Halakhah su Ester 9:78

You should know that it is not [truly] appropriate to bring up this topic to explain it. For since the words of the Talmud (Makkot 23b) are, "There were 613 commandments stated to Moshe at Sinai," how can we say about something rabbinic, that it is included in the count. However we have been prompted to it because many erred and counted the Chanukah light and the reading of the Megillah (Scroll of Esther) among the positive commandments. And likewise the hundred blessings each day; comforting the mourners; visiting the sick; burying the dead, clothing the naked; calculating the seasons; and the eighteen days in which we complete [the recitation of] Hallel. You can only stare at someone who hears [the Talmud's] statement, "stated to Moshe at Sinai," and yet counts the recitation of Hallel in which David, peace be upon him, praised God, may He be blessed - that Moshe was commanded about it; or the Chanukah light which the Sages established during the Second Temple; or the reading of the Megillah. I cannot see anyone imagine - or it even coming to his mind - that it was nevertheless stated to Moshe at Sinai that he should command us that when, at the end of our monarchy, such and such happens to us with the Greeks, we will be obligated regarding the Chanukah light. And it appears to me that what led them to this is that we make the blessing [on these commandments], "who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us"; and the Talmud's question (Shabbat 23a) - "And where we commanded?" And they said, "From 'you shall not veer'" (Deuteronomy 17:11). But if they counted them from this, they should count everything rabbinic: For everything that the Sages commanded us to do and everything they prohibited to us [would then have] already commanded by Moshe, peace be upon him, at Sinai when he commanded us to do so. And that is his saying (Deuteronomy 17:11), "According to the law that they instruct you, etc." And he prohibited us from violating anything that [the rabbis] ordained or decreed, by saying, "you shall not veer." But if one counts everything rabbinic within the 613 commandments because it all fits into His, may He be blessed, saying "you shall not veer" - why would he count these in particular and not count others besides them? And just like they counted the Chanukah light and the reading of the Megillah, they should also have counted the washing of the hands and the commandment of eruv. For [we also] recite the blessing, "who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us," [on these] - just like we recite the blessings on the reading of the Megillah and the Chanukah light. Yet it is all rabbinic! And in explantion, [the Sages] said (Chullin 106a), "[Washing hands] is a commandment." And they said, "What is the commandment? Abbaye said, 'It is a commandment to listen to the words of the sages.'" This is like what they said about the reading of the Megillah and the Chanukah light, "And where were we commanded? From 'you shall not veer.'" And it is already clear that anything that the Sages and the prophets that arose after our teacher, Moshe ordained is also rabbinic. And in explanation, they said (Eruvin 21b), "At the time that Shlomo ordained [the ordinances of] eruv and of washing hands, a heavenly voice emerged and said (Proverbs 27:11), 'My son, be wise and make My heart glad.'" And they explained in other places that eruv is called rabbinic and washing hands is from the words of the Scribes. Behold that it is clear that everything that they decreed after Moshe is rabbinic. Indeed I am explaining all of this to you so that you not think that since the reading of the Megillah is an ordinance of the prophets, it is considered to be from the Torah. As eruv is rabbinic even though it was ordained by Shlomo and his court. And this was missed by someone besides us - so that they counted clothing the naked, because it is found in Isaiah 58:7, "when you see the naked, you should clothe him." And he did not know that it is included in His, may He be blessed, saying (Deuteronomy 15:8), "enough for his lack that he is lacking." For the content of this command is without a doubt that we feed the hungry, cover the naked, give bedding to one without bedding, give clothing to one without clothing, marry off a single man who does not have the wherewithal to get married and to give a horse to ride upon to one who is habituated to it [but can no longer afford it], as is made famous in the Talmud (Ketubot 67b). For this is all included in His saying, "he is lacking." And the words of the Talmud for them were attached 'to a stammering jargon and an alien tongue.' For otherwise, they would not have counted the reading of the Megillah and that which is similar to it with the commandments that were stated to Moshe on Mount Sinai. And it is stated in the Gemara in Shevuot (Shevuot 39a:10), "And I have only the commandments that were commanded at Mount Sinai. From where do I have commandments that were to be initiated in the future, such as the reading of the Megillah? The verse (Esther 9:27) states, 'they fulfilled and accepted' - they fulfilled what they [already] accepted." And that is that they would believe all of the commandments that the prophets and sages ordained afterwards. But it is a wonder: Why did they count positive rabbinic commandments, as we mentioned, and not also mention negative rabbinic commandments. And just like they counted reading the Megillah, the Chanukah light, the one hundred blessings each day and Hallel among the positive commandments, they should have also counted each and every rabbinic secondary sexual prohibition as a negative Torah commandment! It is as [the Sages] explained it and said (Yevamot 20a), "The secondary sexual prohibitions are from the words of the Scribes." And it has already been explained in the Talmud about the statement of the Mishnah, "the prohibition of a commandment" - referring to secondary sexual prohibitions - saying, "What is the commandment? To listen to the words of the sages." And it should have been lookwise appropriate for them to include the sister of the levirate wife, which is from the words of the Scribes. More generally, if we were to count every positive rabbinic law and every negative rabbinic law, it would add up to many thousands. And that is something clear. But the principle is that anything rabbinic is not counted in the category of the 613 commandments. For this category is completely [comprised of] that which is written in the Torah, such that there is nothing rabbinic in it - as we are explaining. However their counting some things that are rabbinic and leaving out others - according to their choice - is an unacceptable notion, no matter what they say! Behold we have explained this principle and its demonstrations such that there should be no doubt about it at all to anyone.

