Siman 695

It is a mitzvah to increase the Purim feast, as it is written: "gladness and feasting." And what is the obligation of this feast? That he should eat meat and prepare a fine feast according to his means. So wrote the Rambam, and it implies that meat is certainly required, for without this there is no importance. However, regarding other foods, he should do as on a Yom Tov. And with one feast during the day, he has fulfilled his obligation, and at night he does not need to increase the feast. And a Purim feast that he ate at night, whether on the night of the fourteenth or the night of the fifteenth—he has not fulfilled his obligation, as it is written: "days of feasting"—days and not nights. Nevertheless, even at night he should rejoice and increase the feast a bit after the Megillah. And even if it falls on the conclusion of Shabbat, when he is satiated from Shabbat, nevertheless it is proper to rejoice with a bit of a feast.

In the Gemara (7b) it is stated: That a person is obligated to be joyful on Purim until he does not know the difference between "cursed is Haman" and "blessed is Mordechai." And the matter is astonishing: for if so, he must be drunk close to the drunkenness of Lot! And the Rambam did not write with this wording, but wrote that he drinks wine until he becomes drunk and falls asleep in his drunkenness. Thus far his words. And perhaps he would interpret "until he does not know..." because he falls asleep. And this is as our teacher, the Rema, wrote, and this is his wording: And some say that he does not need to become so drunk, but rather that he should drink more than his habit and sleep, and since he sleeps – he does not know the difference between "cursed is Haman" and "blessed is Mordechai." Both the one who does much and the one who does little, provided that he directs his heart to Heaven. Thus far his words, and this is according to the words of the Rambam.

However, it is not understood: according to this, why did the Gemara have to speak in the strange language of "until he does not..." – let it say: "one is obligated to become intoxicated until he falls asleep"? Therefore, it seems more likely that the intention of the Rambam was not to interpret the Gemara thus, but rather that he rejected this statement from the halacha, as the Ran wrote in the name of our teacher, Ephraim. For since it is explained in the Gemara that an incident occurred because of this, see there, this was rejected from the halacha. But the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote exactly like the wording of the Gemara: "until he does not know," etc., and it is perplexing. And some have written that they had a song that concluded with "Cursed be Haman" and "Blessed be Mordechai," and it was a long song, and when he is slightly intoxicated – he will not be able to say it all. And some have written regarding the numerical value, for in numerical value both are equal, and when he is slightly intoxicated – he will not be able to calculate. And the Tosafot wrote that the intention is according to the Yerushalmi: "Cursed... cursed be Zeresh... cursed be all the wicked, blessed be all the righteous," see there, and their intention is that in this there is some length. And when he is intoxicated – it is difficult to say it all (Bach).

And one may explain "until he does not know..." meaning: until he is unable to decide which benefit was greater before us, whether the downfall of Haman or the greatness of Mordechai (see Taz). And in the Hagahot Maimoni in the name of the Ra'avyah, he wrote that this is for the mitzvah but not a requirement; see there. And it is not understood, for behold, he uses language of obligation: "A person is obligated to become intoxicated...". And one may say that it should be explained that this is the meaning: "A person is obligated to become intoxicated" – meaning that this is an obligation upon everyone "until he does not know...", meaning: and the permission is in the hand of the drinker to drink "until he does not know...". For certainly not all people are equal in this, and he says that the obligation is upon everyone – each according to his level, and the permission is "until he does not know...": even if he drinks until he does not know – we do not rebuke him.

However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, wrote in the name of Orchot Chaim, and this is his wording: A person is obligated to be joyful on Purim. Not that he should become intoxicated, for intoxication is an absolute prohibition. And you have no greater transgression than this, for it causes forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed, and several other transgressions besides them. Rather, that he should drink slightly more than his habit. Thus far his words. And it is difficult: for if so, what is "until he does not know…"? And if he explains it according to any of the explanations that have been explained, how did our teacher, the Beit Yosef, leave his words unexplained in the Shulchan Aruch, where it explicitly implies complete intoxication? And it requires further study. (And perhaps they would explain: "until," but not including "until." And in practice, one should distance himself from intoxication, and specifically the drinking of brandy, for in his intoxication he will be filled with vomit and filth, and only drink slightly more than his habit and sleep a little.)

