On the Status of the City of Jericho with Respect to Walled Cities, and What Follows from It

2001

Some time ago I was asked by a certain person, wise in his own eyes, about the laws of Jericho with respect to walled cities, and this is what I answered him.

To the honorable genius in his own eyes, R. … may your peace abound

After first inquiring after your welfare, let the master forgive me for the delay in replying to him. My own hands were soiled with the amniotic sacs and placentas of the children of the holy community here, and the doctors, may their name be blotted out, sent me to the baths in Wiesbaden (as is stated, The best of physicians, etc.). I therefore feared to approach the words of his exalted honor, lest I be singed by his glowing coal. But now that I am improved and have properly washed my hands, I shall enter into the matter, to engage in dialectic in the manner of the Torah, and to raise pearls through straight reasoning toward the true meaning of Torah (for, as is known, it is not my way to linger over those empty dialectics of those sages who are wise in their own eyes).

And I am sending to his exalted honor (in his own eyes) a letter that I wrote in my youth, in which, as the master's eyes will behold clearly, I had already entertained doubt regarding everything that your honor raised. Blessed are you that you merited to align with my view.

                                                                                   the one who esteems him according to his worth,

                                                                                                 (  –  )

A.

As is well known, the law of sending portions on Purim differs between cities walled from the days of Joshua son of Nun and unwalled towns. And when I was but a child (some two and a half years old), I wondered what is the status of the city of Jericho nowadays with respect to sending portions, for, as is well known, from precisely the time of Joshua son of Nun, regrettably, it has no longer been walled.

And a major practical implication of this inquiry lay in another question that had already occurred to me long ago in Bethel (when I was about a year and a month old), concerning a sending of portions dispatched to one of the residents of the city of Jericho by one of the Israelites besieging it before the collapse of the wall on the fifteenth of Adar.[1]

In light of all the above, there will also be clarified as a practical ruling the question over which all the great halakhic decisors wondered (while still in their mothers' wombs). See, for example, the Ran's novellae to Sanhedrin 15, in the topic How much is a Sinai ox worth?, regarding the status of a sending of portions to the city of Jericho on the day the wall fell (were such a thing to have occurred on Purim). And study is great, for it leads to practice.

These three problems require a carpenter and the son of a carpenter to resolve them. And since I found no one to heal my affliction, I arose myself, the least (with an enlarged aleph) among the colleagues, to open for my beloved. I girded my loins like a man and went out to the battle of Torah, as is customary in our places nowadays: even where there is no desecration of the Divine Name, no honor is accorded to the rabbi; and this is obvious.

B.

Now, regarding the first doubt, it seems possible to say, with Heaven's help, that we require the city to have been walled from the time of Joshua son of Nun. Jericho was walled until Joshua, but from the time of Joshua onward it was not walled. The law therefore depends on whether, at the very moment of the wall's collapse – which, as is known, is the time of Joshua – the wall is regarded as standing or as fallen.

And this depends on whether we follow the original state or the breaking of the vessel, a matter over which the decisors disputed in practical law (see Ba'al HaMaor and Nachmanides at the beginning of chapter 2 of Bava Kamma). For if we follow the original state, the wall is already regarded as fallen from the outset, and Jericho counts as unwalled; but if we follow the breaking of the vessel, the wall is regarded as standing until it comes down.

However, with respect to Purim some have ruled, according to all views, like the opinion that we follow the breaking of the vessel, on the strength of the well-known midrashic-legal exposition on the verse And Haman hurried to his house, mourning and with his head covered. See the later authorities there; though, as is well known, there is absolutely no need to be concerned with such views, and this is obvious.

Now that we have merited to establish that Jericho is a walled city, it remains to consider whether it counts as walled 'from the days of Joshua son of Nun.' After all, it was walled only for a moment, and with respect to that it is hard to say that it was walled from the days of Joshua. This depends on the well-known doubt whether an instant has duration, or whether an instant is but the time of an utterance, a matter disputed by the great later authorities (see 'Creative Evolution' of our master R. Henri Bergson of blessed and holy memory; and on the other side see the view of our master Albert of most holy and blessed memory, as I have elaborated in my writings and oral lectures, though this is not the place to expand). As a matter of law, we hold that the law follows the later authority, and thus we do not rule like the author of 'Creative Evolution' (see the white book, 'Orot HaKodesh,' on the theory of evolution, though this is not the place to elaborate), who held that an instant has duration. Therefore Jericho quite properly counts in practice as unwalled, without any hesitation whatsoever.