And know indeed that what kind of person one is, is determined at the table, for there his qualities are revealed and made known. And thus our rabbis z”l said, “By three things a person is known: through his purse, through his cup, and through his anger.”³⁴B. Erubin 68b. The clever wordplay of be-kiso, be-koso, be-ka’aso of the saying is lost in the translation. For being drawn to wine and other pleasures – surely these are “the drippings of the honeycomb”³⁵Psalm 19:11, that is, the flowing “honey, the drippings of the honeycomb” than which the “fear of the Lord” and “judgments of the Lord” (19:10) “are sweeter.” – is one drawn to the drug of death, and by his grasping this path he will die an everlasting death. But whoever wants to live ought to keep far from this path; “he will eat and live forever.”³⁶Gen 3:22, an allusion to the immortality that would have come from eating from the Tree of Life. In other words, unlike the way Adam and Eve chose, there is another way one can and should eat to gain eternal life. And thus our rabbis z”l said in tractate Gittin of the Talmud, “A meal for your own enjoyment – pull your hand away from it,”³⁷B.Gittin 70a. and similarly said, “‘You shall be holy,’ that is, ‘you shall be abstemious (perushim),'”³⁸Sifra on Lev. 19:2. and “Make yourself holy through what is appropriate for you.”³⁹B. Yebamot 20a: “Make yourself holy through what is permitted to you.” And the author of Ecclesiastes said, “I said to myself, ‘Come, I will treat you to merriment. Taste mirth!’ That too, I found was futile.”⁴⁰Eccl. 2:1. And after that, he said, “I ventured to tempt [limshokh] my flesh with wine.”⁴¹Ibid. 2:3. Limshokh here is from the root of the same verb R. Bahya used above to refer to being drawn to wine, i.e., “being drawn [he-hamshekh] to wine and other pleasures…is one drawn [nemshakh] to the drug of death.” Thus, R. Bahya is using Eccl. 2:3 as a sort of prooftext for his point about wine. And in tractate Sanhedrin of the Talmud:⁴²B.Sanhedrin 70a. “Thirteen woes are said about wine, and they are specified in Parshat Noah. It is written, ‘Noah, the tiller of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard,’⁴³Gen 9:20. which means from the moment he began to plant, he made his holiness profane. That is the point of the expression va-yahel – “he began”- which includes both the connotations of “beginning” (tehilah) and “profanation” (hillul). And because of wine, one third of the world was cursed.⁴⁴That is, the descendents of Ham were condemned to serve the descendents of his brothers Shem and Japhet, because when Noah, after drinking his wine, fell asleep in a drunken stupor, Ham “saw his nakedness.” Normally this is a Biblical euphemism for having sexual relations, hence the severity of the curse. The curse was actually directed at Ham’s son Canaan, most likely to justify morally the Israelites’ subsequent subjugation of the Canaanites and their land. However, the whole account is ambiguous and full of apparent non-sequiturs, prompting a quite a fruitful growth of midrashic attempts to explain the story. One unfortunate stream of interpretation, that Ham’s curse not only involved eternal servitude but also the blackening of his skin color, was later adopted in Christian and Muslim traditions, and used to justify the enslavement of Black Africans well into the 19th century – the so-called “Curse of Ham.” And they also taught in a midrash, “Don’t eye the wine, as it reddens…,”⁴⁵Prov. 23:31. that is, it yearns for blood.⁴⁶B. Sanhedrin 70a. And likewise Bathsheba warned King Solomon not to tempt his flesh with wine,⁴⁷B. Sanhedrin 70b.when she said to him, “Wine is not for kings, O Lemuel; not for kings to drink, nor any beer for princes.”⁴⁸Prov. 31:4. The midrash above identifies “Lemuel’s mother” (Prov. 31:1) with Bathsheba, the mother of King Solomon. And so he said, “I ventured to tempt my flesh with wine,”⁴⁹Eccl. 2:3. and “for who eats, and who feels the pleasures of the senses but me?”⁵⁰Ibid., 2:25. and then remarks after that, “That too is futile.”⁵¹Ibid., 2:26. For it is well known that someone in whose heart reverence for HaShem and fear of Him is strong, will reject and separate himself from the pleasures of the world, and will scorn them to the utmost, for he knows and is familiar with their consequences, while others who are lesser or worthless will fill their bellies with what delights them, and their vessels will return empty; they’re empty because they lack sense “They neither know nor understand; they walk about in darkness.”⁵²Ps. 82:5. About this, Solomon said, “When you sit down to dine with a ruler, consider well who is before you.”⁵³Prov. 23:1. He said, “If the wrath of the ruler rises up against you”⁵⁴Eccl. 10:4. and you go out to eat “the king’s food or the wine he drank”⁵⁵Dan. 1:8. in the house of the king who rules the land, understand well and look at those who were before you who chose this way- “what they saw in that matter and what had befallen them.”