- This topic has 107 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
But mistama Rabban Gamliel knew the reason why we drink wine. So if the reason was that there was a nes to make the bedika not work then Rabban Gamliel should have known that without a nes it would work.
I think it would be a raya that the Radvaz held that lechatchila the mitzva is with wine.
Rabban Gamliel might have held you can use schnapps. Or held like Rabbeinu Ephraim.
Not a raya, because we don’t know how he understood the implied exclusion of ??? ?? ????.
Oh good. Now I can tell everyone that they shouldn’t get drunk because Rabban Gamliel held like Rabbeinu Ephraim.
Not a raya, because we don’t know how he understood the implied exclusion of ??? ?? ????.
The Radvaz is entertaining the possibility that despite a neder against wine, the guy can still drink it for Purim. If whiskey is just as good as wine, why would the fact that the wine is being used for a mitzva override the neder?
I agree that the Radvaz is not a raya that wine is meakeiv. But then again, nothing is meakeiv you hold ????? ??? ???????.
To defend the ???”?: the ????? ?????? is not in any way clearly against ????? (e.g. see ???),
so the ??”? should have been more clear.
If anything I would say it’s a kashya on the Beit Yosef for not saying which of the positions to follow. But one thing is clear from the Beit Yosef – he is coming to limit the drukenness.
Why are you grouping categories two and three together when it would be more logical to group categories one and two together?
The way I choose to group them is dependent on what point I’m trying to make. Here, the point I was trying to make was that there is an extreme dearth of sources that understand Rava k’pshuto and hold of it l’halacha. If I was trying to point out that there are many sourses which hold of some form of drinking then I would in fact group category two with category one.
Why would they unclearly quote Rava’s lashon verbatim without further elucidation if they didn’t mean it in the simple sense?
Why did Rava quote Rava’s lashon verbatim without further elucidation if he didn’t mean it in the simple sense? Also, poskim have a proclivity for using the exact language of the Gemara (or earlier rishonim). Open to any siman in Shulchan Aruch and you’ll find verbatim quotes of the Gemara/Rambam/Tur etc.
Oh good. Now I can tell everyone that they shouldn’t get drunk because…
Ah! This is the problem – that people arguing against Purim drunkenness are often coming with an agenda as their starting point. They want to assur drunkenness on Purim and then go looking for shittos for fit that goal. And many even get upset at you merely for pointing out all the many valid shittos insisting on the halachic requirement to get drunk and all the real examples of contemporary and historic vintage of great and regular yiddden appropriately fulfilling this halacha by getting drunk on Purim.
I was being sarcastic. I highly doubt DaasYochid would accept such a claim.
BTW, it was worth starting this thread if for nothing else than to have you cite Rav Menashe Klein zt’l.
I can’t think of anything in the teshuva that is so noteworthy as to justify starting this thread. So I assume you mean the fact that I cited specifically R’ Menashe Klein. Which leads me to wonder what is so special about that.
Swazzled. *like*
It’s more than merely “some form of drinking”; category two typically would be reaching the point of some form of drunkenness.
Some of them, definitely. But my point was just to go against k’pshuto. If I want to discuss the exact level of drinking/drunkenness, I might need a few more than three categories.
I understood you were being sarcastic. But even your use of sarcasm gives an indication of inclination.
I’m sure there are people with an agenda to eradicate drunkenness. I’m also sure there are people with an agenda to promote drunkenness.
It is somewhat analogous to a Brisker or BMG talmud citing Rabbi Kook or Rabbi JB Soloveitchik for halachic support. RMK was about as far on the right side of the spectrum as any posek (i.e. see his positions regarding mesira.) In any event, that was just a cutesy comment.
1) R’ Soloveitchik would consider himself be a Brisker. But I know what you meant.
2) I figured that the chiddush was that someone like me would quote someone like R’ Menashe Klein. But I wasn’t sure why you think I’m too far to the left to quote him.
BTW, unless you are Sephardic why do you use non-Ashkenazic Hebew pronunciations (such as your referring to the “Beit” Yosef)?
I think you will find that the vast majority of my posts are written with Ashkenazic pronunciations. The Beit Yosef is an exception. Whether or not I am Sephardic, R’ Yosef Karo was definitely Sephardic and therefore he most certainly named his sefer “Beit Yosef” and not “Beis Yosef”. Similarly, if I have a friend who pronounces her name RA-chel, I would call her RA-chel even if I would normally pronounce it Ra-CHEL.
PAA:
Again, I’m not sure why you think a Rishon should need to say explicitly that he means what he says literally. If the Rif quotes the lashon of Rava, what makes you think that “we can’t know what there exact position is”?
I looked up the Beis Yosef, and he does indeed bring down several different shittos. However, the words of the Aruch Hashulchan still stand.
I pasken like the mishna berurah; to make sure that whatever you do is lshem shamayim.
mw13:
I’m not saying that the Rishonim don’t mean what they said. What they said is in effect “We pasken in accordance with Rava’s statement”. But as we see from the other rishonim, Rava’s statement doesn’t necessarily mean what you think it means at first glance.
