How does Saturday night change things? I assume I will be in Lod on Saturday night. But if not, why does that matter? Because from the outset I am planning not to be there on Saturday night, would that obligate me on the 14th?

Rabbi Samet wrote that ideally it is proper to be in Lod on the Sabbath. I’m not sure I understood why. In order to avoid a halakhic situation like this? Do you see a problem with such a halakhic situation?

In an ordinary Purim, the determining moment is dawn. If at dawn on Sunday you are in Lod, then seemingly you should follow the custom of Lod. Of course, the Megillah is on Friday like everyone else this year.
Although I saw someone who wrote that being there on the Sabbath is what determines whether you are in a walled city, that does not seem plausible to me. Added to that is your reasoning that it makes no sense for what you do on Saturday night to determine obligations for you on Friday. So in my opinion, on each day you do what your situation on that day obligates. On Friday morning you are in Lod, so you were not obligated in the festive meal and food gifts as an unwalled-city resident. And on Sunday you are in Lod, so then you will become obligated.

An interesting question is whether on Sunday as well you will be considered an unwalled-city resident. Seemingly that would exempt you entirely (like the well-known Leibowitz story).

That’s what I thought. Thank you very much!
It seems to me that you answered in the past that there is no such thing?

Regarding doubts, the Ran wrote that even though Purim is rabbinic, one is stringent where otherwise the commandment would not be fulfilled at all. But in the Leibowitz case, seemingly by strict law you are completely exempt. Still, ideally it is proper nevertheless to fulfill it on the 14th, since even a resident of a walled city fulfills his obligation then.

Just a note.
I understood, apparently in the name of Leibowitz’s grandson, that this is slander / a joke at Leibowitz’s expense, and not something that actually happened.

With God’s help, 19 Adar 5781

I heard from Prof. Ezra Fleischer of blessed memory the story about Dr. Yehuda Even-Shemuel of blessed memory (translator of the Kuzari), who was a delicate soul and therefore spent the 14th in a walled city and the 15th in an ordinary city, in order to exempt himself from the Purim celebration, in which people rejoice over taking revenge.

Best regards, Shatz

Speaking of which, I’ll tell another story in which “the men got mixed up.” They tell about the mother of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, who hung laundry and whose neighbor threw it down and dirtied it, and she said nothing but simply hung the laundry somewhere else. The matter became known only when the neighbor’s son fell ill and she sent her husband to ask forgiveness. A story that did not happen in the Elyashiv family.

But the story is brought in the memoirs of Rabbi Shlomo Eliyahu Freiman, sexton of the Hurva Synagogue and Rachel’s Tomb (father of Rabbi Ben-Zion Freiman of blessed memory), about his wife, who hung laundry and whose neighbor dirtied it, and she restrained herself and said nothing, and he only found out when the neighbor came to ask forgiveness.

What happened to Rabbi Freiman’s mother was mistakenly attributed to Rabbi Elyashiv’s mother, since he is more famous—as happens with stories that get passed from mouth to mouth, while in the meantime the details get garbled.

Rabbi Chaim Navon said in a video of “That’s What Happens When There Are Two” that he heard from Leibowitz’s grandson that he was on his knees during the Megillah reading.

With God’s help, 19 Adar 5781

And since we are discussing the holy city of Lod, it is worth noting that Lod is the place of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who is the main authority behind the teaching that women are obligated in the reading of the Megillah, because “they too were part of that miracle.”

Although in the Talmud in Arakhin they inferred women’s obligation from the Mishnah, “All are obligated in the reading of the Megillah” — “all” comes to include women — nevertheless, in the Tosefta (in tractate Megillah) it is taught: “All are obligated in the reading of the Megillah: priests, Levites, Israelites, converts, freed slaves, etc.,” but women are not mentioned. It would seem that the tanna of the Tosefta does not accept the inference “All are obligated in the reading of the Megillah” — to include women.

Also from the Jerusalem Talmud, where Rabbi Yonah and Rabbi Yosa read the Megillah to the members of their households because they held that women too are obligated, it follows that in their time (the fifth generation of the amoraim of the Land of Israel), it was not customary for women to go to the synagogue to hear the reading of the Megillah, and therefore they had to apply their view at home.

The ruling of the Babylonian Talmud—which brought the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi in tractate Megillah, and inferred in Arakhin, “All are obligated in the reading of the Megillah—even women”—is what paved the way for the halakhic ruling throughout the Jewish people that women are obligated in the reading of the Megillah.

And yet there still remained an echo of the custom of the Land of Israel (outside Lod) that women are exempt from the reading of the Megillah, in the ruling of the author of Halakhot Gedolot that women do not discharge men through Megillah reading. The Turei Even explained that whereas men are obligated to read the Megillah by force of the prophetic writings, women’s obligation is from a later enactment that obligated them in reading even though it is a positive time-bound commandment, because “they too were part of that miracle”; therefore they do not discharge men.

