Good morning Rabosai. I thought we'd learn a little bit this morning about the Purim as well as Purim Katan with I guess full awareness that I maybe missed the boat a little bit with Purim Katan, but I'm hoping that enough of the discussion pertains to Purim as well that maybe it's still a little bit timely given that we're already within shloshim yom. The main, the source in the Gemara for Purim Katan as well as in general for how we deal with a shana me'uberet when we have two Adars is the mishna in Megilla vav amud bet. It's the first mareh makom here. Mishna describes the case just to set the stage for the mishna, so we just have to remind ourselves that they continued setting the calendar monthly and annually until the end of the time of the Chachmei HaGemara. So that they didn't have a luach which either their insurance agent or their car mechanic or whoever sends out to them telling them whether it was going to be a shana me'uberet or a chodesh me'ubar, but monthly Beit Din decided whether it would be a chodesh me'ubar and annually they decided whether it would be a shana me'uberet. So the mishna actually describes the case where yud daled Adar rolls around. At this point, Beit Din has yet to proclaim that it's going to be a shana me'uberet. So everything is, people are approaching Purim. Before Rosh Chodesh Adar they had Parshat Shekalim. The Shabbos beforehand was Parshat Zachor. So the mishna describes it: קרו את המגילה באדר ראשון ונתעברה השנה. And then Beit Din makes the decision sometime between yud daled and kaf tet. They make this decision that this year should be a shana me'uberet. So the mishna says that even b'diavad you can't be yotzei the mitzvah of kriat haMegilla in Adar Rishon and קורין אותה באדר שני. אין בין אדר הראשון לאדר השני אלא קריאת המגילה ומתנות לאביונים.
The only points of discrepancy the mishna says between the two Adars is kriat haMegilla u'matanot l'evyonim. What exactly does this mean? So the Gemara goes on to quote three opinions. Maybe we'll just look at it quickly. If you take a look at the Gemara. לענין סדר פרשיות זה וזה שוין. The implication in the mishna seems to be that at least b'diavad you could be yotzei the dalet parshiyot in Adar Rishon, right? The mishna seems to say that you weren't yotzei the mitzvot of Purim, but Shekalim, Zachor etc. that that one was yotzei in Adar Rishon. So מני מתניתין לא תנא קמא ולא רבי אלעזר בר יוסי ולא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל.
We're familiar with three views in the Tannaim, but this mishna doesn't seem to correspond with any of them. דתניא קרו את המגילה באדר ראשון ונתעברה השנה קורין אותה באדר שני שכל מצוה שנוהגת בשני נוהגת בראשון חוץ ממקרא מגילה.
Says the Gemara, we'll say the Tanna Kamma doesn't match up with our mishna because the Tanna Kamma seems to say you're yotzei everything other than kriat haMegilla. רבי אלעזר בר יוסי אומר אין קורין אותה באדר שני שכל מצוה שנוהגת בשני נוהגת בראשון. רבי אלעזר בר יוסי
doesn't match up with our mishna because he says that lechatchila you observe Purim in Adar Rishon. He's certainly not the Tanna of our mishna. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר משום רבי יוסי אף קורין אותה באדר שני שכל מצוה שנוהגת בשני אינה נוהגת בראשון. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל
also says you have to read the Megilla again in Adar Sheni that you can't be yotzei anything in Adar Rishon. What we associate with chodesh Adar, the dalet parshiyot, all the mitzvot of Purim, you can't be yotzei any of that in Adar Rishon. Now here comes the key line in terms of, in terms of the issue of Purim Katan. V'shavin all three Tannaim, all three are on the same page when it comes to שוין בהספד ובתענית שאסורין בזה ובזה. That again, according to the Tanna Kamma and רבן שמעון בן גמליאל that you cannot observe Purim in Adar Rishon, but they do agree that what we call Purim Katan is also אסור בהספד ובתענית. And of course רבי אלעזר בר יוסי would say the same thing about yud daled and tet vav in Adar Sheni. Now the Gemara proceeds here to figure out who our mishna matches up with. either by understanding the mishna differently, understanding the tannaim in the braisa differently, but let's zero in on this question of Purim Katan. So the Gemara says the only dinim which the Gemara associates with Purim Katan is shavin be-hesped u-ve-ta'anis, that there is an issur hesped ve-ta'anis on Purim Katan. And in fact Tosafot, the second marei mekomot that you have here, if you look in the second line of the Tosafot towards the end of the line, ve-yesh nohegin. So Tosafot says ויש נוהגין לעשות ימי משתה ושמחה בארבעה עשר ובחמישה עשר של אדר הראשון,
that some make they have a simcha, they make it mishteh ve-simcha on what we call Purim Katan as well. Tosafot says וראיה דמתניתין נמי משמע כן, right? At first glance the mishna would support this view דקאמר אלא מקרא מגילה בלבד ומתנות לעניים, מכלל דלעניין משתה ושמחה זה וזה שוין.