So what do you propose regarding the Shulchan Aruch? Do you think he forgot what he wrote in the Beit Yosef? Do you think he changed his mind? (It’s interesting that the Pri Megadim in Klalim B’hora’as Issur V’heter discusses how to pasken when someone contradicts himself from one sefer to another, yet when it comes to R’ Yosef Karo all he says is that the Shulchan Aruch was written after the Bedek Habayit.)
Also, do you grant my point that the Shulchan Aruch was not written to be the first and last word on a topic? If you don’t, then I’ll quote again:
If you do grant it, then it is obvious that when reading the Shulchan Aruch, you have to take into account what he said in the Beit Yosef.
In sum, I don’t see a reason to manufacture a stira when there is a simple explanation.
Slight tangent:
I saw someone suggest that ?????? doesn’t mean to become drunk; it means to become perfumed.
?? ??? ????
?? ??? ????
(An excerpt of) Her explanation is:
When she says “good”, she means purple, and when she says “evil”, she means refrigerator.
No, when she says “good” she means “power” and when she says “evil” she means “those too weak to seek it”.
Though unless something changed in the two+ years since http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/in-witch-he-snorted#post-435038 you won’t get it.
When you say “power”, you mean alligator, and when you say “seek”, you mean “parah adumah”.
Something has changed.
Now there’s another guy who hasn’t read it as well.
And who might that be?
(Although, you’ll nitpick that one already said that he hadn’t read HP before my post, and the other isn’t a guy.)
You think you can predict my reaction twice?
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/good-jokes/page/33#post-536677
You started this thread because you wanted someone to say “Any heter TO get drink on Purim”. So therefore, I just said it.
Nice Thread. Joseph does seem like a shtickle troll.
1- DY on the Seder HaYom – many good sources by all cited, but that was particularly interesting. It does seem that the pashut p’shat is held by many Kabbalists. See the Kaf HaChayim brings the Sefer HaKavonos. But the Arizal (cited by Sefer Yesod Shoresh v’ Avodah) says not literally – even though he cites this from a Be’er Heitev that is not in our S’A.
2- I am not one to question the Aruch HaShulchan’s question on the S’A (and the many Talmedei Chachamim on the thread ;-)) but to me it is not a kashya. The S’A is a synopsis of the Bais Yosef, but it also can be m’ramez. The Tur brings the lashon shikar. The S’A davka CHANGES back to l’vsumei. This is his maskana which the Archos Chayim stated – l’vsemei not shikar. This is defined by drinking more than usual. [See Pri Chadash that we are discussing more than usually drunk by Yom Tov or another time one does drink]. This to me is only a minimum not davka a little more. That is why the Rema says “yesh omrim”. The S’A is stating the din is l’vesumei drink more than usual until but not including being shikar (see the Bach) – the Rema says no just more than usual (ie to a minimum) but not more – then go to sleep. Even though it is not a real fulfillment even to the Rambam who seems to be saying one has to drink enough that it causes sleep – as the Gra and others cited stated from Ravyah “its a mitzvah b’alma not an obligation”. This would not the derech in a normal situation but because yiddishkeit frowns on drunkedness – the Rema & M’B are makel.
3- On just wine. I also enjoyed DY’s refutation of the Radvaz being proof specifically by wine – however it does seem clear its ideal to drink wine.
Relatedly, I thought of p’shat in Rashi before Purim that I would like to hear if the CR agrees. Rashi has two comments on the gemara of Rava – both defining the word l’vsumei. First by the chayav inush l’vsemei (Rashi – get drunk with wine). Then by the word v’avasum (sp? – referring to when Rabbah and R’ Zeirah got drunk – Rashi defines this time just they got drunk). Why does Rashi have to repeat himself? He already defined the word. I think you could learn p’shat like so. “With wine” is not a what statement but a how statement. Rashi is saying it is the type of drunkenness that one associates with wine, not more harder beverages. Not that you have to drink wine. But the gemara says l’vsumei to limit the drinking to the parameters of drunkenness with wine not total wasted-ness that is associated with harder beverages. O, the story – that was real drunkenness – therefore the poor conclusion – therefore Rashi just states shikar. This could fit with Rabbein Efrayim that (see the Bach) still holds by the din but not the part of “ad d’lo yadah”. Or Rashi is stating ad d’lo yadah is shikar mamish [that’s the story] but within the parameters of Rava. One has to get drunk, Rashi explains like one does by drinking some wine, until the point they reach real drunkenness. This makes senses as it wouldn’t seem that l’vsumei means one has to get drunk mamish… if he’s already drunk like a real shikar – what’s the until he doesn’t know referring to – a total shikar doesn’t know. Rather it must be a lighter drunkenness to shtark drunkenness.
I wonder if anyone knows of someone who asked on Rashi like so, and how they answered.
How do you remember that? It was -1 years ago!
I also enjoyed DY’s refutation of the Radvaz being proof specifically by wine – however it does seem clear its ideal to drink wine.
