Transcript

We begin here in Perek Bet of Hilchot Megillah, Halacha Yud Dalet, and then we'll see perhaps we'll go back to the beginning as well.

מצות יום ארבעה עשר לבני כפרים ועיירות ויום חמשה עשר לבני כרכים להיות יום שמחה ומשתה ומשלוח מנות לרעים ומתנות לאביונים. ומותר בעשיית מלאכה ואף על פי כן אין ראוי לעשות בו מלאכה. אמרו חכמים כל העושה מלאכה ביום פורים אינו רואה סימן ברכה לעולם.

The Rambam's ואף על פי כן אין ראוי לעשות בו מלאכה is a little bit of a question what exactly the and the אינו רואה סימן ברכה לעולם, a little bit of a question what the what the makor is. The problem is that the simple reading of the Gemara's maskana the Rambam seems to be paskening, the Gemara in דף ה עמוד ב, the Gemara's medayek in the seder hapsukim that the first time when the takkana of Purim is mentioned, so it mentions not only mishteh v'simcha, mishloach manot, matanot l'evyonim, but it mentions yom tov also. The second time it doesn't mention yom tov, based on which the Gemara says that רבה בריה דרב אמר that

הספד ותענית קבילו עליהו מלאכה לא קבילו עליהו. דמעיקרא כתיב שמחה ומשתה ויום טוב ולבסוף כתיב לעשות אותם ימי משתה ושמחה ואילו יום טוב לא כתיב.

So the Gemara's maskana which is what the Rambam is paskening, right, is that there's no issur melacha in Purim, that Purim is mutar ba'asiyat melacha. Then the Gemara says iba'it eima, we just told a story that Rav latchiei, Rav saw someone who was planting on Purim and he cursed him. So why did Rav curse him if we pasken that it's mutar ba'asiyat melacha? ואלא רב מאי טעמא לטייה לההוא גברא? So the Gemara says דברים המותרים ואחרים נהגו בהן איסור הוה. So the Gemara says because where Rav was when this happened, it was a מקום שנהגו שלא לעשות בו מלאכה. So it sounds like that it should be totally on makom shenahagu and the אינו רואה סימן ברכה and the Rav's reaction of latchiei should all be a function of makom shenahagu. And the Rambam omits that, so that's a shaileh. Here on the side of the Frankel Rambam they metzayen that there is one girsa in the Rishonim, maybe the Rambam has it, in the Gemara in Pesachim Daf Nun. The Gemara in Pesachim Daf Nun quotes that

העושה מלאכה בערבי שבתות ובערבי ימים טובים מן המנחה ולמעלה ובמוצאי שבת ובמוצאי יום טוב ובמוצאי יום כיפורים ובכל מקום שיש שם נדנוד עבירה

in all these cases אינו רואה סימן ברכה לעולם. What's בכל מקום שיש שם נדנוד עבירה? So the text we have printed in our Gemara says le'atuyei ta'anit tzibur. The Gaon is magi'a le'atuyei tisha b'av. Here in the margin of the Frankel Rambam they say there's one girsa in the Rishonim that Purim is mentioned here also. Okay, so if that's the case then the Rambam has a makor. If that was the Rambam's girsa in the Gemara so he has a makor that here the Gemara doesn't say that it should depend upon makom shenahagu and that takeh is nidnud aveira hagam that Purim is not assur ba'asiyat melacha. Either way, whatever the Rambam's makor is, it's always a question exactly what the hagdara is. It's mutar ba'asiyat melacha but אין ראוי לעשות בו מלאכה. It's mutar bemelacha but

כל העושה מלאכה ביום פורים אינו רואה סימן ברכה לעולם.

So what exactly is the hagdara? If it's אינו רואה סימן ברכה and ein ra'ui, so let it be assur already. So what's the hagdara? Let's maybe reread the beginning of the halacha for a moment.

מצות יום ארבעה עשר לבני כפרים ועיירות ויום חמשה עשר לבני כרכים להיות יום שמחה ומשתה ומשלוח מנות לרעים ומתנות לאביונים.