Tosafot says the mishna says the only difference between Adar Rishon and Adar Sheini is mikra megilla bilvad and matanos la-evyonim. So apparently le-inyan mishteh ve-simcha there's no disparity between the two. Says Tosafot, but that's not right. Velo nehera. דהא מניין בגמרא הא לעניין הספד ותענית זה וזה שוין.
Right? We just read in the Gemara, the Gemara says the only thing that Adar Rishon and Adar Sheini have in common, that Purim Katan and Purim have in common, is hesped ve-ta'anis. The איסורים של הספד ותענית, מכלל דמשתה ושמחה ליכא. That so apparently if the least common denominator for what they had in common was greatest, then the Gemara should have said הא לעניין משתה ושמחה זה וזה שוין. It shouldn't have said הא לעניין הספד ותענית זה וזה שוין. So Tosafot says and Tosafot further argues the point דעל כרחך לא תליא הא בהא. The two are not interdependent. They don't go hand in hand necessarily. דאי תליא הא בהא לאשמעינן דמשתה ושמחה נהגו בהו וממילא נאסר בהספד. הימים האסורים האמורים במגילת תענית האסורים בהספד אין בהם משתה ושמחה. וכן הלכה שאין צריך להחמיר לעשות משתה ושמחה באדר ראשון.
So Tosafot says in Megillas Ta'anis, right, the only remnants of which we have are Purim and Chanukah because the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah tells us megillas ta'anis batla. But Megillas Ta'anis lists many, many sort of minor yamim tovim which they had during Bayis Sheini to commemorate different miracles which had happened. So again we haven't really heard of this because the Gemara tells us megillas ta'anis batla and that all those days which are listed in Megillas Ta'anis that we no longer observe, we no longer commemorate. Is there a difference between Tosafot and the Gemara legabei whether or not when it came to Bayis when it came to Purim Rishon, was it? No, they didn't know at the time from the times when the transition happened that the Rambam says at the end of the days of Abaye and Rava. So at that point they set the fixed calendar. Right, but at the time of the mishna, maybe the reason why the mishna says that there's a position of the tannaim that everyone yotzei with all like Purim she-ba-megilla, you yotzei everything is because at the time you was Purim Rishon, you didn't realize it until later, but maybe at the time of Tosafot where already you know it's not going to be Purim, Adar is going to be different. Does that make a difference? In terms of who? Le-rav Yosef? In terms of any of the tannaim, in terms of the ve-yesh nohegin. Maybe that it was based on ve-yesh nohegin to have it, you understand what I'm saying? In other words, the question is when do you know that it's do I know it's Purim Katan or it's not Purim Katan? Right, so the ve-yesh nohegin is in our day, in the days of ba'alei Tosafot, our days that we know, we know ahead of time that it's Adar Rishon, that it's not going to turn out to be a stam adar. And the question is what observance were we supposed to have on what we call Purim Katan. So the ve-yesh nohegin say that le-inyan simcha there's no difference between Purim Katan and our Purim. And Tosafot says no, otherwise the Gemara should have said הא לעניין משתה ושמחה זה וזה שוין. Why don't we refer to this as Purim Katan? They refer to it as the other space as Sheini. Pesach Sheini is Pesach Sheini. Pesach Sheini is more of a Pesach than Purim Katan is a Purim. So Pesach Sheini, Pesach Sheini has all the dinim. See, the Torah uses the word Pesach. The Torah doesn't use the way we call colloquial. refer to the Yom Tov. When the Gemara says the Torah uses Pesach about the Korban, that Pesach Hashem refers to the Korban Pesach. So in that sense Pesach Sheni has all the dinim of whatever dinim are a function of Pesach Rishon, not a function of the Yom Tov of Chag HaMatzos, so you have all those dinim on Pesach Sheni as well. The difference is again that many of the Pesach Rishon, there's no chametz immo babayis. In Pesach Sheni there is chametz immo babayis. But all the discrepancies are not really discrepancies in terms of the Korban Pesach, they're more discrepancies in that Pesach Rishon comes in conjunction with the the ashereizin a Yom Tov of Chag HaMatzos the seven days, and Pesach Sheni doesn't. But it's basically it's basically a second shot at the Korban Pesach. Mah she'ein kein, hopefully we'll try to define exactly what the Purim Katan is, but according to everyone it's not the equivalent of the Pesach Sheni of the of the real Purim. It's not a it's not that we have two go-rounds of the Purim. You said Pesach Sheni in your first sentence by saying that we didn't know until after Purim, so it was between the time of Purim and the end of the month of Adar that we would declare the shana me'ubberes. So lav davka, it could happen as late as that. It didn't have to happen as late as that. It had to be after Purim and—right, which is the case in the Mishna, it didn't have to happen that way. They weren't allowed to declare the leap year before Rosh Hashanah. It couldn't be done before Rosh Hashanah. They were supposed to wait until after Rosh Hashanah, but any point after Rosh Hashanah until the 29th day of Adar they could make it into a leap year. Sometimes when the leap year was necessitated the way we have