One should not fast on Purim, except for a fast over a dream. And even regarding this there are those who forbid it, as I wrote in siman 604 regarding the matter of the eve of Yom Kippur. Therefore, he should fast until after Mincha, and afterwards he should eat (Magen Avraham, subsection 4). And one who takes an oath to fast on Purim – there is a dispute whether the oath takes effect, as I wrote at the beginning of siman 570, see there. Therefore, he should see to annul the oath (see Magen Avraham, subsection 4, and look closely and you will find it easy). And if he did not annul it – it is difficult to permit him to eat, and see what I wrote in siman 570.

The Maharil would wear Shabbat garments on Purim. And one should make the seuda during the day, and not like the custom of the world who begin close to evening. And we are accustomed to fulfill the obligation of the seuda with the meal of the day, and we take then the important bread, and make important foods. For more than one seuda is not necessary, as I have written. Nevertheless, one can justify the custom of the world, for in truth even in the morning they eat a Yom Tov meal: meat and fish and levivot, which is an important food, and likewise shriveled turnip, which is called tzimmes, which is among the foods of Shabbat and Yom Tov. And only the important bread that they make for the seuda, which is called kitke—they leave for towards evening. But nevertheless it is an important meal, and with it too they can fulfill the obligation of the seuda. And it is good to make even the important bread for the morning meal, and so we are accustomed. And I saw one who is uncertain if one fulfills the obligation of the seuda with good foods without bread (see Sha'arei Teshuva). And it seems to me that he has not fulfilled it, similar to Shabbat and Yom Tov. Furthermore: there is no mishte without bread, as it is written regarding Lot: "And he made them a mishte, and baked matzot, and they ate"; and in Daniel it is written: "the king's food and the wine of their mishte." (And the Magen Avraham, small subsection 9, did not write so, and in my humble opinion it appears as I have written.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2: And we are accustomed to making the Purim seuda after Mincha. And they shall pray Maariv at night, and they pray Mincha first while the day is yet great. And the majority of the seuda must be during the day, and not as those who are accustomed to begin close to evening. And the essence of the seuda is the night of the fifteenth. And when Purim falls on Friday – they shall make the seuda in the morning, out of honor for the Shabbat. And one who wishes to always make it in the morning – the permission is in his hand. Thus far his words. And that which they were not accustomed to always do it in the morning – is because they are occupied with mishloach manot, and with the giving of tzedaka, and other matters. And it is a mitzvah to increase in candles towards evening, as it is written: "The Jews had light." (There is one who wrote: that some were accustomed not to eat meat on the night of the fourteenth, so that they should not say that they are fulfilling the obligation of the seuda at night. And it is a wondrous thing, and this is not a custom. See further Taz.)

He further wrote: There are those who say that one should eat a dish of seeds on Purim, in memory of the seeds that Daniel and his companions ate in Babylon. Thus far his words, and I wonder: why did he say that Daniel ate them, which is not related to Purim? Behold, Esther herself ate seeds, as it is brought in Megillah (13a) on the verse: "And he changed her and her maidens for the best..." – Rabbi Yochanan said that he fed her seeds, see there. And there is one who wrote that the seeds are for the first night (Magen Avraham, subsection 7). And I do not know why at night, and also the custom is to eat them during the day. And he further wrote that it is good to engage a little in Torah before he begins the meal, and he based the matter on "The Jews had light and gladness," and we expound: "light" – this is Torah. And one is obligated in feasting and some gladness on both days, the fourteenth and the fifteenth, and so they practiced. Thus far his words.

