Q&A: Reading the Megillah
Reading the Megillah
Question
Hello and blessings, and congratulations on the books.
It is known from the explanation of the Kehillot Yaakov (Megillah) on Rashi at the beginning of tractate Megillah, that an inhabitant of a city can discharge the obligation of a villager even though an inhabitant of a walled city cannot discharge the obligation of an inhabitant of a regular city, because the villager’s obligation is essentially on the fourteenth, except that there is a rule allowing it to be advanced to the day of assembly, and he is therefore considered someone who is obligated in the matter.
One may ask, according to the Ritva on Megillah 5a, that a walled city which does not have ten idle men may advance to the day of assembly, whether the inhabitant of the walled city can discharge the obligation of the villager on the day of assembly. Or perhaps the obligation of the inhabitant of the walled city is essentially on the fifteenth, whereas the villager’s obligation is essentially on the fourteenth. And even if we say that it is enough that in practice both of them can fulfill their obligation, one may still ask whether the inhabitant of the city, who can discharge the villager’s obligation, can discharge the obligation of that inhabitant of the walled city mentioned above, for their obligations are not identical, and in practice he also does not read on the fourteenth. It would then lead to an interesting result: the city-dweller can discharge the villager, and the villager can discharge the inhabitant of the walled city, but the city-dweller cannot discharge the inhabitant of the walled city. This requires further clarification.
Answer
Indeed, this does require further clarification.
Discussion on Answer
The rule that one who has already fulfilled his obligation can still discharge another’s obligation applies to someone who is obligated in the matter. If the resident of the walled city is not obligated at the time relevant to city-dwellers, he cannot discharge their obligation. That is not comparable to someone who already fulfilled his obligation; it is comparable to someone who is not obligated. And in the Ritva, apparently because of the advancement to the day of assembly he is considered obligated in the matter.
Perhaps when there are not ten idle men, that is not part of the essential definition of a walled city, and it is not considered the status of an inhabitant of a walled city. In other words: a walled city that does not have ten idle men is not a walled city but a regular city, and therefore its inhabitant is considered like a city-dweller; and when there are ten idle men he is an inhabitant of a walled city and cannot discharge the villager’s obligation on the day of assembly. The same would apply to a city-dweller who becomes obligated as an unwalled-city resident of that day.
Thank you, but you still did not answer why the Ritva, regarding a city-dweller, adds that sometimes he reads on the day of assembly when there are not ten. But then he is not a city resident but a villager, and now, when there are ten, he is a city resident—so how does that help him discharge the villager’s obligation?
Indeed. Unfortunately, I do not have time right now to get into the matter further. My apologies.
Many thanks, you’re amazing. “He who admits and forsakes will be shown mercy.”
I really do not understand how you have the time and patience to respond to everyone who asks in all the sections of the site.
Many thanks.
Now, after thinking it over, I do not understand the above rule, that an inhabitant of a city cannot discharge the obligation of an inhabitant of a walled city, and vice versa. True, each one is obligated on a different day, but where did the principle of mutual responsibility and “even if one has already fulfilled his obligation, he may still discharge another’s obligation” disappear to? If so, the city-dweller should be able to become obligated in the obligation of the walled-city resident by virtue of mutual responsibility, and discharge him through his reading.
And I saw in the Ritva, as brought by the Kehillot Yaakov there, that he explains Rashi’s view, and he uses the rule that one who has already fulfilled his obligation can still discharge another’s obligation with regard to a city-dweller vis-à-vis a villager. So why does that not also work with regard to the resident of a walled city?
And there he adds one sentence: after all, a city-dweller also sometimes reads on the day of assembly, if there are not ten idle men.
And I did not understand this, because according to his own view, the resident of the walled city also reads on the day of assembly if there are not ten idle men there. So he too should be able to discharge the villager’s obligation, and not only the city-dweller. But the law is not so.
And furthermore, any city-dweller can become obligated and read on the fifteenth if he is there at the relevant time, when he is rendered like an unwalled-city resident of that day. So why is that not a reason that he should be able to discharge the obligation of the resident of the walled city?
And why did the Ritva add this? What did he want to gain, and what was lacking in his answer without this addition, as the Kehillot Yaakov explained it, that both are subject to the obligation of the fourteenth?
I look forward to the response of your broad דעת. of the honorable Rabbi, may he live long and well