בס”ד

Abstract: This paper will discuss islands – such as Rhodes – that are surrounded by the sea from all sides. It proposes the possibility of the sea rendering the city ‘walled’, obligating its Jewish residence to celebrate Purim on the 15th of Adar as well. The paper will present the argument for this proposition, citing a Talmudic passage regarding Tiberias, a possible ‘walled city’ due to the Kinneret – the fourth side of the ‘wall’. The paper will discuss whether this applies to islands, where all the ‘walls’ are water. Furthermore, it will demonstrate that the city needs to exist at the time of Joshua, and have a wall which predates its inhabitants, creating a potential divide among theologians with differing approaches to the ‘age-old’ question; torah umada.

Purim on the Island

Purim in walled cities

In principle, Purim is observed on the 14th of Adar, but in ‘walled cities’ it is observed on the 15th. There are many qualifications for a city to be rendered ‘walled’. In some cases, cities can be ‘doubtfully walled’, in these cases, one should celebrate Purim on both the 14th and the 15th.

A ‘walled city’ needs to be ‘walled’ at the time of Joshua. While the accepted view is that this applies everywhere, there were some authorities who derived from this that the law of ‘walled cities’ applies only in Israel.¹ In addition, and this too is contested,² the ‘wall’ must predate its inhabitants. Rabbi Meir of Ruthenberg minimizes this law, stating: if people originally moved in with intent of building a wall, it is still considered as though it was built before inhabited.³
Shulchan Aruch states: ‘A city regarding which there is a doubt⁴ whether it was surrounded by a wall during the time of Joshua or not, they read on the 14th and the 15th’.⁵ There would however be a need to assume a wall at the time of Joshua. If there is a reason to assume so, we can also assume it was walled prior to inhabiting.⁶
Regarding this too there are differing opinions, Rabbi Nissim of Gerona believed that in principle one does not need to read on the 15th, he considered doing so a mere act of piety.⁷

What is a ‘walled city’?

The concept of a ‘walled city’ is not unique to the rabbinic commandment of celebrating Purim and reading the Megillah. We find this concept about another commandment in the Torah; batei arei chomah.

When Israel was divided, each tribe received a certain territory which was distributed to the families in the tribe. These lands were passed on from father to son as inheritance, remaining eternally in the family. It was forbidden to sell this land. If someone nonetheless did, the house would return to him at the Jubilee. These laws were suspended when the jubilee was.

The exception to this rule were homes in walled cities. If someone sold a house in a ‘walled city’ – ‘walled’ at the time of Joshua – the house would not return to him at the Jubilee, and the seller had but one year to redeem it.

This law serves as a reference point for what constitutes a ‘walled city’. The Talmud has many qualifications regarding such a city. For instance; the disqualification of ‘water’ as a ‘wall’:

Purim in Tiberias

The Talmud states that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi planted a sapling on Purim. The Talmud, assuming this is forbidden, explains: “Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was in a place that observed Purim on the fourteenth, and when he planted the sapling, he planted it on the fifteenth.” Since purim was observed on the 14th, he did nothing wrong by planting the sapling on the 15th.

The Talmud challenges this by claiming that purim should have been observed on the 15th in that city:

“Is that so? Wasn’t Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in Tiberias, and Tiberias was surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun. Consequently, he was obligated to observe Purim on the fifteenth.”

Therefore the Talmud reverses the order, and concludes he planted the sapling on the 14th and celebrated Purim on the 15th:

“Rather, say just the opposite: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi lived in a place that observed Purim on the fifteenth, and when he planted the sapling, he planted it on the fourteenth.”

According to Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi, Purim in Tiberias is observed on the 15th of Adar, not the 14th. He therefore allowed himself to plant the sapling on the 14th, since in his opinion it was a mundane day. The Talmud following this introduces a differing opinion; Hezekiah, who believed that both the 14th and the 15th should be observed, as we cannot ascertain whether or not it is considered a ‘walled city’: “Hezekiah read the Megilla in Tiberias both on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth of Adar, because he was uncertain if it had been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, or not?” The Talmud concludes that ‘Hezekiah was uncertain, whereas it was obvious to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’ that Tiberias had been surrounded by a wall in the time of Joshua.

Rabbi Yochanan

In the Jerusalem Talmud Rabbi Yochanan’s opinion is introduced, who also believed that Purim in Tiberias should be observed on the 15th, like Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi⁸:

“Ḥizqiah read it (the Megillah) on the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth, since he was apprehensive about what Rebbi Simeon ben Yohay had stated, a person who would sell a dwelling-house in a walled city, that excludes Tiberias whose wall is the lake. Rebbi Joḥanan read it in the Kifra synagogue and said, this is the main ancient Tiberias; he was not apprehensive about what Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥay had stated. They were lenient in matters of reading it (the Megillah – but not in matters of batei arei choma), as we have stated…”

The Jerusalem Talmud explained that while Tiberias is not considered a ‘walled city’ for batei arei choma, nonetheless, the sages considered it ‘walled’ regarding their commandment of reading the Megillah. This is why Rabbi Yochanan read the Megillah on the 15th; he considered water valid ‘wall’ for Purim purposes.
In the babylonian Talmud, an explanation is offered for why water should be considered a ‘wall’ for Purim:

Water as a ‘wall’

On the following page (Megillah 5b) Hezekiah’s doubt is discussed. The Talmud wonders, why Hezekiah has a doubt at all: seemingly it is an established fact that Tiberias was ‘walled’ at the time of Joshua:

“Was he really uncertain about the matter of Tiberias ? Isn’t it written: “And the fortified cities were Ziddim-zer, and Hammath, Rakkath, and Chinnereth” (Joshua 19:35), and we maintain that Rakkath is Tiberias?”

The Talmud explains that while he knew Tiberias was ‘walled’, he was nonetheless uncertain whether that rendered it a ‘walled city’, as it technically was only walled on three sides. The fourth side did not have a physical wall, rather the sea (Kinneret) served as its wall. Hezekiah was unsure whether water can serve as a ‘wall’.
The Talmud questions this by citing a baraita regarding batei arei choma, which states that the water may not serve as a ‘wall’:

“It is taught in a baraita with regard to the sale of houses in walled cities… the phrase “round about them” (Leviticus 25:31), excludes Tiberias from being considered a walled city, as the sea is its wall on one side and it is not fully encircled by a physical wall.”

To justify Hezekiah’s doubt, the Talmud differentiates between the parameters of a ‘wall’ as it pertains to the laws of batei arei choma and for that of Purim. To render a city ‘walled’ for Purim, it might be enough for the ‘wall’ to be something which protects the city – as a wall does. Following this, water can potentially be a ‘wall’, as it protects the city. This however would not apply to batei arei chomah – where an actual wall is required:

“With regard to the sale of houses of walled cities, Hezekiah was not uncertain. Where he was uncertain was with regard to the reading of the Megilla: What are the unwalled towns and what are the walled cities that are written with regard to the reading of the Megilla? Is the difference between them due to the fact that these unwalled towns are exposed, whereas those walled cities are not exposed? If so, since Tiberias is also exposed, as it is not entirely surrounded by a wall, it should be considered unwalled. Or perhaps the difference is due to the fact that these walled cities are protected, whereas those unwalled towns are not protected, and Tiberias is also protected by the sea and should be treated as a walled city. It was due to that reason that Hezekiah was uncertain when to read the Megilla.”