The impression which the Rambam conveys here is that be'orcham I think we would have expected the Rambam to write it as follows, that

בני כפרים ועיירות ביום ארבעה עשר. בני כרכים ביום חמישה עשר חייבים לעשות שמחה ומשתה משלוח מנות לרעהו ומתנות לאביונים.

Again so maybe look at the actual lashon HaRambam and contrast it to this right? That

בני כפרים ועיירות ביום ארבעה עשר בני כרכים ביום חמישה עשר חייבים לעשות שמחה ומשתה משלוח מנות לרעהו ומתנות לאביונים

etc. and then go talking about assiyas melacha. So what the lashon HaRambam implies is that if he would have written our alternative so it would have sounded like that sometime on the course of Yud-Daled sometime over the course of Tes-Vav you have to find time for simcha umishte shaloch manos and matanos la'evyonim. The lashon HaRambam suggests that these mitzvos should preoccupy the entire day. That optimally the lashon mitzvah again as a lashon is a lechatchila-dike lashon not a lashon of absolute chiyuv it has a connotation a lechatchila-dike connotation but that the lechatchila-dike observance of of Purim is that these mitzvos should occupy the entire day. And that's why the Rambam is saying it's not just that this day is ich veis ביום השמיני ימול בשר ערלתו doesn't mean the milah is supposed to take the whole day but the eighth day is the day on which sometime over the course of that day that the milah should happen. That's what the Rambam should have said here. No so it sounds like the mashma'us in the Rambam is that ideally lechatchila the entire day should be preoccupied plus the krias haMegillah with the mitzvos hayom. Hashta de'aseinan lehachi so then in this context and lo'chei you have to say again דון מיניה ואוקיה באתריה in terms of other examples of where you have an אינו רואה סימן ברכה on issur melacha but you don't have mamash an issur melacha. But the pshat is as follows: there's no issur melacha on Purim because issur melacha is a function of kedushas hayom. To say there's an issur melacha would mean that that in and of itself is a kiyum. If you say when there's an issur melacha so the emes is so there's a kiyum of being bodel of being shoves mimelacha in and of itself in and of itself. So as far as that goes so Purim is not a yom tov Purim doesn't have kedushas hayom mi'derabbanan and there's no kiyum of being shoves mimelacha keshelatzmo on Purim. Ella mai heyos that

מצות יום ארבעה עשר לבני כפרים ועיירות ויום חמישה עשר לבני כרכים

that the whole day that the whole day liyos osek right that the days should be again yemei mishte vesimcha etc. so that being the case hagam that there is no kedushas hayom hagam that there is no issur melacha hagam that there is no kiyum keshelatzmo of not doing melacha on Purim but avada it's אינו ראוי לעשות בו מלאכה and avada and that's why Chazal say

וכל העושה מלאכה ביום פורים אינו רואה סימן ברכה לעולם.

One wonders I don't know whether this is al derech achidah or al derech apshat. Everything in everything the Rambam writes is either omru Torah omru Chachamim right? So what's this omru Chachamim? Because this obviously isn't the only place in the Yad where you find the lashon of omru Chachamim. But you wonder you wonder whether the Rambam means as follows: אין ראוי לעשות בו מלאכה is taki din taki din.

וכל העושה מלאכה ביום פורים אינו רואה סימן ברכה לעולם.

So the Gemara there in Megillah daf tes the Gemara tells the story that רב חזיה לההוא גברא דהוה קשדי כיתנא בפוריא velatye v'lo tzamach kisna. He was planting and Rav cursed him and the crop taki didn't grow. So maybe the pshat in the Rambam's omru Chachamim is that the omru Chachamim isn't the din omru Chachamim is the layit. The omru Chachamim is not that they megaleh that there's a din they're creating it's the omru Chachamim creates the metzius of the

וכל העושה מלאכה ביום פורים אינו רואה סימן ברכה לעולם.

I mean in this context it's kedai to mention that the Emek Beracha’s diyuk in Halacha Tes Vav, just turn to the next halacha, Rambam says:

כיצד חובת סעודה זו שיאכל בשר ויתקן סעודה נאה כפי אשר תמצא ידו ושותה יין עד שישתכר וירדם בשכרות.

