Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Rav, one may read the Megilah on one's own - on the fourteenth; but one require a Minyan - when it is read in advance.

(b) Rav Asi says that the Megilah should always be read with a Minyan, if possible.

(c) Once, when Rav had no Minyan on the fourteenth - he went to great lengths to read it with a Minyan, because he took the opinion of Rav Asi into consideration.

(a) Rav is quoted as saying that, when Purim falls on Shabbos, its time is on Friday. But that is strange - because if Purim falls on Shabbos, then its time is Shabbos and not Friday!

(b) We therefore try to amend the statement - by saying 'she'Lo bi'Z'manam ki'Z'manam', meaning that no Minyan is required when the Megilah is read outside its time, just like it is not required when it is read in its time on the fourteenth (contradicting what he said above, that outside its time, reading the Megilah requires a Minyan).

(c) We finally explain Rav's latter statement to mean that when Purim falls on Shabbos, the time to read it is on *Friday* (to preclude the opinion of Rebbi, in whose opinion it is read on *Thursday*).

(a) We bring Purim forward (rather than postpone it) when it falls on Shabbos - because of the Pasuk in Esther "ve'Lo Ya'avor", as we have already learned earlier.

(b) Rebbi Aba Amar Shmuel (who gave the previous explanation) learns from the Pasuk in Bo "le'Chodshei ha'Shanah" - that we reckon *months* of a year, and not *days*. If someone makes a Neder, for example, not to drink wine for a year, he is forbidden to drink wine for twelve months (from the first of Nisan, assuming that that is when he made the Neder, until the first of Nisan), to the exclusion of the remaining eleven days, which make up the 365 days of the sun-year.

(c) And the Rabbanan of Caesaria quoting Rebbi Aba learn from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha "Ad Chodesh Yamim" - that we reckon *days* of the month, and not *hours*. If for example, a man gives his wife a Get provided she fails to arrive by the end of the month, then, assuming that that month is a short one, the end of the month is determined by the arrival of Rosh Chodesh (to the exclusion of the extra twelve hours and 793 Chalakim, when the new moon is due to born).

(a) When Tish'ah be'Av, Chagigah or Hakheil fall due on Shabbos, they are postponed. We postpone (rather than advance) ...

... Tish'ah be'Av - because one does not advance a punishment. ... Chagigah and Hakheil - because they are premature (and the same applies to the Z'man Atzei Kohanim - see Tosfos Yom-Tov).

(b) We learned in a Beraisa that one postpones, not only the Chagigah, but also 'the time of Chagigah'. Rav Oshaya explains that this refers to the Olas Re'iyah (which is brought at the same time as the Chagigah), in which case, the Tana means to say - that one postpones the Olas Re'iyah from Yom-Tov to Chol ha'Mo'ed, as well as the Chagigah from Shabbos to Sunday. This is like Beis Shamai, because, according to Beis Hillel, the Olas Re'iyah is brought on Yom-Tov.

(c) Rava learns that the Tana is coming to restrict the time of the Chagigah; Rav Ashi, that he is coming to extend it.

1. According to Rava - the Tana is saying that the concession of bringing the Chagigah after the first day of Yom-Tov, only applies up to the end of Yom- Tov (as long as it is a Chag), but no longer.
2. According to Rav Ashi - he is saying that the seven days extension that one has in which to bring the Chagigah applies even on Shavu'os (even though one is bringing it on a day which is not a Chag).

(a) Beis Hillel agree with Beis Shamai that if Shavu'os falls on Shabbos, then Yom Tavo'ach takes place on Sunday. Yom Tavo'ach - refers to the days on which can brings the Chagigah that one did not bring on Yom-Tov.

(b) Beis Hillel argue with Beis Shamai - by Shavu'os that falls on Friday. Beis Shamai holds that, since one cannot bring the Chagigah on Yom-Tov, the Yom Tavo'ach falls after Shabbos; whereas in the opinion of Beis Hillel, no Yom Tavo'ach is necessary there, since, in their opinion, the Chagigah is brought on Yom-Tov.

6)

(a) Rebbi Chanina testified that Rebbi 'did' three controversial things with which the Rabbanan disagreed: he testified that he did *something* on Purim, that he bathed on Shiv'ah-Asar be'Tamuz in the market-place of Tzipori at the time when the wagons drove past, and that he wanted to rescind Tish'ah be'Av. He testified that he planted a sapling on Purim.