‘Wall’ predating habitation

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi (Megillah 3b) states that the wall needs to precede the city’s inhabitants to render it ‘walled’. If people settled a city, and only later decided⁹ to build the wall, the city is not considered a ‘walled’ one:

“Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A walled city that was initially settled and only later surrounded by a wall is considered a village rather than a walled city.”

He cites a verse regarding batei arei choma to prove his point:

“What is the reason? As it is written: “And if a man sells a residential house in a walled city” (Leviticus 25:29). The wording of the verse indicates that it is referring to a place that was first surrounded by a wall and only later settled, and not to a place that was first settled and only later surrounded by a wall.”

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi vs Hezekiah

The obvious question arises: how can we compare a ‘walled city’ of Purim to that of batei arei choma? Seemingly, the Talmudic differentiation between batei arei choma and Purim regarding Tiberias should serve prove that the ‘wall’ which renders a city ‘walled’ for Purim does not need to meet the standards of a ‘wall’ for batei arei choma! For Purim it should be sufficient if the ‘wall’ protects the city. Surely a wall’s capacity to protect the city is not affected by whether it precedes or succeeds its inhabitants!

Rashi therefore understands Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement to be regarding batei arei choma only. He would argue that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi does not require a city’s habitation to succeed its wall – to render it ‘walled’ with regards to Purim, only regarding batei arei choma.

Tosafot disagrees and resolves the contradiction. Tosafot argues that we clearly see that water is considered a wall,¹⁰ and therefore Hezekiah had a doubt, we however do not find precedent regarding the necessity of a ‘wall’ to precede the inhabitants, to justify a differentiation between batei arei choma and Purim. Therefore – Tosafot argues – since we see that water is a wall, the wall does indeed precede inhabitation, as the Kinneret precedes the people of Tiberias.

Similarly, the ‘Ritva’ – Rabbi Yom Tov Seville – also believed that the differentiation between Purim and batei arei choma, does not apply to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s ruling. He resolves the seeming contradiction by claiming that the sages did not mind diverging from the prescribed ‘wall’ in the Torah regarding batei arei choma, on condition that it is obvious what the law is. The sages were worried that by allowing changes to the definition of a ‘wall’, people will assume it applies to the Torah commandment of batei arei choma too. Therefore the rabbis only allowed it, when it was clear. Since it is very obvious that Tiberias would not qualify as a ‘walled city’ regarding batei arei choma – as its fourth wall is water, the sages allowed it to be a ‘walled city’ for Purim. However, regarding the chronology of a city’s ‘wall’ and dwelling, if the sages would allow the breach of this condition regarding Purim, people would assume the same applies to batei arei choma too. This is why the sages did not allow such a ‘wall’ to render a city ‘walled’ regarding Purim.

However, his teacher, Rabbi Shlomo ibn Aderet, the ‘Rashba’, understood the discrepancy between the two Talmudic passages to indicate a rabbinic disagreement. He believed that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi did not believe in differentiating between Purim and batei arei choma. Accepting this premise, it follows that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would not consider water to be a ‘wall’ at all, and would therefore not consider Tiberias even a doubt. It would simply be a regular city in which the Megillah is read only on the 14th.

Halacha

The ‘Rashba’ continued by arguing that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi has halachic superiority over Hezekiah, and Rabbi Yochanan in the Jerusalem Talmud.

The ‘Ran’ understood this to also be the opinion of Rabbi Isaac Alfasi, the ‘Rif’.¹¹ This position is mentioned by commentaries on Shulchan Aruch and Responsa’.¹² Following this, one would only celebrate Purim in Tiberias on the 14th, as water is considered a ‘wall’.

Other authorities maintain that the Halacha should follow Rabbi Yochanan, Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi. Following this, Purim in Tiberias would only be celebrated on the 15th, as water is not considered a ‘wall’.¹³

However for the purposes of this paper, we will accept the position of Hezekiah, who was unsure whether water is considered a ‘wall’. Consequently, Purim should be celebrated in Tiberias on both the 14th and the 15th. This opinion is canonized by the Magen Avraham (Orach Chayim 688 SK 4), and consequently by the later ‘poskim’.¹⁴

Purim on Rhodes

Following all this, one might ask; since water constitutes a ‘wall’, are islands ‘walled’?

There were many Jewish communities on island-cities throughout history, namely Rhodes. While I have not researched their history, I have not seen any discussion from local authorities about what day to celebrate Purim, or a controversy where people raised this possibility.

On the contrary, Rabbi Moshe Yisrael, who – for a period of time – was the rabbi of Rhodes, discusses¹⁵ when Purim should be observed in Alexandria. He even quotes Hezekia’s doubt about Tiberias to make a point which does not relate to water being a ‘wall’, and does not mention anything about Purim in Rhodes.¹⁶

Similarly, the Jews in Rhodes celebrated a ‘Second Purim’ on Purim:

“In 1840 the Greeks on the island of Rhodes, in revenge upon the Jews who were competing with them in the sponge trade, caused the disappearance of a child. The child, however, was later found alive on the island of Syra. In the meanwhile the Jews of Rhodes had been imprisoned and tortured. Sultan ‘Abd al-Majid deposed the governor, and gave the Jews a firman declaring that the accusation of ritual murder was false. By a curious coincidence the imprisonment of the Jews and the granting of the firman took place on the day of the Purim of Esther (14th of Adar). Since then Purim is celebrated as a double festival at Rhodes, and special prayers and hymns are read.”¹⁷

If the Talmudic passage would dictate that they should celebrate Purim on the 15th as well, surely someone would have raised this! The lack of a controversy implies there is no argument for Purim to be observed on the 15th as well.

The considerations

In this paper I will raise three considerations which should be taken into account when considering an Island such as Rhodes as ‘walled’, and I will argue that these islands might fall short.

It has to be inhabited as a city in its entirety since Joshua.
Water alone might not render a city ‘walled’ unless it is like Tiberias, where there was a literal wall around three sides and the water only served as a fourth wall.
Did the island exist, and did it predate its inhabitants?

We will examine these three considerations and explain why there has been no major controversy about the date of Purim on these islands.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein – defining a city

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein¹⁸ was asked this – in conversation – regarding Manhattan; ‘why doesn’t the island become a walled city?’ Rabbi Feinstein raised multiple considerations which could render the city ‘non-walled’. He argued that since we never heard about Jews on islands celebrating two days, one of these following considerations must be right: 1) an island is not considered ‘walled’, or 2) it is, but islands are practically not ‘cities’, as they were not settled as cities since Joshua.