it according to our fixed calendar just by considerations of of keeping our lunar cycle in sync with the solar years, so then presumably they if they made the calculation ahead of time they could have declared the next year a shana me'ubberes way before Chodesh Adar. When they were doing it in response to weather conditions, the drachim were were impassable because of the winter rains and such, so then it was more likely to it was more likely to be a last minute call. But it could have happened either way. The Mishna happens to be describing a case to tell us how the Tanna Kamma and ר' שמעון בן גמליאל think that even bedi'eved you can't fulfill Purim in Adar Rishon, so the Mishna chooses a case where at the time it it seemed to have been Purim. Now at any rate, so Tosafot's argument in terms of Purim Katan is as follows. So Tosafot says that Purim Katan only has an issur hesped v'ta'anit. That's all the Braisa says, that's all the Gemara says that that people agree on. And what's more, Tosafot says you can't say that whenever you have an issur hesped v'ta'anit you have a mitzvah simcha. It's not true. Of all the many, many days which were listed in the Megillat Ta'anit, so most of them only had issur hesped v'ta'anit and didn't have any mitzvah simcha. So you can't say that that issur hesped v'ta'anit is a codeword for mitzvah simcha. No, it's not true. All most of the days in Megillat Ta'anit, they didn't go hand in hand. So that's Tosafot's opinion. They think the yesh nohegin is doesn't have any basis. Now the Ran based in the fourth mareh makom here, based on the Gemara in Hey Amud Bet, which you have here in mareh makom number three, so the Ran says it may be true in general that issur hesped v'ta'anit, not having a eulogy and not fasting, doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with mishteh v'simcha with having a special seudah, but if you take a look in the Gemara in Megilla on Hey Amud Bet, which you have here on mareh makom number three, Ha'tani Rav Yosef שמחה משתה ויום טוב שמחה מלמד שאסור בהספד משתה מלמד שאסור בתענית.
So the Gemara here says maybe that's true in general that hesped v'ta'anit doesn't have to link up with mishteh v'simcha, but in the case of Purim Katan, in the case of Purim, the source for the issur hesped v'ta'anit is the chiyuv mishteh v'simcha. So the obvious question of Tosafot here is, so what do I care that the difference, that on Rosh Chodesh we have an issur hesped v'ta'anit but we don't have a mitzvah simcha? Fine, so on Rosh Chodesh that's separate. But in Purim the Gemara says explicitly that the issur hesped v'ta'anit is rooted in the chiyuv mishteh v'simcha. So what kind of proof was Tosafot... Now the Ran based on this Gemara is of the opinion, if you take a look in the Ran source number four, the fourth line from the end, the karov hadavar at the beginning of the line, קרוב הדבר גם כן שראוי להרבות בסעודה בי"ד שבראשון. So the Ran says the truth is, he says, I really think, it seems to me, right, I'm close to telling you, he's not quite saying it definitively, but this is what he really thinks, is that there should be ribuy seudah, there should be, the meal should be, should be enhanced, it should be upgraded when you eat lunch on Purim Katan, the lunch should be upgraded. He says, אבל לענין משלוח מנות כיון דדמי למתנות לאביונים דליתנהו אלא בשני משמע דאף משלוח מנות אינו אלא בשני.
So the Ran says that Purim Katan there should be some element of mishteh v'simcha, there should be ribuy seudah, but you don't have any of the other mitzvos hayom of Purim. No other of mitzvos hayom of Purim. Now the Ran is also difficult to understand, so what exactly is, is Purim Katan? So what kind of de'ah of this masechta is it? We sort of, we don't, we don't carry over Megillah, we don't carry over mishloach manos, we don't carry over matanos la'evyonim, but somehow or other the mitzvah simcha we have. But what we generally think of it as a, you know, as one indivisible unit. So according to Tosafos we don't understand how does Tosafos not acknowledge the fact that the issur hesped v'ta'anis of Purim is rooted in mishteh v'simcha? So how does Tosafos deny that there's mishteh v'simcha in Purim Katan? And according to the Ran, if there is mishteh v'simcha in Purim Katan, so how is mishteh v'simcha, how do you spin that off from all the other mitzvos hayom of Purim? Now the Ran's sort of isolation of mishteh v'simcha is even more surprising in light of the fact that, okay it's true that we're bringing rayos from other Rishonim not from the Ran himself, but there is a general trend of thought that the other mitzvos hayom also talyan with simcha. It's not even that our difficulty in the Ran is exacerbated by the fact that, as we'll see in a minute, it would seem to be that mishloach manos and matanos la'evyonim are also expressions of simcha. Where do we find the proof of that? So if you take a look here in source five, in a famous halacha in the Rambam which the Shulchan Aruch then follows as well, so the Rambam writes that in planning a person's budget for Purim, so in terms of allocating whatever funds a person has available to spend on Purim, so מוטב לאדם להרבות במתנות לאביונים מלהרבות בסעודתו ובמשלוח מנות לרעיו.