C.

Up to this point we have dealt with the topic of Jericho's status as a walled city for present purposes. As for the second doubt, it seems to depend on whether the law of walled cities already existed before Joshua son of Nun; and if so, from when were they required to be walled?

What seems correct here is that, as is well known, our forefathers observed the entire Torah, even the law of the cooked-food eruv. If so, it is obvious that the law of sending portions, too, was in force from time immemorial, and equally obvious that the law of walled cities was as well. Not as those scoffers who stretch forth their hands against the Torah of Moses and maintain that the laws of the Torah are innovations of the Sages. It is not as they say, for only reality can change, not the laws; the entire Torah was given at Sinai, by the intention of the Giver of the Torah – dust upon their withered mouths.

If so, it appears that the second problem is resolved as well: the law of Jericho is the law of a walled city, for after all, in section B we saw that at that time it was walled, and we hold that this Torah shall not be changed. Hence it is as plain as day that from time immemorial it was walled.

Yet it seems that if our forefathers indeed observed the entire Torah, including the commandment of sending portions on Purim, then it stands to reason that even before the time of Joshua son of Nun the required point from which a city had to be enclosed was already 'from the days of Joshua son of Nun.' For no prophet is authorized to introduce anything from now on, and this Torah shall not be changed (see vol. 1 of 'The Embarrassment of Teachers,' ibid.).

Accordingly, it would seem that in any ordinary city walled from the days of Joshua son of Nun, one had to send portions to its inhabitants on the fifteenth even before the time of Joshua son of Nun. With respect to Jericho, however – may it be rebuilt and established – the problem remains standing in full force, for we hold that it was not walled 'from the days of Joshua,' in accordance with R. Albert.

To be sure, we hold that for Torah-level law there is no retroactive clarification, whereas for rabbinic law there is. And, as is well known, Behag's view is that Purim and Hanukkah are of Torah origin. Consequently, although from the days of Joshua onward Jericho is indeed no longer walled, this does not serve to clarify retroactively its prior status. Therefore, according to those views that where there is no retroactive clarification the matter remains doubtful, its status before the days of Joshua was one of doubt. This is all the more so according to the view of Behag that Purim is Torah-level (its pure source in the words of the Sages being: 'Where is Haman hinted at in the Torah? – Is it from the tree that I commanded you…').

What emerges from all that has been said is that in the period before Joshua son of Nun, out of doubt we are obligated to treat Jericho as though it were a city walled from the days of Joshua son of Nun.[2]

And now our final problem surfaces and rises: did that Israelite – righteous in his generations, though some interpret that to his discredit and others to his praise – fulfill his obligation of sending portions on Purim.

D.

The basis of the doubt is whether we follow the original state or the breaking of the wall. If we follow the original state, then Jericho counts as walled, and as explained above, before the days of Joshua Jericho counted as walled; hence its Purim was on the fifteenth. But if we follow the present state, Jericho is now not a city walled from the days of Joshua son of Nun, and therefore its Purim falls on the fourteenth of Adar.

And even if you say that we follow the original state, and Jericho therefore counts as walled, it still depends on the law of an unwalled-town resident who sent to a walled-town resident – whether he has fulfilled his obligation or not – for the Israelite who sent the gift was outside the wall and therefore had the status of an unwalled resident.[3]

And concerning the case of an unwalled-town resident who sent to a walled-town resident, I again found a fine pearl in the responsa of the famous gaon, renowned in the gates by name, the author of the method not known to whom. And this is what he wrote there (in responsum no. One Thousand and One Nights):

To the mighty gaon, light of Israel, my right-hand pillar, the strong hammer, than whom none has arisen since God created earth and heaven and what lies between them, and from Moses to Moses (inclusive) none has arisen like him…[4]

                                                            From me, a despicable gnat at the feet of his exalted gaonship,

Hiel the Bethelite

Responsum: Regarding what I was asked about the law of sending portions from residents of unwalled towns to residents of cities walled from the days of Joshua son of Nun, whether such a thing can meaningfully be sent at all. For if he sends on the fifteenth, then the recipient indeed receives it properly, but the sender has not fulfilled his obligation; and the reverse applies if he sends on the fourteenth.