Even if water is a valid wall, it needs to surround a ‘city’. Rabbi Feinstein argued that the entire island needs to be populated, not only a small part of it. And furthermore, the city needs to have existed during the time of Joshua. He argued that the islands of New York do not meet either of these qualifications, adding that before Columbus the city was not built, ‘at least’ not for a long time. ‘There was no city before Columbus, and even before his time there were no people for a long time, and only a few people roamed there, whom God sent…’

I am not entirely sure what Rabbi Feinstein meant regarding Columbus, but I believe a strong argument can be made that there is a difference between living in a place, and a ‘city’. The reason a wall matters is because it protects the area as an established residential area. Merely living somewhere without structural city life; such as homes, markets, some sort of governance, law enforcement, and potentially a military is not equatable to a city. Tribal societies who lived in specific areas, did not make the areas they lived in as ‘cities’, and therefore even if the area happens to be walled, accidentally, since it is not a ‘city’, it therefore is not a ‘walled city’.

While this might sound a bit racist, I believe this might be what Rabbi Feinstein meant. In his opinion, Native Americans who lived in New York did not establish cities. They merely ‘lived’ there for a few hundred years. He viewed settled societal and civilized life as something that European colonialists brought to America. He therefore did not view these islands as ‘walled cities’, while conceding that in Europe such an island might exist.¹⁹

A city, not a country

Similarly, the wall needs to surround a city, not a country – a few cities. Therefore, England for instance, could not be a ‘walled city’, even though it is an island, since the ocean does not surround a city, rather a country.

Similarly, for the city to qualify as ‘walled at the time of Joshua’, we must assume it was populated entirely at that time. Otherwise, the ‘wall’ does not surround the city, rather an area which contains a city. Suppose England only had one city at the time of Joshua, was England a city? – of course not!

In addition, such a ‘wall’ would not provide protection for the city, as it is too distant.

Like any city, an island can have empty spaces, parks, or any areas without houses, the city does not need to be literally entirely populated, but at some point it becomes two separate cities, or a big enough space at which point the wall no longer protects the city.

For the purpose of this article I will go with the conservative measure of visible distance, and/or one ‘mil’ (approx 1 km).²⁰ I am open to more liberal suggestions, but whatever the measure is, it is highly doubtful that England (or Cyprus for that matter) would make it.

Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch, senior rabbi of the Edah HaChareidis Bet Din, in a responsum (Teshuvot VeHanhagot vol. 5, 238) regarding Purim on islands – England and Cyprus – rules that a wall needs to surround a city, but when surrounding a country it does not make it a ‘walled city’. And in addition Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Harfenes claimed ‘it is obvious’ that the entire island needs to be populated.²¹

Following this, it would also seem obvious that the islands in New York do not qualify, considering they do not meet these requirements.

In addition, assuming (as we will shortly demonstrate) that it needs to have been a city three thousand years ago, it is required for Manhattan to have been an established city with the entire island populated over three thousand years ago. Highly unlikely!

‘City’ at the time of Joshua

Rabbi Nissim of Gerona, known as the ‘Ran’ in his commentary on the ‘Rif’, on the beginning of tractate Megillah, discussed the law that we read the megilla on the 15th in cities that were ‘walled’ at the time of Joshua. He raised an interesting question; if the wall needs to precede the city’s inhabitants – as mentioned earlier – perhaps the wall was built after the city was already inhabited, how can we be sure the city is valid ‘walled city’?

He suggested a potential answer, which he then rejected: ‘Perhaps the city needs to be inhabited by jews to render it a walled city’. If this were the case the walls would precede the habitation, as all cities in Israel would have been ‘walled’ when the Jews entered the land, and only then settled in them.

However, the ‘Ran’ questions this answer from cities outside Israel. Since there were no Jews outside Israel at the time, if specifically Jewish inhabitants are required, there could be no ‘walled city’ outside Israel, as it wouldn’t be inhabited at the time of Joshua. The ‘Ran’, accepting that there can be ‘walled cities’ outside Israel, rejects this argument partially, and concedes that non-Jewish habitation does render a city ‘walled’ – outside Israel.

It is clear from this that the city has to exist at the time of Joshua – not only the wall.

Rabbi Ezriel Meir Kahn, a prominent rabbi who lives in Williamsburg, explained (Pri Tmarim issue 25, p. 37) that the same applies to New York/Manhattan; since the city did not exist then, it was not a ‘walled city’. He cited Rabbi Mordecai Jaffe²² who explains why in ‘our countries’ we don’t read the megilla on both days, as ‘we maintain’ that these cities were not settled until after the Jews entered Israel. It is evident that the habitation of the city has to date back to Joshua.

Accordingly, Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl was asked if islands are ‘walled cities’, and he responded ‘seemingly only if there was a settlement there at the time of Joshua’.²³

Rabbi Yechezkel Roth in his Emek HaTeshuvah (Vol 6. 285) writes ‘it is obvious’ that Manhattan was not populated in the time of Joshua, and was therefore not a city at the time.

Rhodes and cyprus

While these rabbis were discussing Manhattan, a century earlier, Rabbi Akiva Yosef Schlesinger raised this issue concerning Cyprus and Rhodes.

Cyprus is 9,251 km² with a 648 km coastline, to contrast this with London and New York; Greater London is 1,572 km² and NYC in total is 1,223.59km², only 778.18 km² of which is land, the remaining 445.41 km²being water. Cyprus is about 6-7.5 bigger than Greater London and New York City.

The island of Rhodes on the other hand is about the same size. Its total area is approximately 1,400 km² with a coastline of approximately 220 km.

Asking if these cities qualify might seem different to asking if England does. England – as mentioned – is a country, not a city. It therefore is obvious that it doesn’t become a ‘walled city’. These islands, on the other hand, are cities, and therefore we can ask if the water renders them a ‘walled city’. However, I believe the shortcomings of Manhattan apply here too, as I will explain.

Rabbi Schlesinger’s dream

This question was raised by Rabbi Akiva Yosef Schlesinger, a pioneer of ultra-Orthodoxy, and a close disciple of Rabbi Mosheh Sofer (the Chatam Sofer),²⁴ in two responsa’.

In the one responsum (Shut Rabbi Akiva Yosef vol. 1, 223) Rabbi Schlesinger writes ‘regarding a Halacha which I learned in a dream in the beginning of the year 5,653 (end of 1892) from my father OBM’
He continues by describing his dream, in which – he says: ‘I am learning with my father, and I innovate a Halacha, which – in this dream – I presented before Rabbi Bezalel HaKohen’²⁵

Rabbi Schlesinger presents the Halacha he innovated in his dream:

“And this is the Halacha I learned: the Talmud in tractate Megillah states that in Tiberias we read the Megillah both on the 14th and 15th due to an uncertainty whether the Kinneret is a wall or not. Based on this the doubt would arise regarding every island – which is surrounded by water from all sides – whether we read there too both on the 14th and the 15th. For instance; Cyprus which is an island – surrounded by water on all sides.”