So the majority of one's budget should be allocated for matanos la'evyonim rather than for the whatever expenses the seudah will bring about and mishloach manos. Why is that? שאין שם שמחה גדולה ומפוארת אלא לשמח לב עניים ויתומים ואלמנות וגרים. שהמשמח לב האומללים האלו דומה לשכינה שנאמר להחיות רוח שפלים ולהחיות לב נדכאים.
Because the Rambam says that matanos la'evyonim is the highest form of simcha. And that's why it has priority in terms of allocating the Purim budget. Now clearly, right, if you're going to rank matanos la'evyonim above mishloach manos and seudas Purim based on the fact that matanos la'evyonim is the highest form of simcha, so it means that all three represent simcha, right? All three are manifestations of simcha and then well, if this is the greatest form of simcha, then this should have priority. Let's say for instance, if you think that mishloach manos have got nothing to do with simcha, so then the answer to the Rambam is, so what? So what that matanos la'evyonim is the highest form of simcha, how do you know that simcha is more important than mishloach manos? But if matanos la'evyonim, mishloach manos, and seudas Purim are all creating and generating and spreading simcha from different angles... and in different forms and in different venues, so if they're all Simcha, so then the standard by which to rank them is which is the greatest and the highest form of Simcha. So that's what the Rambam says, I think, that clearly the highest form of Simcha is Matanos L'evyonim. Now there would seem at first glance to be a Gemara against this. The Gemara talks about what the opening Sugya in Megilla discusses, as he recalled, about the Takanah of Yom Hakneses. Right? What the Gemara says, that we no longer have it Bizman Hazeh. But once upon a time there was a Takanah of Yom Hakneses, that if you lived in a village or something where there was no regular Minyan. There was no regular Minyan. There were no Asara Batlanim. There was no regular Minyan. You had a dispensation to read the Megilla on Sheni V'chamishi, on Monday or Thursday, before Yud-Dalet or Tes-Vav. That was the dispensation of Yom Hakneses. So what did you do with the other Mitzvos Hayom? The people who lived, the people who took advantage of the Heter of Yom Hakneses, so what did they do with the other Mitzvos Hayom? So on the bottom of Daled Amud Bais, the Gemara has as follows, going over to Hey Amud Aleph: תניא נמי הכי אף על פי שאמרו כפרים מקדימין ליום הכניסה גובים בו ביום ומחלקין בו ביום.
That Matanos L'evyonim was also on the Yom Hakneses. That Matanos L'evyonim was also advanced to the Yom Hakneses. The Gemara says אף על פי שאמרו? Even though you have Krias HaMegilla on Yom Hakneses, what, despite that you have Matanos L'evyonim? אדרבה משום דאמרו הוא. It's a causal connection. The only reason you could have Matanos L'evyonim before Yud-Dalet is because it's a Zman of Krias HaMegilla. Ella, no, that's what the Braisa should say: הואיל ואמרו שכפרים מקדימין ליום הכניסה גובים בו ביום ומחלקין בו ביום.
Since the Kefarim, the villagers, have this dispensation to read on Sheni V'chamishi before Yud-Dalet or Tes-Vav, so Chazal said let's distribute Matanos L'evyonim in conjunction with Krias HaMegilla. Why? מפני שעיניהם של עניים נשואות במקרא מגילה. Because the Aniyim so so destitute and they wait with great anticipation for Purim, so they associate receiving Matanos L'evyonim with Krias HaMegilla. אבל שמחה אין נוהג אלא בזמנה. So Matanos L'evyonim you do advance to Yom Hakneses, but Simcha even for the villagers should be on Yud-Dalet or Tes-Vav. So doesn't this Gemara at least partially contradict the Rambam? Because doesn't this Gemara say that that Matanos L'evyonim is not Simcha, right? So if anything this Gemara would seem to contradict the Rambam. But if you take a look, you see that that Rashi goes out of his way to defend the Rambam here, as it were, right? That Rashi comments here on Hey Amud Aleph, שמחה של מאכל ומשתה. What else would the Gemara have meant? And if Rashi had kept silent, so what else would the Gemara have meant? No, so clearly Rashi must have understood like the Rambam also, that Simchas Purim is not identified exclusively with Seuda. Simchas Purim is also, okay does he mean Shalach Manos? There's no proof, but he clearly means Matanos L'evyonim as well, and it's pretty cogent to assume that he would also extend that to Shalach Manos. And that's why Rashi said that when the Braisa said that אבל שמחה אין נוהג אלא בזמנה, it doesn't mean all the forms of Simcha, it means Davka the Simcha of Ma'achal Umishteh. But the other forms of Simcha, at least in terms of Matanos L'evyonim, Rashi certainly agrees with the Rambam. Now all of this, all of this, again exacerbates our problem in the Ran. The Ran's point in Purim Katan is that there's Mishteh V'simcha, but there's nothing else that we associate with Purim. So okay, so it would be bad enough if somehow or other we spun off Simcha of Purim from all the other Mitzvos of Purim, but the problem is it doesn't even, it's not even such a neat cut because even the Simcha of Purim is not all extended or transposed to Purim Katan, because we only have one form of the Simcha. So