וּמוֹקִים לָהּ לְבָרַיְיתָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה.

and he establishes the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, rather than Rabbi Yehuda.

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה הוֹאִיל וּמִסְתַּכְּלִין בָּהּ אֵין קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ אֶלָּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ? וּרְמִינְהִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֵימָתַי – מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּכְנָסִין בַּשֵּׁנִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי, אֲבָל מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין נִכְנָסִין בַּשֵּׁנִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי – אֵין קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ אֶלָּא בִּזְמַנָּהּ.

The Gemara explains the apparent contradiction: And did Rabbi Yehuda actually say that nowadays, since people look to the reading of the Megilla and use it to calculate when Passover begins, one may read the Megilla only in its designated time? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (5a): Rabbi Yehuda said: When is one permitted to read the Megilla from the eleventh of Adar? In a place where the villagers generally enter town on Monday and Thursday. However, in a place where they do not generally enter town on Monday and Thursday, one may read the Megilla only in its designated time, the fourteenth of Adar.

מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּכְנָסִין בַּשֵּׁנִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי מִיהָא קָרֵינַן, וַאֲפִילּוּ בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה! וּמוֹקִים לָהּ לְבָרַיְיתָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה.

The mishna indicates that, at least in a place where the villagers enter town on Monday and Thursday, one may read the Megilla from the eleventh of Adar even nowadays. And due to this contradiction, Rav Ashi establishes the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda.

וּמִשּׁוּם דְּקַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מוֹקִים לָהּ לְבָרַיְיתָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה?!

The Gemara expresses surprise: Because Rav Ashi poses a difficulty due to the apparent contradiction between the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the baraita and the opinion cited in a mishna in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, he establishes the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda? How could he have emended the text just because he had a difficulty that he did not know how to resolve?

רַב אַשִׁי שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ דְּאִיכָּא דְּתָנֵי לָהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְאִיכָּא דְּתָנֵי לָהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה, וּמִדְּקַשְׁיָא לֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֲמַר: מַאן דְּתָנֵי לָהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – לָאו דַּוְוקָא, מַאן דְּתָנֵי לָהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה – דַּוְוקָא.

The Gemara explains: Rav Ashi heard that there were those who taught the baraita in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, and there were those who taught it in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda. And since he had a difficulty with the apparent contradiction between one ruling of Rabbi Yehuda and another ruling of Rabbi Yehuda, he said: The one who taught it in the name of Rabbi Yehuda is not precise, whereas the one who taught it in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda is precise, and in this way he eliminated the contradiction.

״כְּרַכִּים הַמּוּקָּפִים חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן קוֹרִין בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר״ וכו׳. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רָבָא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״עַל כֵּן הַיְּהוּדִים הַפְּרָזִים הַיוֹשְׁבִים בְּעָרֵי הַפְּרָזוֹת״ וגו׳ מִדִּפְרָזִים בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר – מוּקָפִין בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר.

§ We learned in the mishna: Cities that have been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, read the Megilla on the fifteenth of Adar. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, as they are not stated explicitly in the Megilla? Rava said: It is as the verse states: “Therefore the Jews of the villages, who dwell in the unwalled towns, make the fourteenth day of the month of Adar a day of gladness and feasting” (Esther 9:19). From the fact that the unwalled towns celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, it may be derived that the walled cities celebrate Purim on the fifteenth.

וְאֵימָא: פְּרָזִים בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר – מוּקָפִין כְּלָל כְּלָל לָא! וְלָאו יִשְׂרָאֵל נִינְהוּ? וְעוֹד, ״מֵהוֹדוּ וְעַד כּוּשׁ״ כְּתִיב.

The Gemara challenges this answer: Say that the unwalled towns celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, as indicated in the verse, and the walled cities do not celebrate it at all. The Gemara expresses astonishment: And are they not Jews? And furthermore: It is written that the kingdom of Ahasuerus was “from Hodu until Cush” (Esther 1:1), and the celebration of Purim was accepted in all of the countries of his kingdom (Esther 9:20–23).

וְאֵימָא: פְּרָזִים בְּאַרְבֵּיסָר, מוּקָפִין בְּאַרְבֵּיסָר וּבַחֲמֵיסָר, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״לִהְיוֹת עוֹשִׂים אֵת יוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לְחֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר וְאֵת יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר [בּוֹ] בְּכָל שָׁנָה״!

Rather, the following challenge may be raised: Say that the unwalled towns celebrate Purim on the fourteenth and the walled cities celebrate it on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth, as it is written: “That they should keep the fourteenth day of the month of Adar and the fifteenth day of the same, in every year” (Esther 9:21). This verse can be understood to mean that there are places where Purim is celebrated on both days.

אִי הֲוָה כָּתַב: ״אֵת יוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר וַחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר״ – כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, הָשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב: אֵת יוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר וְאֵת יוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר – אָתָא ״אֵת״ וּפָסֵיק: הָנֵי בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, וְהָנֵי בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר.

