Commentary for Megillah 3:1

The Megillah is read on the 11th etc... - Sometimes on this and sometimes on this, and further it will be explained

Not less and not more - Not before the 11th and not later than the 15th.

From the days of Yehoshua - In the Gemara it will be explained

But villages move forward to the day of entry - Which is to say, since the walled cities read on the 15th, and since the walled cities do not read on the 14th, behold in all, where is it found (that we read on) the 11th, the 12th, the 13th? But the Sages gave to villages permission to push forward their reading to the day of entry. The second day from Shabbat (Monday) which would fall before the 14th, or the fifth day from Shabbat (Thursday), which is a day of entry for the villages, whom enter into the cities for judgment (court cases) before the Beit Dinim (Courts) which dwell in the cities on Mondays and Thursday, as was decreed by Ezra (see Bava Kama page 82). And the villages are not experts in reading, and need one of the men of the city to read for them, and the Sages didn't burden them to make them come later, so they come on the day of the 14th and sometimes on the day of entry on the 13th and sometimes it is the 11th.

1 The Insights of Megilla of the Ritva z'l: (quoting the Mishna) "The Megilla is read on the 11th, on the 12th" etc. Behold that the language of the Mishna is that the Megilla is read (a passive tense of the root ק-ר-א to call or read) - not taught in the language that 'we read the Megilla' (an active tense) as it is taught in the Mishna there (Berachos 2a) "we read the Shema" (not the Shema is read). (This is) because that here (in Megilla) there is one reading of one individual that reads and all (the congregation) listens; as opposed to with the reading of the Shema, that each person of them (the congregation) is obligated to read and repeat with his mouth and one of them cannot fulfill them (of their obligation) even if done in a congregation (with a minyan - quorum - etc.) And this is brought in the Yerushalmi. The reason that (quoting the Mishna) "not before and not afterward" - "not before" (the 11th) (because of the exposition of "their times" - zmaneheim) from their times (zmanenheim) is similar to their time (zmanom) and "not more" from the verse "and it shall not pass" as brought in the Gemara (see 2a - the opinion of R' Yochanan).

Cities surrounded by a wall from the times of Yehoshua ben Nun read on the 15th (of Adar) - the words (of the Gemara) seem that this is an unlimited matter (i.e. without caveat) teaching there is no difference if in the Land of Israel and there is no difference outside of the Land (that is the location of a city with a wall from the times of Yehoshua ben Nun). It is not only the language of the Mishna itself that this is implied. For there is to question - that if that the matter is tied to Yehoshua ben Nun blanketly, the explanation would be it is referring to the Land of Israel (alone) because what is the matter of Yehoshua ben Nun (the idea of Yehoshua is obviously speaking of his leadership when involved in the conquest of the Land - therefore likely only referring to cities in the Land of Israel). However, there is to specify (i.e. to be explicit in limiting the rule to only cities in the Land of Israel which the Gemara does not) from we say in the Gemara (see 2b) that the Mishna is not like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha that ties the (law of the) walled cities to the days of Achaverosh and brings from Shushan (i.e. his source is that Shushan is the example of a walled city which was walled at the time Achaverosh not Yehoshua ben Nun). Certainly to him (R' Yehoshua ben Korcha) that brings (as the example) from Shushan even it (the walled city difference in Megilla reading) would apply outside of the Land (as Shushan is Persia not Israel). And he doesn't include Shushan more than any other city (i.e. Shushan is not a unique case - just the source example) while the Rabbis (that is the ones with the Mishna's opinion) include Shushan because it was the location of the miracle (of Purim) like is brought in the Gemara. Since from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha we heard the Rabbis (that is from R' YbK we learned the inclusion of Shushan, obviously included, and needed the Rabbis to explain how their ruling allows Shushan) that therefore we do not see an argument except on the time of the walling - that the Rabbis ties with the time of Yehoshua ben Nun and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha from the time of Achverosh, but the rule of outside the Land is not argued - since Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha did not distinguish (in fact the opposite we learn from a city outside the Land) from the Land of Israel to outside the Land - so the Rabbis (that seemingly agree on the point [that outside of the Land of Israel is also applicable being a walled city for Megilla reading purposes] due to lack of clarifying as false despite the opposing view holding that way). Tosafos brings support in this matter from that the Gemara (5b) says 'Rav Ashi (our version has Rav Asi) read the Megilla in Hutzal on the 14th and 15th due to doubt' if walled or not (i.e. was the city walled from time Yehoshua or not) and Hutzal is outside the Land as it says in the Chapter Cheilek (Sanhedrin - not sure where) that Bavel (Babylonia) will be saved from the pangs of Mashiach (i.e. the upheaval at the time of Mashiach's arrival) thus the interpretation of Hutzal (the root meaning to save) as also brought in Kesubos (111a). (Since Bavel is the location of the safety during the pangs of Moshiach - must be Hutzal is outside the Land). Now, this (gemara) is not assisting according to some versions that say Rav Ashi called the Hutzal of Binyamin - that is there could be two Hutzals (one in Israel, one in Babylonia - and it could be R' Ashi [Asi] was in doubt about the Israeli one). Another support also from that it says in the Yershalmi (source) that a Krach (walled city) that was destroyed and rebuilt by Gentiles (sefaria edition 2b) is asked by a question (the Yerushalmi mentions in regards to several questions like if a body of water counts as a wall etc.) ואי' דמסייעי לה נמי מדאמרינן בירושלמי הכרך שחרב ונעשה של גויים אתמהי' בו אי' קורין בח"ל קורין מי' בעיקר נסחי ה"ג בו אין קורין בח"ל קורין כלומר ?דרינן קודם שחרב היו קורין בו חוצה לו מדריב"ל דאמרינן כרך וכל הסמוך לו וכו' ועכשיו שחרב תוכו וח"ל קיים כיון דח"ל קורין לכתחלה שהרי נתחייב ולא נשתנה אף תוכו קורין כבתחלה שהרי נתחייב שלא יהא הטפל חמור מן העיקר והיינו דמתמה' וכי תעלה על דעת שח"ל עיקר חיובו היה מחמת הכרך קורין בט"ו ובו אין קורין ולפום האי נסחא ליכא סייעת' אלא דנסחא דחיק' היא ואידך דייקי' טפי דמדמי' כרך שחרב ונעשה של גויים לח"ל ובר מהא משמע דטעמא כמה דכתבינן הילכך מוקמי' מתניתין כפשטה דמלתא פסיקתא קתני כרכים המוקפי' חומה מיב"ן קורין בט"ו' ל"ש באי ול"ש בח"ל.