how exactly do we make this cut and say, well, the Mishteh V'simcha we have but the others we don't, especially in view of the Gemara, the Rambam, because Matanos L'evyonim is linked up to Krias HaMegilla and that's why we don't advance it with the Simcha? How? 100 percent, so we're just gonna try to, try to get a little bit of a handle of, so, so what simcha is there in Purim Katan and what simcha isn't there? But but but you're definitely right. So we're going to try, I'm not sure if we'll fully understand it, but at least, at least to partially understand it. What is the makor for Shalach Manos? You're saying that the pasuk is in the megilla. The pasuk in the megilla says ומשלוח מנות איש לרעהו ומתנות לאביונים. So so one, we're going to in a few minutes we'll see another, another perspective on it as well, but according to the Rambam, it's a way of generating simcha. A way of generating simcha because simcha is supposed to be inclusive. So so if it was the, the rationale for the mitzvah of Shalach Manos is again to to spread simcha amongst others as well. I'm too excited when my neighbor brings me the apple and little box of raisins that he gave for the other 50 people. That's a lot of Baruch Hashem or whatever. I say perhaps that's another, maybe another reason as well. Okay. So what I'd like to suggest to you is according to the Ran there were two elements or perhaps two mechayvim in the simcha that we have on Purim. First of all we know that on some red-letter days in the calendar so we have simcha, right? On the Yomim Tovim, Shalosh Regalim, whether that's true on Yomim Noraim is a question of course, but on Shalosh Regalim, the red-letter days on the calendar you have simcha. That's one type of simcha. Then there's another simcha on Purim also has another, there's another mechayev, there's another function that it has, which is we know that the Krias HaMegilla, the Gemara says pirsumei nissa. And the simcha on Purim is also a way of pirsumei nissa, right? When you're walking on the street on Purim and you see everyone samei'ach u'misamei'ach, so clearly that has the the effect of pirsumei nissa as well. So the simcha on Purim is driven by two things. A: On Yud-Daled Adar and Tes-Vav Adar depending upon on where one is, one's residence. So there is a mitzvas simcha by virtue of the 14th of Adar is mechayev in simcha, the 15th of Adar is mechayev in simcha. But then there's another idea also that the simcha itself contributes to the pirsumei nissa. Which I think on its it's intuitive but I'd like to try to perhaps at least I don't know if give a compelling proof but at least show how different lines converge with this idea. First of all we've seen that the Rambam says that the Shalach Manos and Matanos L'Evyonim are simcha. Now seemingly a different perspective is offered by the Vilna Gaon. We know that the Gemara says in mareh makom number 8 that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says נשים חייבות במקרא מגילה, right? And there's Tosafot points out the chidush despite the fact that it's a מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא because of the reason of אף הן היו באותו הנס. Okay. Whoever was a beneficiary or whoever was a catalyst for the miracle is obligated in mikra megilla. What about the other mitzvos hayom? So the Gemara is silent on that question. What about Shalach Manos, Matanos L'Evyonim, are nashim chayavos? So the Gemara doesn't say that explicitly. So in Shulchan Aruch here in mareh makom number 9 so the Rema writes the second line from the end of this mareh makom that אשה חייבת במתנות לאביונים ומשלוח מנות כאיש. That a woman is equally obligated in these other mitzvos as well and then k'yadua that when it comes to Shalach Manos so אשה תשלח לאשה ואיש לאיש. That a woman should send to a woman and the man to a man. Now what's the makor for this? So the Gra says if you take a look in mareh makom number 10 where in it says v'isha in bold print. So the Gra says כמו שכתוב שם ד' עמוד א'. Right, now the Gemara in daled amud aleph is silent. It doesn't say anything about shalaach manos and matanos l'evyonim. If you'll look it up you won't find such a statement in the Gemara but clearly what the Gaon is implying is that the reason of אף הן היו באותו הנס applies equally to shalaach manos and matanos l'evyonim. Now that's a clear indication in the Gra. Now where do we have אף הן היו באותו הנס mentioned in the Gemara? In three places: Megilla, Chanukah, and Daled Kosos. And we know that this is well-known that the Rav used to quote his father and say that אף הן היו באותו הנס is only a rationale when the mitzvah is a mitzvah of pirsumei nisa. I think this is written up in one of the Mesores as well that the Chasam Sofer has a question: why don't you say that women should be obligated in tefillin because of אף הן היו באותו הנס? Since it's a zecher l'yetzias Mitzrayim so אף הן היו באותו הנס so let women be obligated in tefillin because of אף הן היו באותו הנס. So the Rav used to quote his father and said that by tefillin so zecher l'yetzias Mitzrayim is sort of a ta'am. It's in the realm of ta'amei mitzvos. But in terms of the substance of the mitzvah, the substance of the