Volume 47 Number 32
Produced: Tue Mar 22 7:11:32 EST 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Leaving Yerusholayim on 14 Ador
[Perets Mett]
Megilo
[Perets Mett]
Mishloach Manot
[Jonathan Sperling]
Not drinking on Purim
[<bsbank@...>]
zaycher vs zecher
[Meir Shinnar]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:34:38 +0000
Subject: Leaving Yerusholayim on 14 Ador
Aliza Berger wrote:
> I live in Jerusalem, but am planning to spend Shabbat outside
> Jerusalem. A rabbi has been asked about this, and he answered that
> it's fine to go away for Shabbat, but he still needs to be asked
> whether I should say "al hanisim" on Shabbat. Apparently it's not a
> problem to miss the Purim Torah reading.
> I just thought this was an interesting twist that people might want to
> share their thoughts on.
The generally accepted opinion is that the date of Purim is determined
by your location (or, sometimes, intended location) at daybreak on the
relevant day.
Thus anyone who is outside Yerusholayim (or a walled city) at daybreak
on 14 Ador celebrates Purim on 14 Ador. Likewise, anyone who is inside
Yerusholayim (or a walled city) at daybreak on 15 Ador celebrates Purim
on 15 Ador.
So, by leaving Yerusholayim during the daytime of 14 Ador (this Friday)
you lose completely the opportunity to fulfill the mitsvos of shlach
monos and seudas Purim. (However, this year, you still get to hear the
megilo!)
Perets Mett
PS In consequence of the above rulings, my son-in-law, a resident of
Yerusholayim whom travels abroad on business, has more than once
celebrated both days of Purim, by virtue of not returning Yerusholayim
until after daybreak on 14 Ador. He is quite used to hearing the megilo
four times!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:09:32 +0000
Subject: Megilo
Immanuel Burton wrote:
> While on this sort of subject, I have been told that in order to be
> able to recite the blessing after the Megillah one needs 10 people to
> be present, and that women count towards this number, i.e. it's 10
> people and not 10 men. Does anyone have a source for this? >
1 The primary mitsvo of reading the megilo includes pirsumei niso, ie 10
people. (O Ch 690:18). The Remo (loc. cit.) is undecided whether women
count towards the ten. However he is quite clear that a brokho is
recited before the reading even when an individual reads the megilo.
The brokho following the megilo is recited only with a 'tsibur' (O Ch
692:1). The term 'tsibur' is not defined here. This is the source for
requiring ten people present in order to say the post-megilo brokho.
However there is a minority opinion (see Baer Heitev and Biur Halocho)
that this brokho may be recited without a tsibur.
2 This year there is a potential issue with the brokhos before the
megilo. This situation arises uniquely this year in walled cities.
Since they read the megilo before the appointed day (Friday instead of
Shabbos), there is a **requirement** to gather ten people for the megilo
reading (M. Br. 690:61), failing which it should be read without a
brokho. It is accepted in Yerusholayim that a group of ten females
qualifies for saying the brokhos before the megilo. (Kol Hatorah vol 58
p366). Rabbi Yosef Chayim Zonenfeld z"l ABD Yerusholayim ruled (loc cit
p 367) that, in the event that ten people could not be gathered, an
individual too can recite the brokhos before the megilo.
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jonathan Sperling <sperling@...>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 01:51:24 -0500
Subject: Mishloach Manot
In MJ 46:84, Martin Stern responded to my comment that I saw no reason
why mishloach manot could not be delivered after this year's morning
seudah as follows:
On the contrary, the main purpose of mishloach manot is to
give some food item for the Seudat Purim and so they should
be sent early, in the morning, so as to be available by
then.
Having delayed for some time, I wanted to squeeze in a response to this
before Purim arrives.
As it turns out, the purpose behind the mitzvah of mishloach manot is
the subject of a machloket rishonim. The Terumas HaDeshen (siman 111)
writes, as Martin says, that the purpose is to ensure that every person
has enough food to provide for his seudah. In his peirush on the
Megillah entitled Manot HaLevi, however, R' Shlomo Alkevitz, author of
Lechah Dodi, writes that the purpose of mishloach manot is to increase
the sense of shalom and rei'ut among the Jewish people, demonstrating
the opposite of Haman's claim that we are an "am mefuzar u'mefurad". In
his teshuvot (O'C 196), the Chatam Sofer uses this distinction to
explain the pesak of the Rema that if one sent mishloach manot to a
recipient who refused to receive them, one has fulfilled the mitzvah.
