna is Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, but the Mishna does not discuss the laws regarding the special Torah readings and we can say that the mitzva of reading these portions only apply in the second Adar.
The Gemora cites the Scriptural sources for each of the Tannaim and discusses why each one does not agree with the other. (6b – 7a)
2 comments:
I was wondering why the Gemara grouped all the four parshiyos together in terms of being able to be read in either Adar. I can understand Shekalim (collecting machatzis hashekel) and Zachor (blotting out Amalek) seem to have specific ties to Adar and so would be appropriate in either month.
However HaChodesh is specifically connected to Nissan so it seems it should be read on the Shabbos closest to Nissan. In fact it is sometimes read on 1 Nissan and not in Adar at all if coincident with Shabbos. Similarly, Parah is related to purifying before Pesach and so would fit better in Adar Sheini. What is the gemara's basis for packaging them all together as one unit that can be read in either month?
Eric
INTERESTING POINT... i SAW ONE COMMENTATOR WRITE THAT EVEN THOUGH sHEKALIM, PARAH AND CHODESH ARE FOR THE MONTH OF NISSAN, IF THEY ARE READ IN THE FIRST aDAR, B'DIEVED IT IS OK
Post a Comment