At first glance it seems that this depends on whether the commandment of sending portions is a law concerning the sender or concerning the recipient. If the law is that the recipient must receive a sending of portions on Purim, then he may quite properly send to him on the fifteenth, for in that case the recipient receives it on his own Purim. But if we say the law concerns the sender, then he must send on the fourteenth, and this is obvious.

In truth, this can be made dependent on an inquiry regarding the commandment of charity in general: whether the giving of charity is for the honor of the living, namely the givers, or for the honor of the dead, since a poor man is considered as dead.

And in plain terms, this inquiry itself is grounded in a dispute, for the fathers of the world disagreed on it (Bava Batra 10a): Rabbi Akiva and his disputant, the righteous Turnus Rufus. For the Talmud states that Turnus Rufus asked Rabbi Akiva: if your God loves the poor, why does He not sustain them? Rabbi Akiva answered him that Torah and the commandments were given only in order to refine human beings through them. That is, Turnus Rufus held that charity is for the recipient, while Rabbi Akiva disagreed and held that charity is for the giver. And we hold that the law follows Rabbi Akiva against his colleague, and all the more so against his enemy. So too ruled Sefer HaChinukh in commandment 66, in the roots of the commandment; see there.

Accordingly, it seems to my exaltedly humble opinion that an unwalled-town resident who sends to a walled-town resident on the fifteenth has not fulfilled his obligation, and must send on the fourteenth. Anyone who disagrees with me is like one who disagrees with the Divine Presence, as though he had raised his hand against the Torah of Moses our master.

Place of signature: (  –  )

These words are fine and worthy of being said. For, as is well known, the entire house of Israel has always been careful on Purim to seek out a choice pauper, and may it be the Divine will that the verse be fulfilled in us: For the poor will never cease from the land. The legal conclusion, then, is that an unwalled-town resident who sent to a walled-town resident fulfilled his obligation only if he sent to him on the fourteenth. Therefore the aforementioned Israelite, who sent on the fifteenth, did not fulfill his obligation.

E.

After writing all this, I found in the words of our rabbis (Jerusalem Talmud, Zevahim 5:1):

One teaching states: Jericho is considered a walled city, while another teaching states: Jericho is an unwalled town. And it was taught regarding this: Rabbah bar bar Shetaya said, "This is the tradition I received from my father's father's house: Jericho was a walled city before the days of Joshua, and unwalled afterward. Walled before them, because it had been walled from the days of Joshua and earlier; and unwalled afterward, because after the days of Joshua it was no longer surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua." (One teaching states that Jericho counts as a walled city, while another states that Jericho is unwalled. And on this it was taught: Rabbah bar bar Shtaya said, Thus have I received from my forefathers: Jericho was a walled city before the days of Joshua and unwalled after them. Walled before them, because it is walled from the days of Joshua backward; unwalled after them, because after the days of Joshua it is no longer walled from the days of Joshua.)

It appears that their approach differs from what we proposed above. Here the Sages hold that before the days of Joshua, the law of cities walled from the days of Joshua is fulfilled along a reversed axis of time – that is, from the days of Joshua backward. According to this, Jericho certainly has the status of a city walled from the days of Joshua, and not merely out of doubt as we argued above.

But a formidable objection may be raised against this view. It is well known that in walled cities we require that they first be enclosed and only afterward inhabited, as in the law of houses in walled cities. If so, Jericho must certainly have been inhabited first and only afterward enclosed. For if indeed the way of cities is first to be walled and only afterward settled by people, then when one looks backward along the axis of time it is obvious that before the days of Joshua son of Nun all cities are in the category of 'inhabited first and only afterward enclosed.' This is a formidable difficulty, and so far I have found no one who has written on it.

However, according to what we wrote above – that our forefathers observed the entire Torah, that no prophet may introduce anything from now on, and so forth – it seems clear that even before the days of Joshua son of Nun we require that they have been enclosed from the days of Joshua son of Nun onward and only afterward inhabited, and this condition is fully satisfied. Any further elaboration would be entirely superfluous. Blessed is He who chose them and their teaching.

F.

Now, in the passage of Runya whom Ravina surrounded, in Bava Batra, we hold that where the enclosed party rose and fenced the fourth side, he is liable to pay the one who enclosed him his share for all the sides.