mitzvah is not that we're being mefarsim yetzias Mitzrayim. The substance of the mitzvah is you put the bayis on the shel yad on the arm and the shel rosh. But by Megilla, by Ner Chanukah, by Daled Kosos so there the substance of the mitzvah is pirsumei nisa and you only say אף הן היו באותו הנס when there is pirsumei nisa. So the Vilna Gaon then is telling us that shalaach manos and matanos l'evyonim and krias haMegilla are all about pirsumei nisa. Right, so the Rambam tells us that shalaach manos and matanos l'evyonim is all about simcha. The Vilna Gaon tells us that it's all about pirsumei nisa. So the truth is that in light of what we were suggesting these two lines really converge that the simcha is a way of being mefarsem the nes. It's not necessarily the case that the Rambam and the Gaon, they could be going in different directions, but in this case that's not what's happening. It's rather the Rambam saying it's simcha, that feeds into what the Gra tells us that it's pirsumei nisa and that's exactly the idea we were trying to develop that on Purim the simcha itself is a form of pirsumei nisa. The fact that everyone is walking around sameach umisameach is a primary form of pirsumei nisa. I just want to mention one other thing and then I'll stop for the question. You find in the Orchos Chaim a very, very interesting shita. The Orchos Chaim, it's a likut on שלחן ערוך אורח חיים. So he quotes: sometimes let's say if people are going to be in a rush to get out right after davening Purim morning for whatever reason so sometimes you see that people come to shul already with some shalaach manos so they'll distribute shalaach manos. And if they're anticipating rushing out of shul afterwards so they'll even maybe give the shalaach manos when they come in the morning. They'll give their shalaach manos and then right after Megilla for whatever the exigencies may happen to be so then they have to run off. So he says it's not so pashut. He says עיין בספר תיקון משה בהלכות פורים שכתב אם הקדים ומשלוח מנות והוא הדין מתנות לאביונים וסעודה קודם קריאת המגילה לא יצא.
But there has to be a sequence here and all the mitzvos hayom have to follow krias haMegilla. So you can't, I can't tell you whether everyone agrees with this, I can't tell you. But that's what he quotes. That there are some who are of the opinion that you can't be yotze shalaach manos or matanos l'evyonim or seuda for that matter before you yotze krias haMegilla. So according to what we're discussing it makes perfect sense that the krias haMegilla you tell the story of the nes Purim and then after that after telling the story of the nes Purim so then when you give shalaach manos and matanos l'evyonim so then this simcha is a simcha of pirsumei nisa. But if you haven't explained what the cause for the celebration is, if you're just dancing and only five hours later you explain to people why you're dancing so then it's remarkable, right? It doesn't grab. Read the Megilla at night? So the Megilla the night before, so let me digress a minute to discuss that. The Megilla the night before, the question of what exactly the pshat in that is, right? That אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי שחייב אדם לקרות המגילה בלילה ושונה בה ביום.
So you don't have any of the other mitzvos. matches what we can do on our own. Tell me, חייב אדם לקרות המגילה בלילה וביום. What do you mean v'lishnosah bayom? So you almost get the impression and I was told that the Rav zichrono livracha I didn't hear this but I was told that the Rav zichrono livracha quoted this. The impression you get that the chiyuv krias hamagilla at night is only that the megilla bayom will be the second time. Ad k'dei kach, ad k'dei kach that the Rav said lu yetzu'ye Rachmana litzlan someone's going in for surgery. Surgery which can't be postponed so they're going to start prepping him for the surgery at 5 AM on Purim morning and then he's going to be under anesthesia, he's not going to come out. So there's no way he's going to have the kria bayom. Ad k'dei kach that the Rav said that he wouldn't be chayiv to read the megilla at night. But the whole point of the krias hamagilla at night is that it should be v'lishnosah bayom. It sets the stage that somehow or ever, however, the fact that a person is showing that the story of Purim is so chashuv that he's re-reading it, he's not just reading it but he's re-reading it because he read it last night, he's re-reading it now. So the whole krias hamagilla balaila is just to set the stage that it should be v'lishnosah bayom. L'ma'aseh it is a takonas chazal, I mean it's not if it were something that we sort of improvised on our own then we wouldn't. But it is a takonas chazal. I saw in one of the likutim of the Piskei Halachos of Rav Shlomo Zalman, so he apparently also, so basically if you combine the fact that A of all the mitzvos of Purim, okay so there's the shita of the Ravyah that the Rama quotes that there's a mitzvah leharbos b'seuda balaila but leaving that aside, so the only mitzvah of Purim that you have at night is krias hamagilla and even that the lashon hagemara and that's how the Rav understood it indicates that that's not really by itself, it's