He clarifies that ‘this is not connected to whether Cyprus is a part of biblical Israel’ citing a source concerning this issue – Jerusalem Talmud in the beginning of Gittin²⁶ – ‘as regarding walled cities (for Purim) there is no difference between Israel and outside Israel’. He then cites Prague as precedent ‘since in Prague too they also read on the fifteenth, as is written in the Chayyei Adam 155:8.’²⁷

In conclusion, ‘every island which is completely surrounded by the ocean will be included in the doubt of Tiberias’.

Rabbi Schlesinger originally dismissed this thought, but ‘when seeing that this dream was repeated twice, it’s a worthy doubt, I therefore wrote it down.’ He then references Rabbi Ephraim Zalman Margoliot (Yad Ephraim, Orach Chayim 695 (on the first taz)) who had an idea in a dream, and then wrote it in his book:

Explaining the Talmudic passage which says one is obligated to get drunk ‘until’ he cannot differentiate between wicked haman and blessed mordechai – he explains that this became understood to him in the dream. Drinking on purim is ‘to be joyous and to praise God’. Therefore the Talmud sets a limit at which point the drinking has gone too far, and would not cause ‘joyous praising of God’. The ‘until’ in the Talmud, is a maximum, meaning; ‘discluding’. One should only get drunk until he can no longer differentiate, this is the point he should not reach. Rabbi Margoliot concludes, ‘and I contemplated about this in the morning and I saw that it is correct’, he then argues for this interpretation from Talmudic context.

Rabbi Schlesinger, after referencing Rabbi Margoliot’s comment, concludes his responsum writing that ‘a dream which validly came twice is a doubt.’²⁸

Cyprus as a city

In my opinion, there is a fundamental flaw in this ruling. Even were I to accept the halachic argument Rabbi Schlesinger presented, Cyprus would still need to have qualified as a city three thousand years ago. Rabbi Schlesinger never addressed the practical elements of this issue.

As mentioned earlier, it is doubtful that Cyprus meets the required criteria, it is a massive island with multiple cities, making it a country not a city. Assuming it was entirely populated three thousand years ago is doubtful – considering it still isn’t fully populated now. It therefore would probably not qualify as a walled city irrespective of whether water constitutes a ‘wall’.

However, in the next responsum, he also mentions Rhodes. This is a better example as it is more plausible for it to have been fully/largely populated during the time of Joshua.

In this responsum he also elaborates on the issue of water being a ‘wall’, and concludes the same way; to read the Megillah also on the 15th.

Rabbi Tzvi Ashkenazi

In his second responsum (in Orach Chayim vol. 2, 449) he elaborates more citing a responsum of Rabbi Tzvi Ashkenazi (Responsa Chacham Tzvi 37).

In this responsum Rabbi Ashkenazi discusses the laws of carrying on Shabbat. One may not carry in a ‘public domain’, but if it is gated, it becomes a ‘private domain’ – allowing one to carry. Rabbi Ashkenazi was asked if an island like England becomes a ‘private domain’ as it is ‘walled’ by water.

The person asking the question cites precedent for water serving as a ‘wall’ with this regard, and makes a reductio ad absurdum argument; ‘how can such a large area become a private domain… the laws of public domain will be null!’

Rabbi Ashkenazi responds to this claim arguing that if the water were to indeed make a valid wall, the entire England would indeed become a ‘private domain’, thus carrying would be permissible. He however cites a Tosafot to explain that the water does not render an area a ‘private domain’ if there are many people in said territory. As walls created by nature, such as the ocean, if it surrounds an area in which many people walk, the ‘many people ruin the wall’. Based on this Tosafot the Chacham Tzvi argues that England would not become a ‘private domain’ due to the ocean surrounding it.

He then supports this verdict, by citing the opinion of the ‘Rashba’ (in Avodat HaKodesh, beginning of shaar 3) that even if an area is ‘walled’ with actual doors which close at nights, if the area contains a major street – 8 m² with markets and people who go there to shop – it would not become a ‘private domain’.

Regarding carrying on Shabbat, the purpose of a wall is to make the area ‘private’. It stands to reason that the more people there are, the less private the area is. The water not making the area ‘private’ due to the many people there ‘ruining the wall’ is to say that ‘many people’ render the area ‘public’ – a very logical conclusion. However the purpose of the ‘wall’ for Purim is the contrary. The purpose of the ‘wall’ is not to make the city more ‘private’, rather it makes it a bigger/greater city. A strong and protected city. The ‘wall’ symbolizes a city like Shushan where the war continued for an additional day. ‘Many people’ would not be an obstacle in making the city ‘walled’, rather it would be an advantage.

The responsum of the Chacham Tzvi does not hinder our discussion regarding the Megillah, rather, on the contrary, it makes our doubt more reasonable, as that which prevents the water from rendering the city ‘walled’ in the responsum of Rabbi Ashkenazi does not apply here.

Rabbi Schlesinger after quoting this responsum, writes: ‘and there, the discussion was regarding Shabbat, however regarding the Megillah there can be a discussion’.

Potential caveats

Rabbi Schlesinger raises a potential halachic argument for why an island might not be a ‘walled city’. The Talmud says that water can be a ‘wall’ regarding Tiberias – a city that is ‘walled’ on three sides and water makes the fourth ‘wall’. ‘It can be argued that there – regarding Tiberias – that only one side is water, it (the water) can join the three walls, and thereby render the city surrounded, but if it is only water surrounding (the city), it is not considered surrounded’.

He then argues that this is also logical, since if the water surrounds all four sides it will not protect properly. The city is only properly guarded by water if it is also protected by walls on three sides and only the final side is protected by water, but if there is no wall at all, the city is not adequately protected, and therefore does not become a ‘walled city’. ‘In addition’ he adds ‘in islands it is unknown when they (probably means the water) go up, and they change multiple times’. I assume he means the water level keeps changing, going up and down, which minimizes the level of security water can provide.²⁹

He nonetheless concludes that ‘halachically it remains a doubt and one needs to fulfill his obligation (to read the Megillah) on both (the 14th and 15th)’.

Was Rhodes a city?

As mentioned earlier, regarding Cyprus, I believe there is a massive fallacy in this verdict. In order for Rhodes to be a ‘walled city’, it is a key requirement for it to have been a single city three thousand years ago. A condition hard to believe is met. While it is more plausible than Cyprus, it is still a long stretch. Rhodes, while a similar size to New York, or Greater London, it is not remotely as populated, its population being at approximately 127,613, compared to London and NYC, which are closer to 9 million, making it about 70 times smaller in population.