He further wrote: That there are those who say that if one damaged his fellow during the Purim celebration – he is exempt from paying. Thus far his words. That is to say: that he did not intend to damage, but rather intended to rejoice, and through the force of the rejoicing he damaged him. And we have already written this in Choshen Mishpat at the end of siman 378. And now, in our many sins, all joy has been dimmed, and we are not accustomed to rejoice so much that it should lead to damage. Therefore, now when one damages – he is liable to pay. And even in ancient times – he was liable for bodily damage (Magen Avraham, subsection 7).

One says "Al HaNissim" in Birkat HaMazon in the blessing of the land, after "Nodeh Lecha" before "Ve'al HaKol." And if he began his meal during the day, and it continued until the night – he says "Al HaNissim," for we follow the beginning of the meal. And some say not to say it, but the custom is like the first opinion, for such is the primary law. However, if he prayed Arvit in the middle of the meal – it appears that he should not mention "Al HaNissim" in Birkat HaMazon (and so it is implied in the Magen Avraham at the end of subsection 9, in the name of the Matteh Moshe, see there). And some say that even if he prayed in the middle of the meal – he should say "Al HaNissim" in Birkat HaMazon. And there is one who acted accordingly (Sha'arei Teshuvah in the name of the Yavetz). And in my humble opinion it is not so. (And what the Magen Avraham wrote there in the name of the Mordechai on parchment – this is regarding Shabbat, and when they ate before nightfall according to their custom, as he wrote in Terumat HaDeshen siman 1, that after the Shabbat meal was sunset, see there.)

It has already been explained that if one did not say "Al HaNissim" in the prayer—we do not make him repeat it. And some say that if one did not say "Al HaNissim" in Birkat HaMazon during the meal, we do make him repeat it, because this meal is obligatory (Magen Avraham, subsection 9, in the name of the Rashal and the Shelah). And this is a wondrous thing: for prayer is certainly obligatory, and nevertheless it is not a requirement for validity (ibid.). And if it is because this meal is the primary joy over the miracle, and therefore it is a requirement for validity—I do not know what one matter has to do with the other. For the thanksgiving for the miracle—we read the Megillah, and the blessing after the Megillah. But that it should be a requirement for validity in Birkat HaMazon—it is a wondrous thing. And this was mentioned neither in the Gemara nor in the Rishonim. (And the Magen Avraham there rejected it, because there is no obligation to eat bread. But he does not need this, for even when there is an obligation to eat bread, as I wrote in siman 695, section 7, nevertheless, that it should be a requirement for validity in Birkat HaMazon is a wondrous thing. Furthermore: for behold, he can say in "HaRachaman": "May the Merciful One perform for us miracles and wonders, just as You performed...", as I wrote regarding Chanukah. And even according to their words, if he ate one time and mentioned Al HaNissim—it is obvious that we do not make him repeat it during the meal. For according to the law, one time is sufficient, as the Magen Avraham wrote there.)

The positive commandment of Megillah is to send portions, a man to his fellow. We require two portions, for it is written "portions" in the plural. And one fulfills the obligation by sending to one person, for it is written "to his fellow" — in the singular. One fulfills the obligation even by sending to a wealthy person. And even though it is written in Nehemiah, "send portions to him for whom nothing is prepared," which implies to one who has nothing, or one who did not set an eruv tavshilin according to the homiletic interpretation of our sages, of blessed memory, in the second chapter of Beitzah — this is because there it was on Rosh Hashanah, when this obligation does not exist. He only mentioned to them to send to one who has nothing, so that he would have what to eat. This is not the case regarding Purim — it is a commandment. And the reason is for the sake of joy, and not because the recipient has nothing to eat. Therefore, even with a wealthy person — he has fulfilled the obligation. Furthermore: here one cannot say it is only for a poor person, for behold, gifts to the needy is a commandment unto itself.

And the matter is clear that one must send two types of foods, or two types of drinks, or a type of food and a type of drink. And so it is stated explicitly in the Gemara (7a) that one sent to his fellow meat and wine, see there. But two pieces of one type—it is not effective. For because he cut them shall we consider them as two? And the Rambam wrote: And so too one is obligated to send two portions of meat, or two types of foods, or two types of cooked dishes, see there. Behold, he wrote "two types," and perforce one must say that that which he wrote "two portions of meat"—this means from two types of meat. Or perhaps it is a printing error, and so it should say: "two types of meat like two types of foods...".