not really megilla, it's more to set the stage for the day. So the truth is that the night of Purim, the night of Purim you don't really have any of the mitzvos of Purim, you don't really have it. Ad k'dei kach that I saw, I forget in which of the it's not not from Michtav Me'Eliyahu or Rav Shlomo Zalman but the one of the things which ever has been published posthumously, that there is a deios in Shulchan Aruch whether or not aveilus is noheig on Purim. So some say that aveilus is noheig both Yud Daled and Tes Vav, others say in Shulchan Aruch that aveilus is not noheig on either of the two days. So then the achronim, the later achronim have a third opinion, a compromise opinion that aveilus is not noheig on Yud Daled but would be noheig on Tes Vav, meaning not in Yerushalayim, meaning for for us outside of Yerushalayim. Rav Shlomo Zalman says but what about the night of Purim? And Rav Shlomo Zalman I think I think it says there that Rav Shlomo Zalman paskens that even if you hold that aveilus is not noheig on Purim, that you don't observe aveilus on Yud Daled and Tes Vav, but the night of Yud Daled you do. The night of Yud Daled it's not really not really Purim. So for all those reasons I think the fact that we read the megilla at night isn't doesn't contradict doesn't contradict this halacha. Al kol panim just to try to tie things together rabosai, so what we have here is as follows. What we suggested is that the simcha in Purim is not only because Yud Daled and Tes Vav, Yud Daled and Tes Vav those days on the calendar, those red letter days on the chayei v'simcha, but the simcha also is intended to be a pirsumei nisa. The fact that we walk around through matanos l'evyonim, through mishloach manos, through mishte v'simcha, the fact that we walk around doing this so it also contributes to the pirsumei nisa. And then we understand where this opinion comes from that the sequence is crucial, that the mishloach manos and matanos l'evyonim should happen after the krias after the krias hamagilla. Not necessarily in that order, whichever comes first, but you should wait until after the zman of the megilla. If you go out of shul and there's a poor man there, you'd give him money right away, or if you meet your friend who you want to give mishloach manos you just met him first. Well according to this opinion no. According to this opinion then you'd do the same with the brachos Shehecheyanu and Al HaKria, you do the same. I'm sorry. You don't have to that's. I don't have any opinion, I'm just reading what it said. I don't have any opinion, but if a poor man was outside the shul of course you'd give him but the question is. The question is not whether you give him, the question is how do you identify him to give him? If a poor person asked, but what do you give him? Whether or not the question is whether you've fulfilled matanos la'evyonim. So according to this opinion and again I don't want to misrepresent it. I'm not telling you that this represents what everyone in the world thinks. But according to this opinion, the answer is no, that you would not have fulfilled your formal mitzvah or even half of your formal mitzvah of matanos la'evyonim with the money that you gave to an ani before you heard the Megillah. And I was suggesting that the explanation or or was certainly that this this converges with the idea that we were suggesting that the simcha of matanos la'evyonim and mishloach manos is intended as a form of pirsumei nisa. Now what the Rambam and the Vilna Gaon are saying is really two sides of the same coin. The Rambam tells us it's simcha, the Vilna Gaon tells us it's pirsumei nisa and it's really one and the same. Now let's just come back to to the Ran and the Tosafot and and just try to try to tie things up here. So in the Ran we were wondering, so Purim Katan and according to the the Ran, how do we commemorate, how do we mark Purim Katan with ribui seudah? There is supposed to be ribui seudah. In Shulchan Aruch incidentally, if you take a look... So the Rema actually at least partially recommends following the the Ran's opinion. The Mechaber doesn't, the Mechaber doesn't give it any shelf space, the the Ran's opinion. He just says, he talks about issur hesped v'ta'anis, doesn't talk about any ribui seudah. The Rema, if you take a look here, it's two and and a quarter lines from the bottom, והמנהג כסברא הראשונה meaning that there is an issur hesped v'ta'anis. Then ויש אומרים שחייב להרבות במשתה ושמחה בי"ד שבאדר ראשון. ve'ein nohigin ken. mikol makom says the Rema, ירבה קצת בסעודה כדי לצאת ידי המחמירים. So he says that that one one should do it. It is not the most ringing endorsement that you'll ever find in the Rema, but it is a totally he certainly recommends that that there be a ribui seudah כדי לצאת ידי המחמירים. Now, but just so what conceptually the pshat the Ran, so perhaps as follows. The Gemara says, and sorry this part is not on the mareh mekomos, but if you go further in that sugya on zayin amud aleph where the Gemara is talking about the two Adars. So the Gemara says, well how do you know that you shouldn't read the Megillah twice? Maybe you should read the Megillah twice? So the Gemara darshens