The Gemara rejects this argument: If it had been written in the verse: The fourteenth day and [ ve ] the fifteenth, it would be as you originally said. However, now that it is written: The fourteenth day and [ ve’et ] the fifteenth day, the particle et used here to denote the accusative comes and interrupts, indicating that the two days are distinct. Therefore, residents of these locations celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, and residents of those locations celebrate it on the fifteenth.

וְאֵימָא: פְּרָזִים בְּאַרְבֵּיסָר, מוּקָפִין – אִי בָּעוּ בְּאַרְבֵּיסָר, אִי בָּעוּ בַּחֲמֵיסָר! אָמַר קְרָא: ״בִּזְמַנֵּיהֶם״ – זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה לֹא זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה.

The Gemara suggests: Say that residents of unwalled towns celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, as stated in the verse, and with regard to residents of walled cities, if they wish they may celebrate it on the fourteenth, and if they wish they may celebrate it on the fifteenth. The Gemara responds: The verse states: “In their times” (Esther 9:31), indicating that the time when the residents of this place celebrate Purim is not the time when the residents of that place celebrate Purim.

וְאֵימָא בִּתְלֵיסָר! כְּשׁוּשָׁן.

The Gemara raises another challenge: Say that the walled cities should celebrate Purim on the thirteenth of Adar and not on the fifteenth. The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the residents of walled cities, who do not celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, celebrate it as it is celebrated in Shushan, and it is explicitly stated that Purim was celebrated in Shushan on the fifteenth.

אַשְׁכַּחַן עֲשִׂיָּיה, זְכִירָה מְנָלַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהַיָּמִים הָאֵלֶּה נִזְכָּרִים וְנַעֲשִׂים״, אִיתְקַשׁ זְכִירָה לַעֲשִׂיָּיה.

The Gemara comments: We found a source for observing the holiday of Purim on the fourteenth of Adar in unwalled towns and on the fifteenth of Adar in walled cities; from where do we derive that remembering the story of Purim through the reading of the Megilla takes place on these days? The Gemara explains that the verse states: “That these days should be remembered and observed” (Esther 9:28), from which it is derived that remembering is compared to observing.

מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה אוֹמֵר: כְּרַכִּין הַמּוּקָּפִין חוֹמָה מִימוֹת אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ קוֹרִין בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר.

§ The Gemara notes that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna , as it is taught in the Tosefta (1:1) that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: Cities that have been surrounded by a wall since the days of Ahasuerus read the Megilla on the fifteenth. According to the Tosefta , the status of walled cities is determined based upon whether they were walled in the time of Ahasuerus rather than the time of Joshua.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה? כִּי שׁוּשָׁן, מַה שּׁוּשָׁן מוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ וְקוֹרִין בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר – אַף כָּל שֶׁמּוּקֶפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ קוֹרִין בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa? The Gemara explains that the Megilla is read on the fifteenth in cities that are like Shushan: Just as Shushan is a city that was surrounded by a wall since the days of Ahasuerus, and one reads the Megilla there on the fifteenth, so too every city that was walled since the days of Ahasuerus reads the Megilla on the fifteenth.

וְתַנָּא דִּידַן מַאי טַעְמָא? יָלֵיף ״פְּרָזִי״ ״פְּרָזִי״, כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״עַל כֵּן הַיְּהוּדִים הַפְּרָזִים״ וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״לְבַד מֵעָרֵי הַפְּרָזִי הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד״ מַה לְּהַלָּן מוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן – אַף כָּאן מוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the tanna of our mishna? The Gemara explains: It is derived through a verbal analogy between one instance of the word unwalled and another instance of the word unwalled. It is written here: “Therefore the Jews of the villages, who dwell in the unwalled towns” (Esther 9:19), and it is written there, in Moses’ statement to Joshua before the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael: “All these cities were fortified with high walls, gates and bars; besides unwalled towns, a great many” (Deuteronomy 3:5). Just as there, in Deuteronomy, the reference is to a city that was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun, so too here it is referring to a city that was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun.

בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה לֹא אָמַר כְּתַנָּא דִּידַן – דְּלֵית לֵיהּ ״פְּרָזִי״ ״פְּרָזִי״ אֶלָּא תַּנָּא דִּידַן מַאי טַעְמָא לֹא אָמַר כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה?

The Gemara continues: Granted that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa did not state his explanation in accordance with the opinion of the tanna of our mishna because he did not hold that a verbal analogy can be established between one verse that employs the word unwalled and the other verse that employs the word unwalled. However, what is the reason that the tanna of our mishna did not state his explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa?

מַאי טַעְמָא?! דְּהָא אִית לֵיהּ ״פְּרָזִי״ ״פְּרָזִי״, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֶלָּא שׁוּשָׁן דְּעָבְדָא כְּמַאן, לֹא כִּפְרָזִים וְלֹא כְּמוּקָּפִין!