Rhodes is not entirely populated today, and has multiple cities. It is doubtable that it was entirely populated, and similarly that it did not contain multiple cities – if any at all – three thousand years ago.

Does water alone render a city ‘walled’?

Rabbi Schlesinger made an interesting point, potentially, the water can only be a ‘wall’ in as much that if three sides are already protected by a wall, the water can become the fourth one. But perhaps water alone can not render a city ‘walled’.

Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch, in the aforementioned responsum (Teshuvot VeHanhagot vol. 5, 238) concluded with this point, writing that water only renders a city ‘walled’ if there are actual walls around it on three sides, and the water only protects the fourth side.

He added another condition; neighboring cities.

A wall defends the city from other people, enemies. The wall surrounding a city protects the city from the people in the areas nearby who can come and attack. If there is no land near the city, the ‘wall’ does not serve as protection from anyone, as there are no neighboring people to attack. Therefore, Rabbi Sternbuch argues, an island which has no neighboring people to attack can not be a ‘walled city’.

Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef in a responsum regarding Rhodes, also concluded that water alone does not render a city ‘walled’. He quoted this responsum and commented that ‘it is hard to decide this issue by reasoning (without legal precedent) however with regards to the Halacha it would seem as he said’.

Water alone does!

In addition to Rabbi Schlesinger, other rabbis also seem to maintain that if water completely surrounds a city, it renders it ‘walled’.

The Talmud (Megillah 2b) discussing when the Megilla should be read, proposes that it should only be read in regular cities. In ‘walled cities’, the Megilla should not be read at all. Is there any verse in Megillat Esther which states that Jews in ‘walled cities’ should also read the Megilla?

The Talmud therefore cites a verse to prove that Jews in these cities also observe Purim: “from Hodu until Cush”:

“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).”

The Talmud explains that since the verse states that ‘the celebration of Purim was accepted in all the countries of his kingdom’, which is ‘from Hodu until Cush’, we know that even ‘walled cities’ celebrate it.

The question is obvious: how does ‘Hodu and Cush’ help? The verse states ‘in all of the countries of his kingdom’, while this might only include smaller cities, how does the mention of Hodu and of Cush prove that even ‘walled cities’ are included – were Hodu or Cush walled?

Rabbi Pinchas HaLevi Horowitz, in his Hafla’ah (Orach Chayim, 688 – hilchot Megillah) explained that Cush must have been a ‘walled city’. The Torah in Genesis 2 talking about the river which ‘issues from Eden to water the garden’ states ‘it then divides and becomes four branches… The name of the second river is Gihon, that is the one that goes around all the land of Cush.’

Assuming water can be a ‘wall’ the Talmud makes a lot of sense – Rabbi Horowitz explains. We know that Cush was surrounded by water, and therefore is a ‘walled city’. If people celebrated Purim in Cush this proves that Purim is observed in ‘walled cities’ as well!

Rabbi Horowitz and Rabbi Schlesinger are not alone in believing that water alone might render an island ‘walled’,³⁰ however as I will demonstrate, this is not correct.

Proof water alone does not work

The Talmud quoted earlier questions Hezekiah’s doubt – whether water counts as a ‘wall’ – from a baraita. The verse regarding batei arei choma – contrasts houses in ‘walled cities’ with those which are not: ‘But houses in villages that do not have a wall around them…’ the verse by contrast implies that a ‘walled city’ has a wall ‘around’ it. The baraita explains, that this comes to exclude – Tiberias – a city which has the sea as a wall, as it does not have a wall ‘around’ it:

“Round about them” (Leviticus 25:31), excludes Tiberias from being considered a walled city, as the sea is its wall on one side and it is not fully encircled by a physical wall.”

One might ask, how does ‘around’ imply that water can not be a ‘wall’, an island has water around it on all sides, thus has a water wall ‘around’ it?³¹

It would seem that the initial hypothetical according to which water could render a city ‘walled’ was only for water to complete an existing wall. The baraita did not think the hypothetical ruling negated includes water making the entirety of the wall, as it is obvious that there is a need in an actual wall. Therefore, the baraita understood that the verse is excluding water from being a ‘partial wall’ as the Torah says that the ‘wall’ needs to be ‘around’ – meaning an actual wall needs to entirely surround the city.³²

While – in my opinion – this Talmudic argument is compelling, it is also explicitly stated in the ‘Ritva’ (on Megillah 2a). The Ritva explains that the details in the rabbinic enactments were established in accordance with their biblical counterpart – batei arei choma. The sages were more liberal with the details of their enactments considering a city ‘walled’ regarding Megillah (a rabbinic enactment) even where biblically it is not sufficiently ‘walled’. One of his examples is reading the Megillah in Tiberias on 15th. The biblical law would not consider it a ‘walled city’, nonetheless the sages were more liberal in defining the city as ‘walled ’, maintaining that if it is close enough to the biblical requirements and is protected from enemies, it is considered ‘walled’. Since Tiberias has three walls, which are biblically valid, and the fourth side which lacks a wall is at least protected, the sages considered it ‘walled’:

“…while the sages based their ordinance (the definition of ‘walled cities’ for Purim) on the words of the Torah (the parameters of ‘walled city’ for batei arei choma), they did not equate their measures entirely rather in general. Usually they differ in their details… Here too, wherever there is a defence, and it (the city) has an element of ‘wall at the time of Joshua’, the sages considered it completely ‘walled’. For instance… and similarly with regards to Tiberias, since it is surrounded with an actual wall from three sides, and is protected from enemies (the wall and water combo), it is logical for it to not be like a village regarding the reading of the Megillah…”

In light of this Ritva it seems clear that water alone does not render a city ‘walled’, and actual walls are required on three sides.

Does the wall antecede the people?

Finally, the most interesting issue which might hinder Rabbi Schlesinger’s verdict, is the law according to which the wall must have been built before the city’s habitation. Houses built, people moved into the houses and settled down.³³ The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 688:1) states:

“Cities that had a wall surrounding it at the time of Yehoshua Bin Nun… read the Megillah on the 15th of Adar… The above refers to [cities that are] surrounded, and afterwards were settled, or were settled at first with the plan to build a wall surrounding them afterwards – this comes to exclude [a city in which] it becomes known that it was settled with the original intent not to surround it [with a wall]“

The question arises, do islands such as Rhodes meet this condition?

Halacha Umadda

The phrase ‘Torah Umadda’ which literally translates to ‘Torah and knowledge’ describes the philosophical approach of accepting secular sciences and Torah. We should not reject science and its findings, rather, we should embrace it as it helps our service of God.

Often there are areas of tension between scientific consensus and rabbinic or even biblical literature. How do we deal with these issues? Something’s gotta give!

Prioritizing religious texts and beliefs over scientific findings, rejecting or allegorizing rabbinic literature thereby prioritizing the evidence, or finding the perfect balance between the two. This issue is a major debate which diverges from community to community. Many theologians have fought for each one of these positions. However, it becomes more intriguing when it is not only a theological issue, rather a halachic one. Making it not an issue of ‘Torah Umadda’ rather ‘Halacha Umadda’.