from a pasuk bechol shana veshana that you only read the Megillah once every year, even though there are two Adars, but you're not supposed to be reading the Megillah twice. You only read the Megillah once once a year. But so we're only going to read the Megillah then we have a machlokes tana'im and we pasken that you read the Megillah obviously in Adar Sheni. Which means that any simcha which has to do with pirsumei nisa doesn't make sense in Purim Katan. A simcha which is which is independent, which is just a function of the day, so that will make sense in Purim Katan. But the simcha which is purely driven by pirsumei nisa, that we're only going to have in in the real Purim when when we have the krias haMegillah. So maybe that's the pshat the Ran. So we were wondering, given A that under the especially within simcha itself, how can you separate mishteh v'simcha, mishteh seudah from mishloach manos and matanos la'evyonim which are also simchas? So the answer is as follows. That there are two mechayvim on Purim of simcha. One is we celebrate the day. Because this is a day in which there was a yeshuah for Klal Yisrael we celebrate the day. Similar to celebrating the simcha on sholosh regalim. B, we have simcha as a way of being mifarsim ha'nes. Now mishteh v'simcha is the normal type of simcha. That's the same type of simcha that we have on sholosh regalim. The Magen Avraham says that the seudas Purim should be fleishig, the same way on on Yom Tov seudah connotes basar v'yayin. So too, but the Magen Avraham says that seudas Purim is supposed to be fleishig. Why? Because it's the same same standard of simcha. But when the Gemara says of... From the Gemara just says chiyav inish lebesumei, the person should become intoxicated. How do they know that it’s beyayin? As apparently the way Rashi and the Rambam learn pshat is that where does this chiyav inish lebesumei come from? So apparently that’s the shir of mitzvas simcha. That mitzvas simcha always is bebasar veyayin. So that that yayin on Purim, so we know because that’s simcha. And chiyav inish lebesumei is not a brand new mitzvah, it’s a shir, it’s a question on Yom Tov, how much wine do you have to drink to satisfy the mitzvas simcha on Yom Tov? Okay, so let’s say maybe on Yom Tov it’s a revi’is. That’s probably a good guess. Let’s say for argument’s sake that on Yom Tov you’d have to drink a revi’is of yayin. So how much revi’is, how much wine are you supposed to drink to satisfy the mitzvas simcha on Purim, you drink chiyav inish lebesumei. So the ribui seudah, that’s not, that’s the standard type of simcha. So on Purim Katan, even though we don’t have pirsumei nissa, we will have the simcha of mishteh vesimcha because that simcha is associated with the days, with the calendar days of yud daled and tes vav Adar. But the special forms of simcha of mishloach manos and matanos la'evyonim, those are unique to they accompany the krias hamegillah, they accompany the krias hamegillah. So on Purim Katan, since there’s no pirsumei nissa on Purim Katan, so you don’t have the mishloach manos and matanos la'evyonim either. So you sort of have the universal element of simcha, you don’t have those unique elements of simcha. And that’s the pshat in the Ran, again because of this double chiyuv. What about Tosafos? So Tosafos apparently the answer and I mean everything we’ve been discussing was necessary for the Ran. But for Tosafos apparently Purim Katan is a misnomer. What was the problem that we were dealing with in Tosafos? The problem we had in Tosafos is, isn’t the issur hesped veta'anis on Purim rooted in the chiyuv mishteh vesimcha? Isn’t that what the Gemara in hei amud beis says? So the answer for Tosafos apparently is that yud daled and tes vav, we call it Purim Katan, but Tosafos would probably say that’s a misnomer. That really Purim is exclusively in Adar Sheini. There is no Purim in Adar Rishon either. Ela mai, what’s all the days in Megillas Taanis? All the days in Megillas Taanis means that on these days you have a special observance and you mark the days with an issur hesped veta'anis. According to Tosafos, שוין בזה ובזה שאסורין בהספד ובתענית, what that means is that on Adar Rishon yud daled and tes vav are not inferior to any of the other days that we used to find in Megillas Taanis. But yud daled and tes vav Adar, even though they’re not Purim, but they remain special days. Purim, meaning representing when we observe the Yom Tov of Purim, is exclusively in Adar Sheini. But י"ד וט"ו אדר ראשון, they remain special red-letter days. So the issur hesped veta'anis on what we call י"ד אדר ראשון for Tosafos is not because it’s a little bit of a Purim. No, it’s because yud daled Adar and tes vav, י"ד ט"ו אדר ראשון, no different than ich veis, no different than Rosh Chodesh, no different than all those other days which were listed in Megillas Taanis. They’re red-letter days, but it’s not a mini-Purim. According to the Ran it’s a mini-Purim but without pirsumei nissa. And according to Tosafos, no, that י"ד וט"ו אדר ראשון, again, they’re anniversaries of miracles. They’re not Purim. Purim is only once a year in Adar Sheini, but these are anniversaries of miracles.