I don’t think he refuted it. The Radvaz was only a raya that the ikkar is with wine, not that you’re not yotzei with other alcohol. And I think it’s still a raya to that.
DQB obviously agrees that I did refute it as a raya, even if he still thinks that it’s likely what he holds.
Well obviously, the Radvaz’s view is only a raya to what he held. It doesn’t necessarily mean that any other rishonim/acharonim agreed with him.
Having to drive home is all the heter you need
No, it’s not a raya to what he held about wine vs. whiskey.
LC, maskim.
According to the shittas that one is required to get drunk, k’peshuto as various shittos say is halacha l’maaisa on Purim, it would appear the chiyuv starts on the first Purim following one’s Bar Mitzvah.
No thirteen year olds are getting drunk in my house. If that’s a problem, I’ll take responsibility for it.
The Wolf
I see that this is back.
It is asur d’oraita for an alcoholic to drink any alcohol whatsoever under any circumstances. This is a serious pikuach nefesh issue. There are no exceptions to this.
Underage drinking is illegal and yet if halacha requires drinking, we would be required to follow the halacha against secular law.
Now according to many poskim, one is required to get drunk on Purim. But according to (at least) 3 heavy hitters- the Rama, Pri Megadim, and the Mishnah Berurah- you can be yotzei (and the M”B even writes that it is ideal to be yotzei) by drinking more than usual and going to sleep but there is no need to actually getting drunk.
Now, from a secular law perspective, for someone under 21, both of these options are technically illegal (I think) because they both involve underage drinking. Once you are breaking the law by following the halacha, from a legal perspective, is there a reason to choose the option that requires less drinking?
Joseph, follow your Rav’s behavior. Have you seen him drunk on Purim? If he does not get drunk on Purim, ask him what his heter is; and let us know.
Joseph- if that’s the case, then fine. But are there indeed poskim that will say it is against halacha for a 13 year old to rely on the Rama, Pri Megadim, and Mishnah Berurah on Purim? Is there a posek that allows or requires a legal minor (and halachic adult) to get drunk on Purim when they can be yotzei through those shitos? Please ask your posek who requires you to get drunk, if he would allow (or require) a minor to follow the Mishnah Berurah instead of getting drunk.
But, the question I was asking is, does one of the two options I presented indeed violate dina demalchisa dina more than the other.
And again, every chumra is a kula. Is being machmir to go further than what the Rama, Pri Megadim, and Mishnah Berurah require when it is being meikil on dina demalchusa dina really a chumra? Maybe the proper chumra is to fulfill drinking on Purim like those shitos and being mekayem dina demalchusa dina completely. Then you get the zechus of fulfilling two dinim instead of just one.
I don’t think there is any posek nowadays who would say that you are not yotzei if you rely on the “kula” of the Rama and the M”B. Maybe they would say it’s a bedi’eved, maybe they say one should be machmir to be yotzei according to all the dei’os, but it’s not a matter of black and white psak halacha (maybe your posek paskins differently than normative halacha and concludes that one is not yotzei at all that way, but I doubt it). Once we are in the realm of chumros and kulos, lechatchilah and bedieved, and not straight up psak halacha… then other considerations like dina demalchusa dina can come into play.
Random question- what is the chiyuv of ad delo yada?
I always learned that there are 4 mitzvos of Purim- megilah, matanos la’evyonim, mishloach manos, and seudah.
Is the chiyuv ad delo yada part of the seudah in the sense that you have a big seudah, with bread and meat and wine, but you haven’t hit ad delo yada (according to whichever shitah) then you aren’t yotzei your seudah?
Or is ad delo yada a separate fifth chiyuv of Purim that can only be fulfilled during the seudah?
I usually think Joseph is trolling and I hope he is here
if ANY ‘Rav” makes a “Psak” that encourages underage drinking Al Pi Halacha, you need to get another rav. Underage drinking is not only illegal, its dangerous and you can be legally liable for any damage the teen does if you gave them the alcohol.
Joseph- You seem convinced that there are poskim that paskin that you absolutely need to get drunk to be yotzei ad delo yada, and that the Rama’s and M”B’s suggestion is not a halachically valid option. According to that premise, I agree with your conclusion that dina demalchusa dina/illegality of underage drinking plays no role in this discussion and the only concern is whether its dangerous or not.
I just disagree with your premise that there are any poskim today who rule that way and I believe that everyone agrees that at least bedieved you are yotzei if you follow the Rama’s and M”B’s suggestion.
We agree to disagree.
Joseph- and I’m assuming, that according to those poskim who say that kepshuto is lechatchilah, everyone should strive to do it lechatchilah as long as it doesn’t interfere with any other area of halachah. Where it does interfere, like when it will cause someone to violate any issur DeRabanan (including dina demalchusa dina), then I would assume those same poskim would agree that it is better be yotzei this halachah in a bedieved fashion rather than use it’s lechatchilah performance as an excuse to violate any other halachah.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.