Question: Why are they Mevatel Avodah? After Kri'as ha'Megilah, there is much time to do the Avodah!

Answer: Since the time for Avodah is from dawn, and they neglect the Avodah for the sake of Kri'ah, this is called Bitul [of Avodah].

Question: They should do the Avodah immediately, and afterwards read the Megilah alone!

Answer: It is good to read the Megilah with the Tzibur, for this publicizes the miracle more.

Explanation (Riva): This is only outside the city [where Mazikin are common], e.g. in the field and at night;

Similarly, Yehoshua was besieging Yericho in the field, far from Machaneh Yisrael.

Distinction: However, in a place where people are found, there is no concern.

Proof - Rhetorical question: If you would not say so, if a man said at night in the city "write a Get to my wife", why may we write?

We should be concerned lest he is a Shed, and not write until we see [that he has a shadow of a shadow]!

We find that the Gemara asks [that we should be concerned lest he is a Shed] only regarding someone cast in a pit, in Gitin 66a.

Question: Why were they Mevatel [the Tamid]?

Granted, they were Mevatel Talmud Torah because all of Yisrael were besieging the city. However, why didn't the Kohanim offer the Tamid?

Answer: The Aron was not in its place, like it says in Eruvin (63b). The Kohanim carry the Aron [so they were occupied].

Question: How do the verses suggest that they were Mevatel the Tamid and Talmud Torah?

Answer: Since they said "ha'Lanu Atah" (are you for us?), he asked "did you come due to [Bitul] Talmud Torah?", like it says "Torah Tzivah Lanu";

[He continued] "Im l'Tzareinu" (or are you for our enemies) - or did you come due to Korbanos, which protect us from our enemies?

Explanation (Rivan): He answered that he came for Talmud Torah, about which it says "v'Atah Kisvu Lachem Es ha'Shirah ha'Zos."

Explanation: This is not written in this verse. Rather, when he besieged Yericho, it says "va'Yalen ba'Laylah ha'Hu b'Soch ha'Am", and when he besieged Ai, it says "va'Yelech ba'Laylah ha'Hu b'Soch ha'Emek";

The Gemara often abbreviates verses and mixes them together, e.g. v'Nasan ha'Kesef v'Kam Lo (Erchin 33a. There is no such verse. It is based on excerpts from two verses.)

The text: The text does not say "as long as the Shechinah and the Aron are not in their proper place, one may not have relations." It is not relevant here;

The text says so in Eruvin (63b). We say there that Yehoshua was punished because he caused Bnei Yisrael to refrain from procreation [for a night].

Suggestion: We can say that he was punished through not having a male child, for being Mevatel Yisrael from procreation, Midah k'Neged Midah;

However, the rest of his punishment was for Bitul Torah.

Explanation: This is when they all answer together. Mekonenos is when one speaks, and the rest answer, or clap on their hands, thighs or face.

Pesak: Yom Shemu'ah (the day one hears of the death) is like in front of him.

Explanation: One may eulogize [a Chacham], even though he is Mevatel Kri'as ha'Megilah.

Inference: Talmud Torah is more stringent than Kri'as ha'Megilah.

Explanation: This is not only a Mes Mitzvah. We are Mevatel Talmud Torah for every Mes in the world.

Note: There is an implied question. If so, why did the Gemara mention a Mes Mitzvah?

Answer: Since we mentioned a Mes Mitzvah regarding "ul'Achoso", we mentioned a Mes Mitzvah also regarding Talmud Torah.

Question (R. Elchanan): Why do we need a verse? A Kal va'Chomer should teach this!

Talmud Torah is severe, yet we are Mevatel it for Kevod ha'Mes. Avodah is lighter. All the more so we are Mevatel it for Kevod ha'Mes!

We are Mevatel even Talmud Torah of a multitude for Kevod ha'Mes, like it says in Kesuvos (17a)!

Answer: That (there is no limit to how many people must be Mevatel Talmud Torah to escort a Mes) is only for one who learned written and oral Torah and taught;

For one who did not learn written and oral Torah, we do not need so many.