(b) When Rebbi Aba bar Zavda amended the third testimony, Rebbi Chanina quoted the Pasuk in Koheles "Tovim Sh'nayim min ha'Echad"). According to Rebbi Aba bar Zavda's amendment - Rebbi wanted to cancel Purim when it had been postponed from Shabbos till Sunday.

(a) The Tana of Rav Yosef's Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Simchah" - that it is forbidden to make a Hesped on Purim.
2. ... "u'Mishteh - that it is forbidden to fast.
3. ... "ve'Yom-Tov" - that it is also forbidden to work.

(b) We try to answer the Kashya that the latter Derashah presents on Rebbi (who planted a sapling on Purim), by explaining that Rebbi planted the sapling on the fifteenth, and that Rebbi was a townsman. This explanation is incorrect however - because Rebbi lived in Teverya, which had a wall around it from the days of Yehoshua.

(c) So we switch round the facts. In fact, Rebbi's time was the fifteenth, and he planted the sapling on the fourteenth. We resolve this with Chizkiyah (who also lived in Teverya and), who had a Safek whether Teverya was a Mukaf or not - by saying that even if Chizkiyah had a Safek, Rebbi did not (according to him, Teverya was definitely surrounded by a wall in the time of Yehoshua bin Nun).

(d) Chizkiyah used to read the Megilah - both on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth.

(a) We reconcile Rebbi with Rava's interpretation of what is written in Megilas Ta'anis (that it is forbidden to make a Hesped or to fast on both the fourteenth and the fifteenth) - by restricting Rava's Din to Hesped and Ta'anis, but not to work.

(b) Rav cursed that man whom he found sowing flax-seeds on Purim - because he did that on the actual day of Purim.

(c) This entire Sugya to date is based on the Pasuk in Esther "Simchah u'Mishteh ve'Yom-Tov". The Gemara's conclusion with regard to this Pasuk is - that in fact, the aspect of Yom-Tov did not remain permanently. The people did not accept it, so it was dropped. This also explains why in a second Pasuk in Megilah, 'Mishteh ve'Simchah' are mentioned, but 'Yom-Tov' is not.

(a) The reason that Rav cursed that man whom he found sowing flax-seeds on Purim is - because he had contravened the local custom.

(b) Perhaps in Teverya (Rebbi's town) there was no such custom. We could explain the fact that Rebbi planted saplings on Purim even if there *was* - because they were saplings of Simchah (a large tree under which kings used to relax), which are permitted (there were the prohibition is based on no more than a Minhag).

(c) We learn this from the Mishnah in Ta'anis, which states that if the thirteen fasts past and still no rain came, one tended to diminish, among other things, a tree of Simchah and a Binyan shel Simchah. A Binyan shel Simchah is a house that a person would build for his first son when he got married, and where the Chupah would took place.

(a) Hatzidim, Tzeir, Chamas, Rakas and Kineres - were all fortified cities which belonged to Naftali.

(b) Rakas is better known as Teverya. Its unusual feature - is the fact that its wall on one side consists of the sea.

(c) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Asher Lo Chomah" - that with regard to the Din of Batei Arei Chomah, the town has to be surrounded by four walls that were built as walls, and not walls that are formed by houses.
2. ... "Saviv" - that it must be surrounded by four walls, and not by the sea (like Teverya).

(d) Nevertheless, Chizkiyah contends with the possibility that Teverya might be a Mukaf - because the Din of Mukaf on Purim might differ from that of Batei Arei Chomah, because, whereas by Batei Arei Chomah, the Torah speaks of a *wall*, by Megilah, the Pasuk talks about *P'razim* and *Mukafin*, and Chizkiyah is not sure whether the criterion there is that the wall should render the town invisible from the outside (a service which the sea does not perform), or whether it must be protected (which it is). Note: Rebbi, who considers Teverya to be a Mukaf (as we learned earlier), clearly accepts the second interpretation.

(a) Hutzal belonged to the tribe of Binyamin.

(b) According to the first Lashon, Rav Asi was not sure whether Hutzal was surrounded by a wall from the time of Yehoshua bin Nun or not; whereas according to the second - he holds that it definitely was.