According to the rationale of the Terumas HaDeshen, the recipient's
refusal to receive the gift means that one has failed to actually
provide food for the recipient's seudah, and thus one has not fulfilled
the mitzvah. According to the Manot HaLevi, however, the recipient's
refusal to accept the gift does not detract from the fact that one has
demonstrated one's sense of fraternity and love for his fellow Jew, and
therefore, as the Rema paskens, one has fulfilled the mitzvah.
In the course of describing this machloket, the Chatam Sofer makes an
additional observation which allows us to discern the position of
another rishon on this question. According to the rationale of the
Terumas HaDeshen, asks the Chatam Sofer, why should one be obligated to
give mishloach manot to anyone other than those who are sufficiently
poor that they may not otherwise have enough food for their meal? The
answer, he explains, is that Chazal chose not to distinguish among the
rich and the poor in order to ensure that the very receipt of mishloach
manot would not be a commentary on one's poverty and thus cause
embarrassment.
With the benefit of this explanation, we can conclude that the Rashbam
agrees with the view of the Manot HaLevi. The Rashbam (printed in
"Tosafot Hashalem" on the Chamesh Megilot) writes on the pasuk
"u'mishloach manot ish l'reyayhu u'matanot l'evyonim" (Esther 9:22) as
follows: "U'mishloach manot ish l'reyayhu - who does not require it,
u'matanot l'evyonim - because they require them." Were the Rashbam to
hold, like the Terumas HaDeshen, that the purpose of mishloach manot is
to complete one's seudah, he would have no answer to the Chatam Sofer's
question, because he not only includes in the scope of the mitzvah those
who do not need the mishloach manot to complete their seudah, but
actually limits its application exclusively to them. In light of this
limitation of the mitzvah to those who do not need the food to complete
their seudah, the Rashbam cannot agree with the opinion of the Terumas
HaDeshen regarding the reason for the mitzvah.
This dispute over the reason for the mitzvah is also evident in the
dispute over how to understand the gemara's reference in Megilla, daf
7b, to Abbaye bar Abin and R' Chanina bar Abin having the custom of
swapping meals ("michalfi seudatayhu behadadi"). According to the Ran
and the Rambam, this means that each was so poor that were he to fulfill
the mitzvah of mishloach manot, he would not have enough food left over
for his own seudah. Therefore, each gave his mishloach manot to the
other, allowing each of them both to fulfill that mitzvah and to end up
with sufficient food to fulfill the mitzvah of seudat Purim. I believe
that it is impossible to discern from this peirush a view as to the
purpose of mishloach manot, since it seems to view this practice as a
purely pragmatic solution to the need to perform two mitzvos when one
only has the resources at hand for one.
Rashi (s.v. michalfi seudatayhu), however, interprets this gemara to
mean that each year, one of these two Amoraim would host the other, with
the host and guest switching roles the following year. This gives rise
to an obvious question, posed by the Beit Yosef in siman 695: how did
the guest fulfill the mitzvah of mishloach manot? And how would
switching roles the following year solve that shortcoming? The answer
offered by the Bach there is that the purpose of mishloach manot is, as
the Manot HaLevi says, to rejoice with one's loved ones and neighbors
and to establish love, fraternity, and good feeling amongst them. In
that case, explains the Bach, when one shares the Purim seudah with his
friends and loved ones, they are ensconced in happiness together to such
an extent that they become exempt from the mitzvah of mishloach manot,
having already fulfilled its purpose.
(While one cannot discern the Rambam's position on the reason for
mishloach manot from the fact that he understands this gemara as does
the Ran, some infer that the Rambam, like the Terumas HaDeshen, views
mishloach manot as related to the seudah from the fact that he includes
them in the same halachah (Hilchot Megillah Perek 2 Halachah 16), which
begins with the words "Keytzad chovat seudah," and then continues
"v'chen chayav adam lishloach shtei manot . . ." (This view is brough
in the name of Rav Soloveitchik in the sefer Harrerei Kedem, Vol. I,
siman 206). This inference may (but may not) be less compelling than
would first appear, however, because, according to the Frankel edition
of the Rambam, what we refer to as Halachah 16 is in fact two halachot,
with the break occurring immediately before the reference to the mitzva
of mishloach manot.)
