In the case of the city of Jericho regarding the issue of encircled areas, and the branch
2001
I was recently asked by someone, considered wise, about the laws of Jericho regarding the issue of encirclements, and this is what I answered him.
According to the 33rd in his eyes, Rabbi … Shlomachon Yasga
One day, may the Lord forgive me for delaying my response to him. My hands are dirty in Shapir and I am not able to speak to the community of the Holy Sepulchre, and the doctors of the Jewish community sent me to the baths in Wiesbaden (as it is said, "It is good among doctors, etc."), and therefore I was afraid to approach the words of the Rabbi because I was afraid that I would be burned by his embers. And now that it has been good for me and I have washed my hands properly, I will come to the words to pepper them according to the way of the Torah, and to raise pearls in a straightforward explanation of the truth of the Torah (as is known, I have no way of prolonging those vain peppers as those sages do in their eyes).
And I am sending to His Eminence (in his eyes) a letter that I wrote in my childhood, which is incomplete, as the eyes of Mr. Tahzina are correct, I have already been satisfied with everything that His Eminence has brought up. And blessed are you that you have been blessed in my opinion.
Appreciate it for its value,
( – )
A.
As is known, the law of sending gifts on Purim differed between walled cities from the time of Joshua ben Nun to open cities. And so it was with Talia (about two and a half years old). I was satisfied with the law of the city of Jericho itself regarding the issue of sending gifts, as is known precisely from the time of Joshua ben Nun, unfortunately, it is no longer surrounded by walls.
And the main point for this investigation is what I learned from before I went to Beit El (when I was about a year and a month old) about a meal that was sent to one of the residents of the city of Jericho by one of the Israelites besieging it before the fall of the wall on the 15th of Adar.[1]
And in light of all of the above, the question that all the great rabbis settled on (while still in their mother's womb) will be clarified in practice. See, for example, the Rabbi's commentary on Sanhedrin 15 on the issue of 'How many Sinai bulls?' What is the ruling on sending food to the city of Jericho on the day the wall fell (if it is depicted as a feast on Purim). And a great Talmud that leads to action.
And here are three of my problems, among them a carpenter and a carpenter's son. And since I could not find anyone who would go up to my pain, I, Zeira (my great aleph) among my friends, arose to open for my uncle, and girded my loins like a man and went out to fight for the Torah, and as is customary in our places, even where there is no blasphemy, one does not show respect to the rabbi, and simply does.
on.
And here, in the law of Sifa Kameita, it seems to say in the 4th century, that it is clear that the city would be surrounded by a wall from the time of Joshua ben Nun, and Jericho was surrounded by a wall until Joshua, and from the time of Joshua it was not surrounded by a wall. And now the law depends on whether the moment the wall fell, which is, as is known, the time of Joshua, the wall remained standing or fell.
And this ruling depends on whether they were destroyed after the fall of the city or after the fall of the city, as the halachic authorities disagree (see B.A.M. and Ramban, Refa B. D.). If they were destroyed after the fall of the city, then the wall would have already fallen from the city, and Jericho would not have been surrounded by the city of Sheba. And if they were destroyed after the fall of the city, then the wall of Sheba would have existed until it fell.
Indeed, regarding the matter of Purim, some have ruled in the LXX, as in the rabbinical book of Deveter Teber Mena Azlinan, based on the well-known midrash of the halachah, which reads, "And he was driven to his house in mourning and with his head uncovered." In the latter, and as is known, there is no need to fear these opinions at all, and it is simple.
And since according to the law of Jericho it is surrounded by a wall, it must be satisfied that the Cheshiva was surrounded 'from the days of Joshua ben Nun'. According to the law, it was surrounded only for a moment like a mimaria, and therefore it is not appropriate to say that it was surrounded from the days of Joshua. And this matter is subject to the well-known doubt whether a moment has a duration, or perhaps a moment like a mimaria, which the great Acharonites disagree about (see 'The Development of Creation' by Rabbi Henri Bergson, ztllah"h, and on the other hand see Shay' Rabbi Albert ztzukl"h, and as I have extended in my writings and lessons Sheva"p, and Ech"m). And according to the halakhah, the halakhah is as apparent, and the halakhah is not as clear as the owner of 'the development' (see in the White Book of the Doctrine of Development, and Ech"m) the moment has a duration, and therefore the Cheshiva of Jericho is halakhically as not being surrounded without any doubt.
third.