⁵⁶Esth. 9:26. Doesn’t the high status and greatness of most of them end up in humiliation and submission, “wholly swept away by terrors”?⁵⁷Ps. 73:19. Just what is written right afterwards in Proverbs, “Thrust a knife in your gullet!”⁵⁸Prov. 23:2.And our rabbis z”l said, “Do not yearn for the tables of kings, for your table is greater than their table, your crown greater than their crown.”⁵⁹M. Avot 6:5. Therefore, a person should not seek excessive gains and pursue them, for if he does, his days will be painful and he will never be satisfied, because there is no end to these gains, and whoever pursues things that have no end – is he not sick, blinded by his stupidity? For “every fool is embroiled.”⁶⁰Prov. 20:3. It goes without saying that he has no share in the Torah, because if he were rich and used to eating and drinking with silver dishes, he would be liable to think little of them and become unsatisfied until he had utensils of “turquoise, sapphire, and diamond,”⁶¹Ex 28:18. and as soon as he obtained one of them, he’d want two or three, and this would go on without out end. And therefore a person with good qualities must not in his heart crave for excessive gains, and should be satisfied with a little.

The Gemara, Haggigah 8a, declares that the meat of fowl may not be used to satisfy the requirement of the Yom Tov repast. Two separate opinions are adduced by the Gemara in support of that exclusion. The first is based upon rabbinic exegesis establishing that only meat of a species from which the festival sacrifice may be brought can be used to satisfy the obligation of rejoicing. The second opinion, recorded in the name of Rav Ashi, declares simply that there is no "rejoicing" in the consumption of the meat of fowl.²⁶See R. Judah Nagar, Mo‘adei ha-Shem, p. 132b, who rules that for this reason the obligation with regard to the Purim repast cannot be fulfilled by eating fowl. As declared in the Book of Esther 9:22, Purim is a day of “feasting and joy.” Ḥatam Sofer, Ḥullin 83a and Ḥoshen Mishpat 199:3; Teshuvot Bet Ya‘akov, no. 73; and Teshuvot Dvar Mosheh, no. 47 rule that the Purim obligation can be fulfilled only by eating meat. See also Nimukei Oraḥ Ḥayyim 695: 2. This requirement seems to be explicitly stated by Rambam, Hilkhot Megillah 4:15. See R. Moshe Sternbuch, Mo‘adim u-Zemanim, II, no. 190. Cf., Magen Avraham, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 696:15. See also R. Meir Brandsdorfer, Kneh Bosem, no. 102, regarding eating meat on Purim by a woman prior to her immersion in a mikveh on the evening following Purim. According to Rabbi Pirutansky’s thesis whether or not the meat of fowl can be utilized in fulfilling the obligation of rejoicing on Purim is dependent upon which of the two opinions expressed in Ḥaggigah 8a is regarded as normative. Cf., however, Mo‘adim u-Zemanim, VII, no. 112, who asserts that partaking of chicken satisfies the obligation of “rejoicing” at a wedding repast. Rabbi Pirutinsky insightfully notes that, according to the first opinion, there is no reason to assume that partaking of fowl does not engender happiness and rejoicing; fowl are excluded from use in fulfilling the Yom Tov obligation for an entirely different reason having no bearing upon utilization of fowl in conjunction with a se'udat mizvah.²⁷This analysis was actually advanced earlier by Brit Avot 265:14. However, according to the second opinion, fowl do not serve to generate happiness or rejoicing²⁸The second opinion to the effect that fowl do not engender rejoicing is apparently accepted as normative by Mordekhai, Ta‘anit, sec. 639. This is also the view of Ḥavvot Ya’ir, no. 178. and hence are no different from dairy dishes insofar as a se'udat mizvah is concerned.²⁹A strange and questionable anecdote is reported by Rabbi Gavriel Zinner in his contribution to Or Yisra’el. Rabbi Zinner reports that each of the children of a certain person died in infancy. Upon being informed of the tragic situation, the Belzer Rebbe is reported to have asked the father if he had served “meat of an animal” at the brit of his children. Rabbi Zinner provides no substantiation for the inferred causal connection. In a rather different vein, Rabbi Yochanan Woszner cites anonymous sources to the effect that offering meat at a brit serves to assure that the child will develop properly in the study of Torah and in divine service. In a footnote to Zemirot Divrei Yo’el, Brit Milah, sec. 205, the editor similarly reports that the Apter Rav is known to have declared that serving a dairy meal in conjunction with a circumcision will jeopardize the child’s ability to become proficient in Torah study. The original source of the latter anecdote seems to be R. Shlomoh Aharon Auerbach, Taharat ha-Nefesh (Czemowitz, 5633), 60:123 from which it appears that the Apter Rav’s comment was uttered in a jocular vein. See R. Shabbetai Lipshitz, Brit Avot (Munkacs, 5658), chap. 13, sec. 1.