The Bach's view is not shared by all. The Levush, for example, writes
explicitly in siman 695, seif 4 that the purpose of mishloach manot is
that articulated by the Terumas HaDeshen. As noted above, however, the
Rema seems clearly to pasken in accordanc with the view of the Manot
HaLevi. The Aruch HaShulchan, too, writes explicitly in siman 695, seif
13 that the reason for the mitzvah is happiness, and not to provide
sufficient food for the seudah. Thus, for example, the Aruch HaShulchan
writes in seif 16 that one fulfills the mitzvah even if the recipient is
away from home and never even sees the mishloach manot on Purim, so long
as the recipient knows on Purim that he received it– a position
that would be impossible for the Terumas HaDeshen to maintain.
The Aruch HaShulchan also makes an interesting distinction, however. On
the one hand, he writes that if one designates a shaliach before Purim
to deliver mishloach manot on Purim, one fulfills the mitzvah. On the
other hand, if one sends mishloach manot before Purim to someone in a
far away place, so that it arrives on Purim, one does not fulfill the
mitzvah. What accounts for this difference? After all, in both
instances, one performed one's own action before Purim, and the
mishloach manot were received on Purim. In the case of the shaliach,
the Aruch HaShulchan explains, it is as if one has performed the mitzvah
on Purim itself, because of the princple that a shaliach is like the
principal himself. In the case where one simply sends the mishloach
manot before Purim in order that they should arrive on Purim, however,
the Aruch HaShulchan asks, "what happiness does what he sent earlier
bring him now?" As in my English translation, the original Hebrew is
slightly ambiguous as to whether the "him" refers to the recipient or
the sender - but the better reading appears to be that it is
referring to the sender himself.
In that case, the Aruch HaShulchan holds that the purpose of the mitzvah
of mishloach manot is not just for the sender to show love toward his
fellow Jew, but for the sender himself to feel that happiness, love, and
fraternity on Purim - such that if he sends the mishloach manot before
Purim, he cannot fulfill the mitzvah, because when he performs his act
of sending it is not Purim and he therefore cannot feel the sensation of
simchat Purim. Indeed, a close reading of the Bach mentioned above
suggests the same, for he writes not that the purpose of the mitzvah is
to show one's love for the others, but actually to instill that love
among him and his fellow Jews ("d'ta'am mishloach manot hu k'dei
she-y'hay sameach v'sas im ohavav v'reyav u'le-hashkin beineihem ahavah
v'achava v'reiut").
None of this detracts from Martin's sage advice that one can fulfill the
mitzvah of mishloach manot before this Friday's morning seudah by
delivering just one parcel containing two types of food to just one
person. Regardless of when and how many times during the day we deliver
mishloach manot, however, let us all be zocheh to fulfill the mitzvah
with a sensation of ahavah and achavah for our fellow Jews, and simcha
at being able to celebrate simchat Purim with one another.
With best wishes for a freilechen Purim to all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <bsbank@...>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:01:56 -0600
Subject: RE: Not drinking on Purim
Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...> wrote:
"Rabbi Tvi Weinreb, Vice President of the O.U. recently wrote on the O-U
website advice and a decision to recommend against teenagers drinking at
all on Purim...
Rabbi Weinreb ... cites several sources that the mitzvah was never to
get drunk but only a little tipsy..."
I attended a Purim seudah at Telshe Yeshivah in Cleveland (it was in
1971/5731 and coincidenttaly on a Friday morning). I clearly recall
HaRav Gifter, ztz"l, telling me that the mitzvah of "Ad lo yada" was
"Ad, aval lo ad bichlal."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Meir Shinnar <Meir.Shinnar@...>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:43:55 -0500
Subject: Re: zaycher vs zecher
Someone wrote
That the sound of a tzaireh is not 'ay' doesn't follow from the 'yud is
silent' answer. The yud is 'silent' because a tzaireh followed by a yud
sounds the same as a tzaireh not followed by a yud, regardless of how
the tzaireh itself is pronounced/sounded.
IMHO, you misunderstand the position of rabbenu Avraham ben harambam.
The vowel sound ey has a vocalized y sound in it, which is part of the
normal (at least current) ashkenazi pronounciation. Rabbenu Avraham
argues two things. 1) that sefardim who pronounce tzere without the
terminal y should not add that y in the case of a terminal yud 2) that
the authors of the gmara did not have that terminal y in their
pronounciation of a tzere, either with or without an actual yud, because
they didn't include a stop between bne and yisrael.
However, in medakdek sefardi pronounciation (at least for some
communities), there is still a difference between z tzere and a segol,
even though it is a small difference
Meir Shinnar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 47 Issue 32