So far we have dealt with the issue of the law of Jericho as a circumscribed area for the purpose of the Idna. As for the Sfiqa Tanina, it seems that there was no law of circumscribed areas before Joshua ben Nun, and if so, when did they need to be circumscribed?
And it seems from this that it is known that our ancestors kept the entire Torah (even the eruvim tevshilin), and if so, it is clear that the law of sending gifts has been practiced since time immemorial, and simply the law of circumcision would have been practiced. And not like those fools who touch the Torah of Moses, who believe that the laws of the Torah are renewed by the sages. It is not so, as they say, only reality can change, not the laws, and the entire Torah was given from Sinai, and with the knowledge of the Giver of the Torah, dust is thrown into their mouths.
If so, we see that the law of Jericho is also a law of being surrounded by a wall. In the second part of the Torah, we saw that it was surrounded by a wall at that time, and that the Torah will not be changed, and therefore it is clear that it was surrounded by a wall from that time on and from that time on.
It seems that if our ancestors did indeed keep the entire Torah, as well as the commandment to send gifts on Purim, then it appears that the model before the time of Joshua ben Nun was that the time of the city's encirclement should have been from the time of Joshua ben Nun, since no prophet is permitted to innovate anything from now on, and this Torah will not be replaced (see B. "The Embarrassment of the Teachers," Ch. 1, ibid.).
And since this seems to be the case in every normal city surrounded by a wall since the time of Joshua ben Nun, it was necessary to send provisions to its inhabitants on the fifteenth day even before the time of Joshua ben Nun, but with regard to Jericho, the abiyya arose and also stood, since it was not surrounded by a wall since the time of Joshua, and so on, according to Albert.
Indeed, according to the Torah, there is no choice, and according to the Rabbis, there is a choice, and as is known, the 11th chapter of the Torah is from Purim and the 12th chapter of the Torah. And since this is the case, even though Jericho is no longer surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, this does not clarify its status prior to that. If so, according to the methods of the Talmud, there is no choice. This is a state of doubt, so before the days of Joshua, there was a law of doubt. And the 11th chapter of the Torah is from Purim from the Torah (and its origin is pure in the Sages: Where is the Torah from? – 'From the tree that I commanded you').
The conclusion from all of the above is that in the time before Joshua ben Nun, we are obligated to act toward Jericho as if it were surrounded by a wall from the time of Joshua ben Nun.[2]
And from now on, our problem arises in the context of the question: Did the righteous Israel of his generations (and some seek it to criticize and some seek it to praise) fulfill the obligation to send gifts on Purim?
D.
The basis of the doubt is whether they were not surrounded by a wall after the time of Meikra or after the time of Teber Homta. If they were not surrounded by a wall after the time of Meikra, then Jericho was like the wall of Cheshiva, and as mentioned above, Jericho was surrounded by a wall before the time of Joshua, and therefore Purim was celebrated on the 15th of Adar. However, if they were not surrounded by a wall after the time of Joshua, then Jericho is not surrounded by a wall now since the time of Joshua ben Nun, and therefore Purim was celebrated on the 14th of Adar.
And even the Ethlon of Deborah from Makir was destroyed, and Jericho was like the siege of Hashiva, I will hang him according to the law of the Persian who sent him to the siege, whether he fulfilled his duty or not, because the Israelite who sent him was outside the wall, and he was judged as a fugitive.[3]
And regarding the Perez that he sent to the Mukaf, the Rabbi of Marganita Teva in the answers to the famous Gaon, his name is known in the verses, the author of the method is unknown, and the deceased is there (in the 10th year of the year):
In honor of the mighty genius, the light of Israel, the right pillar, the mighty hammer, who has not risen like him since the day God created the earth and the heavens and all that is between them, and from Moses until Moses (and until now) has not risen like him…[4]
From me a mosquito flies at the feet of Hadar Geno,
Hiel Beit Haly
Answer: And regarding what I was asked about the law of sending gifts from the inhabitants of Perezot to the inhabitants of walled cities from the time of Joshua son of Nun, it is not appropriate to send in this way at all. If it is sent on the 15th, then indeed the recipient has received it legally, but the sender did not leave the 14th, and vice versa if it is sent on the 14th.