Chumra – Kula

If the scientists are right, it is not pious to act in accordance with Halacha based on faulty history. However, if they are mistaken, accepting scientific evidence leads to Halacha based on a faulty view of the reality, and therefore to practicing it incorrectly.

For instance; urinating on grass on Shabbat. Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 336:3) states:

“Those who eat in the garden are forbidden to wash their hands over the garden, because they water the plants… However, it is permitted to urinate on them or to dispense other liquids that do not make the plants grow”

Rabbi Yisrael Lifschitz, author of the Tiferes Yisrael commentary on the Mishnah, had an interesting perspective on this Halacha. In his Kalkalat Shabbat (printed in the back of his Mishnah, Moed vol. 1, p. 3b) after writing this Halacha, he then comments in parentheses that since according to secular science it actually helps the ground, it would be forbidden as a derivative of ‘plowing’. He concludes by saying that ‘we must say the nature has changed’ – meaning the Halacha was correct at some point in time, but now the nature of the soil is different. This is a common way to reconcile science with Torah. We find a similar effort by Rabbi Abraham Jacob Neumark in his Eshel Avraham (mahadura shniya, 5717, p. 137) who argues that it depends on the location of the soil, in some places it is good while in others bad.

While some rabbis have accepted this stringent ruling,³⁴ many have not (see Mishna Brura there).

However, Rabbi Yaakov Bendetman in responsa Zichron Yaakov (res. 11, p. 15b) wrote that he can not accept that nature changed, he therefore writes that it must be that while it does help the soil, its overall negative consequences outway the positives.

I do not want to address the specifics of this issue, or the science behind whether urine is beneficial for the ground, however, I find it interesting that accepting science against the previously accepted Halacha leads to a halachic stringency. Theological fundamentalism causes halachic compromise, as the one who accepts the scientific findings would act stringently even against the established halachic leniency. Rejecting science in this case is not an act of piety, rather a potential violation of Halacha – if scientists are right.

‘Torah’ and ‘walled city’

The same is true about the history of ‘cities’ and ‘walls’. Assuming an island is considered a ‘walled city’, we would still need to know whether the island existed three thousand years ago, and whether the island formed before or after it became inhabited by people. If the island was formed after people already lived on it, Purim is only observed on the 14th.

Rabbi Solomon Zalmen Braun, in his famous work Shearim Metzuyanim B’Halacha (141:22) argues that we only observe Purim on the 14th in ‘our countries’, ruling this way even if historians find evidence of a wall which dates back to the days of Joshua; ‘as all their history has no validity and we do not deduce anything from it’. He does narrow this down by saying, ‘however, if everyone says so, they should read on the fifteenth too – without a blessing’.

In Piskei Teshuvot (688:10) after quoting this, he mentions that secular historians claim Prague had a wall for thousands of years, and argues to ignore this, and not celebrate Purim on the 15th.

Following this, it would seem that these rabbis would apply the same rationale to the formation of an island. If we were to assess how old an island is, and whether it predates its inhabitants, we can not simply ‘google it’, or read its ‘wikipedia page’, we need to study rabbinic literature discussing the island, and its history.

When was Rhodes formed and inhabited?

Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, in his Yalkut Yosef (Purim, 688:11) addressing this issue, discusses the midrashic origin of ‘islands of Italy’, and whether or not it is literal.

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 21b, Shabbat 56b) states:

“Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: When Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter, the angel Gabriel descended from heaven and implanted a reed into the sea, and a sandbar grew around it, growing larger each year, and upon it the great city of Rome was built, which became God’s instrument to punish Israel.”

This would indicate that the island only came to be after Joshua, during the reign of Solomon. Rabbi Yosef quotes the Ben Ish Chai who did not believe this could be literal, and discussed different rabbinic sources about the age of the islands, and whether or not it predated Joshua.

However, if it was created during the six days of creation, naturally the fundamentalist will assume that the island was only inhabited later, by the descendants of Noah.

‘Madda’ and ‘walled city’

However, the rationalist would not believe that the island was created from an angel implanting a reed in the sea. Assuming the rationalist accepts the historical records, conceding to an older universe, the island would be ‘walled’ before Jashua, and – in agreement with the fundamentalist – before being inhabited. So, how was Rhodes formed?

The Nasa website, details the geological history of Rhodes, according to which Rhodes has been an island for millions of years:

“Fossils found on Rhodes date back to the late Paleozoic Era before the dinosaurs evolved. The fossils are found in limestone, indicating that the island of Rhodes was once underwater. Around 15 million years ago, tectonic activity uplifted the whole region, but between 4 million and 3 million years ago, the land sank and left just the mountaintops above water.”

Similarly, people have been living in Rhodes since before Joshua, the article claiming: ‘Humans have lived there since the Stone Age.’

If one accepts evidence based history, he would be stringent, and read the megilla on the 15th (as well). The fundamentalist who would rather accept a midrashic account than evidence might believe the island only came into existence when ‘Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter’ and will therefore not read the Megillah on the 15th.

Following this, another reason to not read the Megillah on Rhodes on the 15th, is accepting that the island simply did not exist yet, as Rabbi Braun would have said; secular history books do not affect the Halacha.

Omphalos hypothesis

However, there is a third theological position, one which would conclude neither like the rationalist nor like the fundamentalist. Some might accept that the evidence is true, but nonetheless believe in a ‘young universe’. A compromise of ideals that requires one to not compromise on religious dogma, nor on evidence based truth: Omphalos hypothesis.

If one were to argue that the world was created fully evolved, he would believe there is evidence which suggests ‘an older universe’, evidence for the formation of the island, its inhabitants, and everything we know about it, all predating its creation. While all the evidence is there, it did not actually exist. God created the island, but he also created the people on it, with memories of their childhood, and the graves of their parents.

The argument could be made that when God created ‘Adam’, he also created humans everywhere. Making many islands populated since the sixth day of creation.³⁵

Were islands first ‘walled’?

The definition of a ‘wall’ is ‘protection’, this is why the sea can be a ‘wall’. When the island existed before humans did, it was not yet ‘walled’, since the very function of a ‘wall’ (protection) did not exist yet. A ‘wall’ can only exist once humans do. Raising an interesting question: was such an island ‘walled’ before or after inhabited?

Since God created the humans (with evidence of their ancestors) the very moment the island existed; at the very moment there could be a ‘wall’ it was both inhabited and ‘walled’. Making it neither ‘walled’ first, nor inhabited first. The moment the ‘wall’ existed, it was also inhabited.