It further appears to me that in this matter a kezayit or a revit is not sufficient, for we require a fine portion. For this is the meaning of the term "manot," similar to the matter of a piece fit to be served to guests, that it be a significant item. And those who send small pieces—they have not fulfilled their obligation. And whoever increases in sending manot—this is praiseworthy, for this is to increase the joy. And if his hand cannot afford to send significant items, and for there to also remain for himself for the joy of Purim—he sends his meal to his fellow, and his fellow sends his meal to him, and with this both of them fulfill the mitzvah. (And from Rashi there it is implied that only with one sending do both fulfill it when they eat together, because this is also considered for the second person the joy of mishloach manot, as the Bach wrote, see there. But the Rambam and the poskim do not hold so. And it is simple that one must send something fit for eating and drinking immediately, such as roasted or cooked food. But if he sent it raw—he has not fulfilled the obligation.)

Sending manot is during the day and not at night, like gifts to the poor. And if one sent them at night—he has not fulfilled his obligation. And if one sent manot to his fellow, and he does not want to receive them, or if he forgave him—he has fulfilled his obligation. But if the messenger lost them before they reached the hand of the one to whom they were sent—he has not fulfilled his obligation. And if he appointed a messenger before Purim, that on the day of Purim he should send manot on his behalf to so-and-so—he has fulfilled his obligation, for a person's messenger is like himself. And if he sent manot to Shimon, and Shimon is not in his house, if he is in the city and will come to his house while it is still day—he has fulfilled his obligation. But if he is not in the city, such that he will not come to his house today—he has not fulfilled his obligation, even though his wife or the members of his household received them on his behalf. For behold, it is written "sending manot, a man to his fellow," and we require that it come to the hand of his fellow, so that at any rate he will know of this.

There is a doubt regarding one who sent portions to his fellow who is far away before Purim, and they will arrive to him on Purim, whether he has fulfilled the obligation of mishloach manot with this. There is one who says that he has fulfilled it (Ba'er Heitev, subsection 8, in the name of "there are those who say"). But it seems to me that he has not fulfilled it, for we require the sending of portions on Purim itself. Furthermore: for the essence of mishloach manot is for the sake of joy, and what joy is there for him now from what he sent previously? And if he sent types of meat, and they were subsequently found to be treif—certainly he has not fulfilled it. And so too in sending money, or an object, or even types of food that are not fit for eating as they are, such as raw meat—he has not fulfilled it. And I saw one who is in doubt regarding a fish and the egg upon it, whether this constitutes two portions, as in eruvei tavshilin (ibid.)? And it seems to me that according to what I wrote in section 15, that we require a significant thing—consequently, the egg coating that is upon the fish does not count as one portion, and so too anything similar to this.

Women are obligated in mishloach manot, and even though it is written "a man to his fellow," for all the mitzvot of Purim—women are obligated like men. And the term "man" is not to exclude a woman, just as it is written in Mishpatim: "And if a man shall open a pit," "And if a man's ox shall gore," for the entire Torah was stated in the masculine tongue. And a woman should send to a woman, and a man to a man, for it is not fitting for there to be a closeness of mind between a man and a woman. And sometimes there could also be a concern of kiddushin in this when she is unmarried. But regarding matanot l'evyonim there is no concern, since this is the way of tzedakah—there is no closeness of mind in this, nor a concern of kiddushin. And all women are obligated in mishloach manot and in matanot l'evyonim, and even if she has a husband—she is not exempted through that of her husband, for this is a mitzvah cast upon her (see Magen Avraham, subsection 14, and our women are careful and send manot). And there is reason to doubt if one sent to a minor whether he has fulfilled the obligation. And it appears in my humble opinion that he has fulfilled it, for behold, "to his fellow" is written, and a minor is also included, as is proven from the verse "And if a man's ox shall gore the ox of his fellow," and one whose ox gores the ox of a minor is liable.