Best regards, Yaron Fishel Ordner

With God’s help, 19 Adar 5781

As for what Rabbi Michael Abraham claims, that someone who arrives in a walled city on Saturday night becomes obligated to join them in the festive meal and food gifts—this is not what the later authorities wrote (see for example “Halakhah from Its Source” by Rabbi Yosef Tzvi Rimon, in the book “Passover Eve that Falls on the Sabbath and Triple Purim”),

According to Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, the day that determines his status as “a one-day resident of a walled city” is the 14th, which is the day of reading for residents of walled cities this year, whereas according to the other halakhic decisors, one’s status as “a one-day resident of a walled city” is determined this year as well on the 15th. But that the 16th should determine his status as “a one-day resident of a walled city”—we have not heard.

And this also seems logical, for in the Jerusalem Talmud (1:4) they said that “the Purim meal and the New Moon meal are delayed,” implying that the meal on Sunday is a postponement because one should not mix the joy of Purim with the joy of the Sabbath. So here it is a kind of makeup for the meal that could not be held on the Sabbath. But someone who at the core time of Purim was not a “resident of a walled city,” neither on the 14th nor on the 15th—why should he become a “resident of a walled city” on the makeup day?

Unless we say that the law of “one-day resident of an unwalled city / one-day resident of a walled city” means that a person should not deviate from the custom of his place, but should rejoice with them. And since they became obligated in rejoicing as a Sabbath makeup, he too should rejoice with them. But if it is a matter of “not deviating from the custom of the place,” then even if he arrives in another walled city after dawn, the logic would be that he should act like them.

Therefore it seems more likely, as ruled by the local rabbi, Rabbi Yisrael Samet (whose 63rd birthday falls today, 18 Adar), that in order to be established as a resident of a walled city one must be in the walled city on the Sabbath.

Best regards, Shatz

In the last line:
… that in order to be established as “a resident of a walled city,” one must…

The problem is that according to that, it comes out that if you are a resident of Lod who travels for the Sabbath to an unwalled place, you would not become obligated in Purim at all. By contrast, according to my approach, where the determining day is your status on the day when the obligation applies, you act each day according to your status on that day. Even if you traveled for the Sabbath, you become obligated on Sunday. Of course you can still always slip out of it (like the story attributed to Leibowitz), but in the normal course you will always be obligated on one of the days.

And beyond that, as I wrote in the answer, according to the view that the Sabbath determines your status not only for that Sabbath but your overall status, it turns out that your unwalled place on the Sabbath determines retroactively that you were an unwalled-city resident already obligated on Friday. That does not seem reasonable to me. It is not logical to accept a retroactive determination of halakhic status. It makes more sense that your status on each day determines your obligations for that day.

With God’s help, 19 Adar 5781

To Rabbi Michael Abraham—greetings,

It really is not reasonable that “halakhic status” should be determined retroactively, but neither does it make sense that there should be a case of a person who is not obligated in Purim anywhere.

Without getting into clarifying the views of the medieval and later authorities, my common-sense view is that a person’s place is determined first and foremost by his permanent place of residence: if he is from a walled city, then on the 15th; if from a city, then on the 14th. The Megillah newly teaches that also “those who dwell in the unwalled towns”—“one-day residents of unwalled towns”—have the same law as the permanent “Jews of the unwalled towns” (and similarly for walled cities). But someone who did not become on the 14th a “one-day resident of an unwalled town” and did not become on the 15th a “one-day resident of a walled city” has not been uprooted from his permanent place of residence, and follows the people of his permanent place of residence.

Another plausible possibility is that someone who became neither “a one-day resident of an unwalled town” nor “a one-day resident of a walled city” reads on the 14th like all Israel. After all, does someone who is in the desert or at sea have no Purim? The Mishnah in Avot says: “For there is no person who has no place” 🙂

Therefore there is logic to say that a resident of Lod who is not in his walled city on the 15th is obligated on the 15th because that is his permanent place of residence; and there is logic to say that he is obligated on the 14th as one “without a place.” And this year, when everyone reads on the 14th, there is also Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s reasoning that according to everyone the determining day is the 14th. Therefore, by logic, it would seem that a resident of Lod who is not at home on the Sabbath should be careful to have the festive meal and send food gifts both on Friday and on Sunday.

Especially since the matter of “Triple Purim” is not mentioned at all in the Babylonian Talmud, nor in Maimonides, nor in the Tur, and it seems they held that even residents of walled cities have the meal and food gifts on the 14th. Therefore my common-sense view would be that a resident of Lod who will not be in his city on the Sabbath should have a festive meal and send food gifts both on the 14th and on the 16th, because perhaps he is judged by his permanent residence, and if so then according to the Jerusalem Talmud he must have the meal on the 16th.

That is what currently seems to me on logical grounds. God willing and without making a vow, there will be another opportunity to examine the views of the medieval and later authorities.