This can potentially pose another problem to Rabbi Schlesinger’s innovative ruling. If the island was not ‘walled’ prior to ‘inhabited’, it could potentially render the ‘wall’ illegitimate, making the island a ‘non-walled city’.³⁶

Talmudinfo

1
These positions are given some halachic weights in responsa Teshuva Meahahava 210.
2
Rashi, Megillah 3b.
3
Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 688:1.
4
There needs to be a reason for a doubt, such as: some say it was ‘walled’ at the time of Joshua, and others say it was not. See responsa Torah Chesed, Orach Chayim 38:12.
5
Shulchan Aruch, there; 4.
6
Shulchan Aruch, there; 1.
7
Quoted by the Pri Megadim (Eshel Avraham 688:4).
8
Although, Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi could potentially believe it is considered ‘walled’ regarding batei arei choma too. See in length about this in responsa Torat Chesed, Orach Chayim 38:4.
9
Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg (quoted in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 688:1) held the position that if people settled a city with intent of building a wall, this is considered as though the wall preceded habitation, even if the wall was built after people settled the city.
10
There are many interpretations of this, seemingly he is referring to the verse in Joshua (19:35) ‘And the fortified cities’ which according to the Talmud there (Megillah 5b) is referring to Tiberias. See Beit Yehuda, Vol. 2 102, printed in Bnei Yehuda, Beit Yehuda, Livorno, 1758. p. 173b, and see also Beit Yitzchak (Weiss), on Megillah, there. In addition, it would seem from the Talmud that the assumption would be that water can serve as a wall, otherwise there would be no need for the verse to exclude it from being one regarding batei arei choma. And see; Pnei Yehoshua there.
11
The ‘Ran’ in his commentary on the Rif, Megillah 2a. In addition, it can also be the opinion of the Rosh; and see; Beit Yitzchak (Weiss), Megillah 5b, and see Torat Refael, Orach Chayim 123, some also argue this to be the position of the Rambam, see; Lechem Mishneh on Hilchot Megillah 1:8. And see; Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch, Moadim Uzmanim, vol. 2, 174, footnote 1.
12
See; Rabbi Akiva Eger, Yad Ephrayim on Orach Chayim 688, and see also responsa Teshuva Meahava 210.
13
See the Ritva on Megillah 2a, and 3b, the Kaftor Vaferach quotes a letter he received from a Rabbi Matisyah, quoted in the Kobetz Shitot Kamai, Megillah end of 5b. Rabbi Yair Bachrach (author of Chavos Yair) in his Mekor Chayim on Orach Chayim 688 (printed in Shulchan Aruch, Friedman, p. 541); Torat Refael, Orach Chayim 123.
And see; Rabbi Chanoch Zundel Grosberg, in Noam journal, issue 7, from p. 92, following that in issue 8, from p. 267, and in his book, Igeret Hapurim (Hashenit), p. 25, footnote 55 (however he does concede that Tiberias in doubtfully ‘walled’ as we do not know which part of the city was walled), and see Rabbi Avraham Yaakov Hakohen, Kol Torah issue 19 from p. 17, quoted by Rabbi Grosberg.
Some suggested that this might be the Rambam’s opinion, see for instance; Torat Refael mentioned above; Olat Shmuel 111; Beit Yitzchak (Weiss), Megillah 5b; Rabbi Moshe Zeev Groner, Kobetz Ginas Veradim, issue 11, p. 70.
See also; responsa Teshuva Meahava vol. 1, 210.
14
The Mishnah Brura, Aruch Hashulchan, Ba’er Hetev, Kaf Hachayim, Pitchei Olam Umatamei Hashulchan, Piskei Teshuvot there, Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef, Igrot Harishon Letzion, michtav 9, and he quotes his father as well, in Chazon Ovadia, Purim, Hilchot Leil Purim Veyomo 10, p. 112.
This is also the position of the Or Zarua quoted in the Shiltei Giborim (Megillah 1b); the Elya Rabbah, Orach Chayim 688, and Rabbi Judah Samuel Ashkenazi, in his siddur Beit Oved, p. 171, dinei krachim hamukafin choma, 4. And see also; Penei Yehoshua on Megillah 5b.
15
In his Masat Moshe, Orach Chayim Vol. 2, 3.
16
It is possible that he wrote this responsum before he became rabbi in Rhodes, however this is unlikely. In addition, there are other rabbis from Rhodes who also don’t mention anything about such a controversy. For instance; Rabbi Chaim Algazi, in his Banei Chayei on Orach Chayim 688, does not comment about Rhodes, about doubtable ‘walled cities’, or about Hezekiah.
17
“PURIMS, SPECIAL”; “Purim of Rhodes” in Jewish Encyclopedia.
18
See Mesorat Moshe, Vol. 2, p. 158, siman 327.
19
While he does not bring any evidence for this premise that it needs to be a city/not merely a place in which people live, I think it is intuitive. And see Malbim on Lev. 25:31.
There is precedent for parameters of ‘dwellers’ at the time of Joshua to constitute that which is surrounded, a ‘city’: the Ran mentioned in the article. He excludes non-Jewish inhabitants from rendering a city as a city, and if he were to accept this outside Israel, he would believe there are no ‘walled cities’ outside Israel.
This Ran does not seem to be that halachically relevant, it is nonetheless quoted in the Kaf Hachayim 688:5. And this Ran seemingly even proves our point, that there is a requirement for civilized living for it to be rendered a city, as the reason the Ran does not include non-Jewish habitation, is based on the Talmud in Eruvin 62a (see Chazon Ish 153:4). The Talmud there states that the non-Jewish dwelling of a home is not considered dwelling, with regards to an ‘eiruv’, the Talmud compares the gentiles dwelling to that of an animal.
And in addition, the Mishna uses the term ‘krach’ to describe a ‘city’ which is walled. This term describes large cities. And see also Rashi (Megillah 3b ‘krach’) who explains that it refers to a city with major markets (see Rashi also on Bava Metzia 101b). In addition, from the Mishnah – Rashi in Bava Metzia 52a it is evident that a ‘krach’ has a ‘shulchani’ – Money-Dealer. And see Rashba on Megillah 3b, and Ran on Megillah 2a who described it as the biggest of cities. And even though this is said in different context, or about non-walled cities (Rashba, Tosafot there) nonetheless, the use of this word indicates that there is a need for structural settlement. In addition the very statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi which requires ten people to deal with community affairs, which according to many applies even to walled cities, for instance the Ran there, and it is even brought by commentaries in Shulchan Aruch as a halachic binary (see for instance the Mishnah Brura there quoting the Yad Efrayim). But even those commentators who conclude this does not apply to ‘walled cities’, their original understanding as applying there too, implies that there is a requirement in it being a ‘city’ in addition to there being a ‘wall’.
In addition the term, ‘yashav’ which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi uses, implies this. And see Rashi there ‘nityashev tchila babatim’, and see Taz, Orach Chayim 688:2 he understands from the use of this word in the Ran that people need to be moved into the houses for it to be ‘yashav’. And implied is also a need for houses, not tents, or tribal living arrangements . And see Turei Even, Megillah 3b, Minchat Chinuch 341.The need for there to be houses is obvious from the context of the other Mitzvot; Batei arei choma an tzaraat (see Turei Even in Megillah 5b who quotes the Mishnah in Kelim 1:7). The verses are clear that there is a requirement for houses, stating ‘house’, and ‘moshav’ – ‘dwelling’. And these should also apply to Purim, see Tosafot Megillah 3b.