Accordingly, one may discuss a city that was walled from the days of Joshua son of Nun on three sides, and within it sat an enclosed resident (who was only later enclosed), and he fenced the fourth side after the seven years of conquest and the seven years of division. For according to the conclusion of the passage of Runya and Ravina, it appears that once he fenced it, it was clarified retroactively that he was content with the first three sides; and if so, the city counts as walled from the days of Joshua son of Nun.[5]

However, with respect to the periods before the days of Joshua, one may ask whether every retroactive clarification is reckoned according to the axis of time after the days of Joshua or according to the axis of time before them.

In view of the force of the difficulty, it would seem that a conscientious person should be stringent. When the resident of a walled city sends to the resident of an unwalled town on the fifteenth, in accordance with our conclusion above, the unwalled resident should demolish three sides of his wall, and he should demolish the fourth, thereby revealing his broad intention that he is pleased with what the unwalled resident – the enclosed party – has done. In this way he too will properly become an unwalled resident. Thus we escape all possible doubts. There is no need to elaborate on what is self-evident.

And it seems that if our words are sound, many very novel practical consequences emerge. For example, it follows that before the days of Joshua a person had to repent before the sin, rather than after it as nowadays, in order to obtain atonement. This nicely explains why repentance preceded the world by thirty-seven generations (the numerical value of 'hevel'). To be sure, in such a case repentance helps only for the period before it is performed, and not for the period afterward; this is obvious.

One might also discuss the prohibition of forgetting Torah: is it before the learning or after it? Likewise regarding the ancient custom of reviewing the learned material – should this be done before the learning or after it?[6]

In practice, this also resolves the well-known inquiry of the later authorities concerning one who was an adult and became a minor between the two Passovers: is he obligated to bring the second Passover offering or not? The commentators have always wearied themselves trying to find some path and explanation for these obscure statements. According to our discussion here, however, it is settled as firmly as mortar: the case deals with the period before the days of Joshua, and understand this well.

As a marginal note, and lest the page be left blank, I saw fit to mention once again my ruling from years past: one who maintains that the contraction is not to be taken literally should not be included in the invitation to Grace after Meals on Purim. However, since in our generation there is no one who knows how to prove the matter (even though we hold that Jephthah in his generation is as Euclid in his time), one should not lower him into a pit (unless he too is not literal), but it is certainly desirable to contract him there.

And if you wish, this is no incitement!!

"May the Mighty One fill our jugs, may the Strong One grant our request, and may He send us all a local beverage" amen, may it be His will.

[1] And as is well known, it has always been the way of Israelites, down to the present very day, to send portions to their enemies, especially in Jericho and Gaza. And it is well known that the more they kill them, the more their gifts increase, in order to multiply joy and gladness, delight and cheer, love and brotherhood, peace processes, Nobel Prizes, and fellowship – or perhaps merely hot air.

And as is also well known, some of these gifts are weapons, and one might discuss this under the rule of 'tear my garment and be exempt,' but this is not the place to elaborate.

[2] Some have remarked, however, that this is a double doubt: whether the wall would be destroyed in the days of Joshua, and whether the law follows Behag. This may be rejected in two ways:

• When one doubt is factual and the other is a legal doubt, R. Akiva Eiger's view is that the rule of double doubt does not apply.
• As is well known, the Ran asked why, in a case of doubtful walled-city status, the Scroll of Esther is read on both days, for we hold that in a rabbinic doubt we rule leniently. He answered that in such a case we should really not read at all, since if it is walled one reads on the fifteenth, whereas if it is not walled one reads on the fourteenth. The Ran thus innovated that where the rabbinic law would otherwise be nullified entirely, we do not say that rabbinic doubt is treated leniently. According to this, the above difficulty is nicely resolved: with respect to Jericho as well, if there is indeed doubt whether its wall will be destroyed, we should be lenient and not read on either day, and therefore the rule of leniency in cases of doubt does not apply. This invites further dialectic, but this is not the place to elaborate.

[3] And one should not object from the law of adjacent and visible, for it is obvious that this is a matter of reality, requiring that the wall actually be visible. After the days of Joshua, the wall can no longer be seen from outside, and therefore even before then Jericho does not count as adjacent and visible.

[4] The content of the question has been omitted for reasons of modesty.

[5] To be sure, this would be a commandment fulfilled through a transgression, since it is forbidden to dwell in Jericho, but this is not the place to elaborate.

[6] On this matter, some have been stringent nowadays to conduct themselves as in the days before Joshua, and they are careful to forget the Torah only before studying it. Their pure reasoning is with them, for they maintain that 'this Torah shall not be changed' applies also to the other side of the axis of time.