Best regards, Yifa”or..

With God’s help, 19 Adar 5781

It seems that in the case of a resident of Lod who left his city only on Friday morning, there are several reasons to regard him as a resident of a walled city even though he was not in his city on the Sabbath:

A. There never began, in his case, any reason for him to be considered “a one-day resident of an unwalled town.” From the words of Rashi, who explained that Rava’s statement (Megillah 19a), “They taught this only if he intends to return on the night of the 14th, but if he does not intend to return on the night of the 14th, he reads with them,” refers to a resident of a walled city who went to an ordinary city and is there on the night of the 14th, the time of reading for the residents of the city—it appears that the designation “one-day resident of an unwalled town” applies when he is in the city on the night of the 14th and is also expected to be there in the morning. But if he was not in the city at the time of its reading, what makes him a “one-day resident of an unwalled town,” and by what is he uprooted from his status as a “resident of a walled city” like his permanent place?

B. According to Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, when Friday is the 14th, then for residents of walled cities too this is the determining time, since this year they read on the 14th. Thus this year, since he was in the walled city at the time of reading on the 14th, he is thereby established as a resident of a walled city.

C. According to the Rosh, Rava’s words “but if he does not intend to return on the night of the 14th, he reads with them” were said also about a resident of a city who went to a walled city, and the Rosh holds that the determining time for whether someone is considered “a one-day resident of an unwalled town” or “a one-day resident of a walled city” is the morning of the 14th. According to the Raavad, the Rif too holds this way (but Nachmanides and the Ran explained the Rif more like Rashi).

On the possibility that his not being in the walled city on the 15th uproots him from being considered “a resident of a walled city” even though he was not established as “a one-day resident of an unwalled town” on the 14th—it would be worthwhile for him to have a festive meal and send food gifts also on Friday, for he is no worse than someone at sea or in the desert, about whom the Rema wrote that he reads like all Israel.

And it is also proper to have a meal and send food gifts on Friday according to Maimonides and the Tur, who apparently do not hold of the law of “Triple Purim” at all, and it seems that they hold that when the 15th falls on the Sabbath, everything is moved earlier to Friday.

That is what seems to me, but of course one should not rely on my hasty investigation, especially on such a weighty topic, where even the Mishnah Berurah was hesitant to rule.

Best regards, Yifa”or

With God’s help, 20 Adar 5781

Maimonides wrote (Laws of Megillah 1:10): “A resident of a city who went to a walled city, and a resident of a walled city who went to a city—if he intended to return to his place at the time of reading, and he was delayed and did not return, he reads like his place; but if he did not intend to return until after the reading, he reads with the people of the place where he is.”

What is “the time of reading”?

The Maggid Mishneh explained, in Maimonides’ view, that “the time of reading” is the reading time of the place where he is. This is somewhat like Rashi’s view, that a resident of a walled city is established as “a one-day resident of an unwalled town” by his intention to be in the unwalled city on the 14th, and a resident of a city is established as “a one-day resident of a walled city” by his intention to be in the walled city on the 15th.

The Taz, Rishon LeTzion (Rabbi Chaim ibn Attar), Rabbi Yosef Kapach, and Yad Peshutah (Rabbi Nachum Eliezer Rabinovitch) explained Maimonides as being more like the view of the Rosh: that “the time of reading” which determines both for a resident of a city and for a resident of a walled city is the 14th, which is the reading time for most of the world; the place where he intends to be on the 14th is his place. But Rabbi Kapach explains that unlike the Rosh, who says the determining time is the morning of the 14th, according to Maimonides the determining time is the beginning of the night of the 14th.

A third possibility raised by the Kesef Mishneh in explaining Maimonides is that “the time of reading” means the reading time of the place from which he left. A resident of a walled city who does not intend to be in his place on the 15th “reads with the people of the place where he is,” and a resident of a city who does not intend to be in his place on the 14th reads with the people of the place where he is.

If we explain Maimonides this way, we must say that he explains Rava’s words, “but if he does not intend to return on the night of the 14th, he reads with them,” about “a resident of a city who went to a walled city,” who is uprooted from being an “unwalled-city resident” and becomes “a one-day resident of a walled city.” So too it seems from the plain wording of the Rif, who wrote: “A resident of a city who went to a walled city—Rava said: They taught this only if he intends to return on the night of the 14th and was delayed and did not return, but if he does not intend to return on the night of the 14th, he reads with them.”

The Kesef Mishneh rejected this explanation because the Talmud seems to indicate that Rava’s words were said about “a one-day resident of an unwalled town,” and from them the Talmud inferred: “And from the fact that a one-day resident of an unwalled town is called unwalled, a one-day resident of a walled city is called walled.” But in my humble opinion one can say that this statement is not an inference of the anonymous Talmud from Rava’s words, but rather part of Rava’s own statement.

Best regards, Yifa”ork