And it seems that the mitzvah of sending gifts is a matter of judgment on the sender or the recipient. The law is that if the recipient receives a gift on Purim, then Shafir can send it to him on Tue, and Devachag receives it on Purim. However, if the mitzvah of sending gifts is a matter of judgment on the sender, then he must send it on the fourteenth day, and that is simple.
And truly, this should be linked to an investigation into the commandments of charity in general. Failure to give charity is because it is called a dhahi (the giver) or because it is called a dashabbi (a person who is considered as dead).
And in simple terms, this investigation into the controversy is a controversial one, which the Fathers of the World (B"B 10 a"a) Rabbi Akiva and Turnus Rufus the righteous bar Pelugatiya disagreed about. Thus, in the G-d, Turnus Rufus asked the Rabbi, "If your God loves the poor, why does He not provide for them?" The Rabbi answered him that the Torah and the commandments were not given except to unite people with them. That is, Turnus Rufus said that charity is for the recipient, and the Rabbi went on to say that charity is for the giver. And the Rabbi said that he should teach charity to his friend, and to his hater. And so the teaching of the mitzvah is based on the roots of the mitzvah, as in the following verse.
And in my humble opinion, it seems that the level of the deprezi who sends to the muqef on the fifteenth day does not come out on the fourteenth day, and must send on the fourteenth day. And whoever disagrees with me is disagreeing with the Shekhina and as if he raised his hand against the Torah of Moses our Lord.
Place of signature: ( – )
And these words are beautiful and worthy of being said, as it is known that the entire House of Israel was careful to court a well-dressed poor man for Purim, and the Rabbis of Shikoyim understood the verse: "It is not so, for the poor man will not cease from among the land." And the law states that a deparzi who sent to a muqaf will only be exempt from the tax if he sent to him on the fourteenth day, and therefore the aforementioned Israelite who sent on the fifteenth day did not become exempt from the tax.
the.
After writing all this, I found in the words of our rabbis (Yerushalmi Zebachim 5:1):
He said, "Jericho is a walled city, and he said, "Jericho is a walled city." And
And it seems that their method is different from what we discussed above. Therefore, it is reasonable for the Sages that before the days of Joshua, the law of walled areas from the days of Joshua existed in the opposite direction of time, that is, from the days of Joshua and back. And according to the 7th century, there is certainly a law of walled areas from the days of Joshua, and it is not sufficient as we said above.
And this method must be made difficult by a huge difficulty. It is known that surrounded cities were surrounded and finally sacked (as in the case of walled cities). And in the 7th century, Jericho was certainly first sacked and then surrounded, because if it is true that cities were first surrounded and then settled by people, then looking back in time, it becomes clear that before the days of Joshua ben Nun, all cities were sacked and then sacked. And this is a huge difficulty, and I have not found anyone who has written about this.
Although our statement above (that our ancestors kept the entire Torah, and no prophet is permitted to innovate anything from now on, etc.) seems clear even before the days of Joshua ben Nun, in that they were encompassed from the days of Joshua ben Nun onwards and only later were they breathed, and this is perfectly acceptable, and the prolongation in this is only permissible. And blessed is He who chose them and their Mishnah.
and.
And here is the case of the Drunia Akpiya Rabbah in the 2nd chapter of the book of the Law, which states that if a person stands and fences the fourth, he is obligated to pay the enclosing party his share on all sides.
And in the seventh century, we must discuss a city that was surrounded by a wall from the time of Joshua ben Nun from three directions, and within it sat (and was eventually surrounded) a city that fenced off the fourth after seven years of conquest and seven years of division. From the conclusion of the question of Drunia and Rabina, it means that since the fence was revealed retrospectively, it was given to the first three, and therefore it is considered to have been surrounded by a wall from the time of Joshua ben Nun.[5]
Although it is necessary to discuss the times before the days of Joshua, whether all "retroactively" is according to the timeline after the days of Joshua or according to the timeline before it.