[The days] from Rosh Chodesh Elul until after Yom Kippur, are days of Divine favor [and acceptance.] Even though throughout the entire year the Holy One, blessed is He, accepts the repentance of those who return to Him wholeheartedly, nevertheless, these days are unexcelled and most suitable for repentance, because they are days of mercy and favor. On Rosh Chodesh Elul, Moshe went up Mount Sinai to receive the Second Tablets; he remained there for forty days, and came down on the tenth day of Tishrei when the atonement was completed. From then on these days have been designated as days of Divine favor [and acceptance,] and the tenth day of Tishrei as Yom Kippur [Day of Atonement]. In most communities it is the custom to fast on the day before Rosh Chodesh Elul and to recite the prayers of Yom Kippur Katan [minor Yom Kippur], in order to be spiritually prepared for repentance. If Rosh Chodesh occurs on Shabbos, Yom Kippur Katan is held on the preceding Thursday. The Ari (Rabbi Yitzchak Luria), of blessed memory, wrote, "If he did not lie in ambush but Hashem made it happen, then I will provide …" (Exodus 21:13) The initials of the words [ina le'yado vesamti lecha] form the acronym Elul, to indicate that this month is a favorable time for repentance to be accepted for the sins committed during the entire year. It also alludes to the fact that sins done inadvertently also require repentance¹The Scriptural verse referred to in the text deals with a homicide that was commited accidentally or inadvertently. during this month. The interpreters of allusions also commented: It is written (Deuteronomy 30:6) "And Hashem your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your children;" the initials of the words [es levavecho ve'es levav] form the acronym Elul. Also, the initials of Ani ledodi vedodi li, ["I am my Beloved's and my Beloved is mine,"]²During these forty days, since repentance is more readily accepted, our repentance brings our hearts closer to our Beloved One and thus He, (our Beloved) is closer to us by accepting our repentance. (Mishnah Berurah preface to Chapter 581) [Song of Songs 6:3] form the acronym Elul. Also, the initials of Ish lerei'eihu umatanos la'evyonim ["One to another and gifts to the poor"] (Esther 9:22) form the acronym Elul. These acronyms are an allusion to three things: Repentance, Prayer and Charity which must be practiced zealously during this month. "Hashem will circumcise etc." alludes to repentance, "I am my Beloved's etc." alludes to prayer, for prayer is the song of love. "One to another and gifts to the poor," alludes to charity.

One must send to his fellow two portions of meat, or foodstuffs, as it says (Esther 9:19) "And send portions, man to his fellow." Two portions to one man [is the obligation]. And anyone who send more to his fellows is praiseworthy. If he has none, he can trade with his fellow, this one sending to that one his meal, and this one sending to that one his meal, so that they can fulfill "And send portions, man to his fellow." RAMA: And some send the portions during the day and not at night (from the Rosh, first chapter of [Bavli] Megilla). And if one sends portions to his fellow, but he doesn't want to accept them, or he forgives him [his obligation], he fulfills [his obligation nonetheless]. And a woman is obligated in [sending] portions to the destitute and sending portions [to one's fellows] like a man is. A woman sends to a woman, a man to a man. But not the other way, so that a man does not come to send it to a widow, and it will come to a possibility of kiddushin [having been enacted]. But portions to the destitute one should not worry [about this possibility].