Note: For one who learned written and oral Torah, but did not teach, some say that 18,000 must accompany him, and some say 600,000 (Kesuvos 17a).

Here we discuss a Mes Mitzvah who did not learn written and oral Torah. Therefore, we need the verse "ul'Achoso".

Explanation: We must say that we discuss a Stam Krach mentioned in the Gemara, but if it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua bin Nun, even if there are not 10 Batlanim in it, they read on the 15th.

Support: Below, we ask "what is the Chidush? We learned this in a Mishnah! What is a big city?...

The Gemara answers that it needs to teach about a Krach. Even though people come to there from elsewhere [it must have 10 Batlanim from the city itself].

If it were true that even a city surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua needs 10 Batlanim, it should have said that it needs to teach about a city surrounded from the days of Yehoshua!

Even though its wall is important, for it protects from enemies, and also people come to there from elsewhere, [still, it needs 10 Batlanim]. This would be a bigger Chidush [than a Stam Krach].

Conclusion: We must say that a city surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua does not need 10 Batlanim.

Explanation (Rashi): This discusses Batei Ir Chomah.

Support: We bring the verse "v'Chi Yimkor."

Question #1: The Gemara should have taught this in Erchin (32a), regarding other laws of Batei Ir Chomah!

Question #2: If so, it should have said that it is judged like Arei ha'Chatzerim, which apply to them (Ir Chomah! Why does it say that it is judged like a Kefar, which applies to Megilah?)

Answer: Rather, it refers to Megilah. In any case we bring the verse "v'Chi Yimkor" to teach that the wall of our Mishnah regarding Megilah is in such a case that helps for Bayis Ir Chomah;

I.e. it was Hukaf veli'Vsof Yashav, like it says Bayis Moshav Ir Chomah, which connotes that it was settled within the wall.

Question: Below (5b), we say that the sea of Teverya is its wall;

Even though it does not have the law of Ir Chomah, they read the Megilah on the 15th, for they are surrounded by a wall, since it protects from their enemies;

Also here, we should say that when it was settled and later surrounded, since [the wall] covers and protects [they read on the 15th]!

Answer: Teverya is different. Since we find that being surrounded by the sea helps like enclosure within a wall for protection, they should also read the Megilah on the 15th, for the enclosure preceded the settlement;

It is like other enclosures that help for Batei Ir Chomah.

However, if it was settled and later surrounded, we never find that such a wall is significant.

Question: Below in our Perek, we say that "Asher Lo Chomah" excludes Shor Agar, i.e. its walls, e.g. the houses are stuck together in a circle, and it is like a circle around the city.

Why do we need the verse? We should know [that the wall is invalid] because it was settled and later surrounded, for the city's wall was not completed until all the houses were finished!

Answer: We need the verse to teach about when we know that no one lived there until all the houses were finished, even so it is not considered an enclosure.

Assertion: We say that it is judged like a Kefar. We must say that this is when there are not 10 Batlanim;

Rhetorical question: If there were 10 Batlanim, why would it be worse than big cities, which read on the 14th?

Question: Rather, than challenge him from R. Eliezer, why don't we support him from Rabanan who argue with him, and hold that the first Kedushah was temporary, and not for the future?

Answer: We are forced to say that R. Yehoshua does not hold like Rabanan.

Rhetorical question: If he held like them, why would it help if it was settled at the end (after encl), if it was not Mekudash a second time?!

Explanation: This is when it was not surrounded from the days of Yehoshua, for that does not need 10 [Batlanim].

Question: Why does it help that initially it was a Krach? (It is irrelevant.) It should have said "a Kefar that became a Krach", for 10 settled there!

Answer: This is a bigger Chidush. Not only a Kefar that became a Krach [r14], for Stam we need not be concern for lest it lose inhabitants;

Rather, even this, which already lost its residents once [r14];

Suggestion: We should be concerned lest its residents cease again!

Rejection: Even so, the Tana teaches that we are not concerned.