Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The Halacha is that those who live in a city that was walled in the times of Yehoshuah reads on a different day. The question is why from Yehoshuah (Joshua) when the commentaries explain it they speak of the respect for Israel as the occasion occurred when the land of Israel lay in ruins hence we focus one aspect of the Meggilah on Yehoshuah the question again is why not just say from the begining of the capturing of Israel why mention Yehoshuah ?

share|improve this question
The halakha is more accurately a city that was walled in the times of Yehoshua whether or not it is walled still today; and a walled city today does not apply had it not been walled in the times of Yehoshua. – Aman Feb 27 '12 at 13:07
@Aman sorry you are right big mess up on my part – simchastorah Feb 27 '12 at 13:08
Can you source that it actually says 'yehoshua' and that that is not just a later convention about the way we speak about it? – Double AA Feb 27 '12 at 17:13
@DoubleAA, it's the first mishna in M'gila. – msh210 Feb 27 '12 at 21:25
@msh210 why the change of transliteration (out of curiosity)? – Shmuel Brin Feb 28 '12 at 3:10

Bartenura (to Megillah 1:1) says that it is associated with Yehoshua because he was the first to wage war against Amalek. Indeed, G-d directs Moshe there to "write this as a memorial in the book and place it in the ears of Yehoshua" - the Gemara (Megillah 7a and 18a) explains that this phrase refers, among other things, to the Megillah.

share|improve this answer
While I like this idea, I find it to be of dubious veracity. After all, we also refer to walled cities in this way regarding the laws of batei arei chomah (Mishnah Arachin 9:6) and the Bartenura there gives no such explanation. I assume that the reference to walled cities is meant to be the same in both instances – Matt Feb 9 '15 at 21:53
In a recent Daily Halacha, Rabbi Eliyahu Mansour added that Yehoshua's being the first to battle 'Amaleq is significant, because Haman is an 'Amaleqite descendant. Also, had it been any walled city at the time of Purim, Eretz Yisra'el would be excluded, because it didn't have any walled cities at the time. To not disrespect Eretz Yisra'el, HaZa"L dialed backed the clock to its first conquest by Yehoshua'. – Lee Mar 2 '15 at 4:33

This is derived on Megillah 2b via biblical exegesis. The Yerushalmi quoted by Rambam and others explains that this was to accord honor to Israel whose walled cities were destroyed in the time of the Megilla. By defining walled city status by the ealier periof of Yehshua, Israeli cities qualified. (The exact intent of the Yerushalmi is disputed by the commentators).

share|improve this answer
Why Yehoshua? Why not Shlomo or Dovid – Shmuel Brin Feb 9 '15 at 21:42

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.