And for the substance of the problem, it seems that a soul will become worse when the one who is surrounded sends a paroz on the fifteenth day, and as we concluded above, the paroz will destroy three of his walls, and he will destroy the fourth and reveal his broad mind, which is acceptable to him, in what the paroz (the one who is surrounded) did, and Shafir will also become a paroz. And with this we have gone beyond all reasonableness. And we should not prolong it for granted.
And it seems that if our words are true, the NEPH will come from new good things. For example, what is mentioned before the days of Joshua is that a person must repent before committing a sin, and not after it as in the past, in order to be atoned for. And in this, the word "Amai" precedes repentance for the world 37 generations (in the Hebrew "Habel"). Indeed, repentance in the 23rd century is mentioned only for the time before it was committed and not for the time after it, and simply.
It is also necessary to discuss the prohibition against forgetting the Torah, whether it is before or after study. Likewise, regarding the ancient custom of repeating the material studied, whether it should be done before or after study.[6]
And in fact, this should also settle the well-known investigation of the Achronot concerning the greater and lesser between two Passovers, whether it is obligatory to bring a second Passover or not. The commentators have always been tired of finding a way out and an explanation for these obscure matters. And in our words, here it is settled as a kind of material, as it were before the days of Joshua, and the Doctrine.
In the margins, and so as not to leave the issue incomplete, I thought it would be good to mention again my instruction from years past, that whoever believes that the reduction is not as simple as it is, should not be included in the summons on Purim. Although, since there is no one in our generation who knows how to prove it (even Daki'l Yiftach in his generation, like Euclid in his time), it should not be relegated to the abyss (it is not as simple as it is), it is definitely advisable to reduce it there.
And if you want, this is not incitement!!
"The strong will fill our jars, the brave will fulfill our request, and he will send us all the country's clay." Achir.
[1] And as is known, Israel's way from time immemorial, and to this very day, is to send gifts to their enemies, especially in Jericho and Gaza. And it is known that the more they kill, the more their gifts increase, for the sake of many generations, joy, peace, love, brotherhood, peace processes, Nobel Prizes, and fellowship (spirit).
And as is known, some of the gifts are weapons, and it must be judged according to the law of tearing off a veil and getting rid of it, etc.
[2] It is true that some have expressed doubt that the wall would be destroyed in the days of Joshua, and doubt whether the law was in accordance with the Law of Moses. And it must be rejected in two ways:
- When one doubts reality and one is a sfiqa dadina, the sya' reka dain din ss.
- As is known, the Rabbis have made it difficult for those surrounded by doubt to read the Megillah on both days, and it is not a rabbinical requirement to recite the Kula. And according to the rabbinical decree, we should not read it at all, that is, if it is surrounded by doubt, we read it on the fifteenth day, and if it is not surrounded by doubt, we read it on the fourteenth day. And the Rabbis have added that if the rabbinical decree is completely abrogated, we will not say that the rabbinical requirement to recite the Kula. And according to the rabbinical decree, the above-mentioned question is settled, as in the case of Jericho, if there is indeed doubt whether its walls will be destroyed, we should be lenient and not read it on any day, and in any case we will not say that there is doubt about the Kula. And there is a peppercorn, and so on.
[3] And one should not make it difficult to see the law up close, because the law was clearly stated in reality, so that it would be seen in person. After the days of Joshua, the wall could no longer be seen from the outside, and therefore even before that, there was no such thing as seeing the law up close.
[4] The content of the question was omitted out of modesty.
[5] Indeed, it is a mitzvah that follows the transgression of the prohibition to reside in Jericho, and so on.
[6] And in this matter, there are those who have become even stricter in their conduct, as in the days before Joshua, and are careful not to forget the Torah before studying it. And their pure taste is with them (Dasal, "This Torah shall not be changed" is also on the other side of the timeline).