The Gemara expresses astonishment: What is the reason? Isn’t it because he holds that it is derived from the verbal analogy between one usage of the word unwalled and the other usage of the word unwalled? The Gemara explains: This is what he said, i.e., this was the question: According to the tanna of our mishna, in accordance with whom does Shushan observe Purim? Shushan is not like the unwalled towns and not like the walled cities, as residents of Shushan celebrate Purim on the fifteenth, but the city was not surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua.

אָמַר רָבָא וְאָמְרִי לָהּ כְּדִי: שָׁאנֵי שׁוּשָׁן הוֹאִיל וְנַעֲשָׂה בָּהּ נֵס.

Rava said, and some say it unattributed to any particular Sage: Shushan is different since the miracle occurred in it on the fifteenth of Adar, and therefore Purim is celebrated on that day. However, other cities are only considered walled cities and read the Megilla on the fifteenth of Adar if they were walled since the days of Joshua.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְתַנָּא דִּידַן – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה וְעִיר וָעִיר״, ״מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה״ – לְחַלֵּק בֵּין מוּקָפִין חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן לְמוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the tanna of our mishna, this is the meaning of what is written: “And these days should be remembered and observed throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city” (Esther 9:28). The phrase “every province [ medina ]” is expressed in the verse using repetition, so that it reads literally: Every province and province, and therefore contains a superfluous usage of the word province, is meant to distinguish between cities that were surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, where the Megilla is read on the fifteenth, and a city that was surrounded by a wall since the days of Ahasuerus, where the Megilla is read on the fourteenth.

״עִיר וָעִיר״ נַמִי – לְחַלֵּק בֵּין שׁוּשָׁן לִשְׁאָר עֲיָירוֹת. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה, בִּשְׁלָמָא ״מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה״ – לְחַלֵּק בֵּין שׁוּשָׁן לִשְׁאָר עֲיָירוֹת, אֶלָּא ״עִיר וָעִיר״ לְמַאי אָתָא?

The phrase “every city,” which is similarly expressed through repetition and contains a superfluous usage of the word city, also serves to distinguish between Shushan and other cities, as Purim is celebrated in Shushan on the fifteenth despite the fact that it was not walled since the time of Joshua. However, according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, granted that the phrase “every province” comes to distinguish between Shushan and other cities that were not walled since the days of Ahasuerus; but what does the phrase “every city” come to teach?

אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה: וּלְתַנָּא דִּידַן מִי נִיחָא? כֵּיוָן דְּאִית לֵיהּ פְּרָזִי פְּרָזִי ״מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה״ לָמָּה לִי? אֶלָּא, קְרָא לִדְרָשָׁה הוּא דַּאֲתָא, וְכִדְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כְּרַךְ וְכָל הַסָּמוּךְ לוֹ וְכָל הַנִּרְאֶה עִמּוֹ נִידּוֹן כִּכְרַךְ.

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa could have said to you: According to the tanna of our mishna, does it work out well? Since he holds that it is derived from the verbal analogy between one verse that employs the word unwalled and the other verse that employs the word unwalled, why do I need the phrase “every province”? Rather, the verse comes for a midrashic exposition, and it comes to indicate that the halakha is in accordance with the ruling issued by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A walled city, and all settlements adjacent to it, and all settlements that can be seen with it, i.e., that can be seen from the walled city, are considered like the walled city, and the Megilla is read there on the fifteenth.

עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה וְאִיתֵימָא רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: כְּמֵחַמְּתָן לְטִבֶּרְיָא, מִיל. וְלֵימָא מִיל! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן: דְּשִׁיעוּרָא דְּמִיל כַּמָּה הָוֵי – כְּמֵחַמְּתָן לְטִבֶּרְיָא.

The Gemara asks: Up to what distance is considered adjacent? Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said: The limit is like the distance from the town of Ḥamtan to Tiberias, a mil . The Gemara asks: Let him say simply that the limit is a mil ; why did he have to mention these places? The Gemara answers that the formulation of the answer teaches us this: How much distance comprises the measure of a mil ? It is like the distance from Ḥamtan to Tiberias.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה וְאִיתֵימָא רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: מנצפ״ך צוֹפִים אֲמָרוּם.

§ Having cited a statement of Rabbi Yirmeya, which some attribute to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, the Gemara cites other statements attributed to these Sages. Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said: The Seers, i.e., the prophets, were the ones who said that the letters mem , nun , tzadi , peh , and kaf [ mantzepakh ],

וְתִסְבְּרָא?! וְהָכְתִיב: ״אֵלֶּה הַמִּצְוֹת״ שֶׁאֵין נָבִיא רַשַּׁאי לְחַדֵּשׁ דָּבָר מֵעַתָּה! וְעוֹד, הָאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מֵ״ם וְסָמֶ״ךְ שֶׁבַּלּוּחוֹת

The Gemara asks: And how can you understand it that way? Isn’t it written: “These are the commandments that the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai” (Leviticus 27:34), which indicates that a prophet is not permitted to initiate or change any matter of halakha from now on? Consequently, how could the prophets establish new forms for the letters? And furthermore, didn’t Rav Ḥisda say: The letters mem and samekh in the tablets of the covenant given at Sinai