20
I am basing this on the distance a nearby city needs to be within to be included in celebrating on the 15th (a city outside the wall within this distance observes Purim on the fifteenth). And See Shulchan Aruch and commentaries, Orach Chayim 688:2.
21
Shut Hashoel Vol. 2, 287.
22
In his Levush, Orach Chayim 688. This is quoted by; Magen Avraham, Ba’er Hetev, Mishnah Brura, Kaf Hachayim, and Aruch Hashulchan, Piskei Teshuvot there, Shearim Metzuyanim B’Halacha 141:22, and in responsa Teshuva Meahahava 210; Torah Chesed, Orach Chayim 38:12; Olat Shmuel 111, Mekor Chayim (of the Chavot Yair) Orach Chayim 688.
23
Shut Hashoel Vol. 2, 287.
24
For more about Rabbi Schlesinger, see; Silber, Michael K. “Schlesinger, Akiva Yosef.” YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe.
25
I assume this is Rabbi Bezalel HaKohen of Wilna.
26
I would imagine he meant: Babylonian Talmud, referring to Gittin 8a, and see Kaftor VaFerach chapter 9.
27
Similarly, Rabbi Elazar Fleckeles i citizen of Prague writes in his Teshuva Meahava, (vol. 1, 210) that his family, and other pious people did read on the 15th in addition to the 14th, but most people in the town did not. And similarly, Bigdei Yesha (Orach Chayim 688:4) writes the same.
28
This is seemingly an allusion to the Talmudic passage in Berakhot 55b: “Rabbi Yoḥanan also said: Three dreams are fulfilled: A dream of the morning, a dream that one’s fellow dreamed about him, and a dream that is interpreted within a dream. And some say that a dream that is repeated several times is also fulfilled, as it is stated: “And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice, it is because the thing is established by God, and God will shortly bring it to pass” (Genesis 41:32).”
29
I don’t think he means that the water completely covers the island.
30
Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky when asked (Aryeh Shaag, p. 344), however, he did not write anything on the issueI am not sure how much halachic weight an off the cuff answer has. And see also Pri Bikurim (Hager), Purim, siman 3.
In addition the argument could be made based on the Maharsha’s version of the Talmud. The Talmud questions Hezekiah’s doubt – whether water can be a ‘wall’ – by citing a baraita which says: “‘saviv’ – this comes to exclude cities which have water for a wall.” Seemingly, if there is a difference between only one side’s wall being water and the water being the sole wall of the city, the Talmud could have resolved this contradiction, and explained this baraita as excluding an island – such as Cyprus. In this case Tiberias would be a ‘walled city’, and Hezekiah’s statement does not contradict the baraita. The advantage of this resolution is that there is no need to resolve this question the way the Talmud does, which results in differentiating between purim and batei arei choma.
However this proof is not conclusive; one can refute it arguing that if there is no difference between purim and batei arei chomai water would not be a good wall at all, as regarding batei arei choma the wall is not for protection. The protection is derived from the megilla using the word perazim.
Furthermore, one can argue that it is so obvious that water alone does not render a city ‘walled’ – that there is no need for this to be excluded by the baraita. It is therefore obvious that this is not what the baraita was addressing, rather where only one of four sides of the city is ‘walled’ by water. This results in the necessity to differentiate between purim and batei arei choma. It is also worth noting that many rabbis reject this Maharsha, such as the Mkom Shmuel and Tzlach, and maintain that the baraita clearly says ‘saviv’ excludes Tiberias. With this version of the Talmud, the proof does not begin.
31
A potential counter argument could be that indeed an island is not excluded from this verse, the baraita is specifically addressing Tiberias which does not have a consistent wall, as three sides are wall and one is water, thereby it is not surrounded, however, from the wording in Talmud it would not seem this way. In addition I would argue from logic that such a distinction should not exist, as if it is a wall it is walled around. Assuming it is a valid wall, it should be no different to two forms of walls, such as wood and stone. Surely the verse is not excluding a city walled by both stone and wood. In addition, this would not work that well according to the Maharasha’s version of the Talmud according to which the baraita is not about Tiberias specifically, but about water being a wall.
32
See Rashi who explains that Tiberias is excluded from ‘around’ because one side is water. Most Rabbis understand the exclusion this way. See also; Midrash Lekach Tov, Leviticus 25:31. And see; Rabbeinu Gershom on Arakhin 32a.
In addition, see; Korban HaEdah, Megillah 1:1; Torah Tmima on the verse. And see Penei Yehoshua on Megillah 5b (“i hachi”).
See also Rabbi Abraham Aba Herzl, in his Siftei Chachamim, Megillah there, he makes this very diyuk. Later I saw that in a book titled Atzei Chaim (Ohel Rishonim) on Arakhin 32b, siman 25, he makes my very point. See however the Meiri there, who does not learn ‘saviv’ to be excluding it for not being ‘around’. Rabbi Rabbi Yechiel Tzik (in Journal Or Torah, 5,752, issue 290-291, 82, p. 466) writes that this indicates that the Meiri believed water alone can make a ‘wall’ for Purim. However, I don’t think this proves that, as the exclusion regarding batei arei choma is not about defense, therefore even if this is being excluded, it does not mean this applies to this degree to Megillah’s ‘walled’ness. In addition, I also do not think the Meiri understanding the ‘miut’ differently necessarily implies a disagreement in the law (regarding water on all sides), even regarding batei arei choma.
This is also irrelevant, as for halachic rulings, Rashi and all the sources above would outway the Meiri.
33
See; Taz, Orach Chayim 688:2, Turei Even, Megillah 3b, Minchat Chinukh 341.
34
See for instance; the ‘Avnei Nezer’ in Eglei Tal, Zore’ah 5, SK 15; Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 336:22.
35
See for instance Zohar, Vayikra 22.
36
See; Turei Even, Megillah 3b.
This is not conclusive though, as potentially there is no need for the ‘wall’ to precede the inhabitants, rather what is needed is for the habitation to not predate the ‘walling’. See for instance Rabbi Yechiel Tzik, Journal Or Torah, 5,752, issue 290-291, 82, from p. 470 (his argument is already made by the Turei Even).
In addition, one might argue that even if the wall in practice did not predate the inhabitants, since the geological ‘history’ of the island predates the ‘history’ of the people on it, even if this did not happen in actuality, it still makes the ‘wall’ a prior to its inhabitants, making it a ‘wall which predates its dwellers’.

Talmudinfo

Talmudinfo

Purim on the Island

Purim on the Island

Talmudinfo

Reach out for more