So the Emek Beracha notices that the Rambam writes yochal basar and he says v'shoseh yayin, right? So yochal basar is the future and shoseh yayin is the present. So what's pshat? So he suggests as follows: again, the future is used, at least what we call the future in Lashon Hakodesh isn't normally, isn't only future. L'mashal when you put away the Sefer Torah and you say יהללו את שם ה' כי נשגב שמו לבדו, it's not a nevuah, it's what you're supposed to be doing. Right? When the Mishnah says in Shnayim Ochzin, זה אומר כולה שלי וזה אומר חציה שלי יחלוקו, again, it's not the Rabbeinu Hakadosh is saying a nevuah telling you what's going to be, it's going to be yachloku, no, he's telling you what should be. So the future in Lashon Hakodesh is also used where in English we have different forms for this, Lashon Hakodesh doesn't. Lashon Hakodesh, something should be, so then the assumption is you're going to do it and it's going to happen. So it's the future also. So yochal basar, yochal basar translates as he should, he's supposed to eat meat. So then the Rambam should have said v'yishteh yayin, right? He should have continued along the same lines. So he says that maybe in the Rambam here is nimraz what he quotes beshem Rav Itzele Salanter, that Rav Itzele Salanter says that the din of חייב איניש לבסומי עד דלא ידע is not like we understand al pi Rashi that ad d'lo yada is a shiur. How much do you have to drink? You have to drink, the mitzvah is to get drunk. No, the mitzvah is not to get drunk, but rather a person has to be osek b'shisyas yayin, says Rav Itzele Salanter. At what point does he become pattur? He becomes pattur when he reaches a matzav of ad d'lo yada, so at that point he's pattur from the hisaskus. Not that the mitzvah is, again, not that the mitzvah is to get drunk, no, but at the point at which he's drunk, he's pattur. And he says that, again, so conceptually the difference is, you talk in the practical differences also, but conceptually the difference is that according to Rav Itzele Salanter it's a mitzvah nimsheches, right? That shisyas yayin is a mitzvah nimsheches. If you say conceptually the mitzvah is to get drunk, so it's not really a mitzvah nimsheches, whatever however much time it takes, it takes. Mah she'ein kein if you say that no, this is when a person becomes pattur, that's not the definition of what the mitzvah is, that's when a person becomes pattur, so then it's a mitzvah nimsheches, so then it's in the same ruach as what we were discussing earlier here in Halacha Yud Dalet. The Rambam continues in Halacha Yud Dalet:

בני כפרים שקדמו וקראו בשני ובחמישי מחלקין מעות לעניים ביום קריאתן.

So the lashon of Rambam, what the Rambam here is a shtickel mashma, again, on the margin here in the Frankel Rambam they noted that the din of Yom Haknesiah is sort of a shtickel b'diavad-dik b'diavad status. L'chora it doesn't mean that the b'diavad status is on the matanos l'evyonim because the Gemara says that עיניהם של עניים נשואות למקרא מגילה. So when you're reading the Megillah, you should give matanos l'evyonim. So what's the im kadmu v'karu? So what's that b'diavad-dika lashon? No, the Rambam says that the din of Yom Haknesiah, that the bnei kfarim can be makdim, is not, is not lechatchila. It's available to them if they need to avail themselves of it, but not entirely lechatchila.

אבל השמחה והמשתה אינן עושין אותן אלא ביום ארבעה עשר.

What's the double lashon of simcha and mishteh? So to that the the Emek Beracha explains that simcha alone perhaps we would have interpreted as meaning either basar or yayin but not necessarily both. Mishteh certainly means mishteh hayayin. So hence simcha and mishteh he says is basar veyayin. As the Rambam writes in Halacha Tes Vav. The lashon of Rambam here, going back a line within Halacha Yud Daled,

אמרו חכמים כל העושה מלאכה ביום פורים אינו רואה סימן ברכה לעולם.

It yitachen is as follows, that the Rambam here is is referring to to the has the following in mind. At the end of this halacha the Rambam quotes the Gemara again from the first perek in Megillah that סעודת פורים שעשאה בלילה לא יצא ידי חובתו. And that's true not only for seudas Purim. It's true for mishloach manos. Pashtus from lashon haRambam is also true for the matanos l'evyonim. The only the only mitzvah we have the night of Purim is krias hamegillah. וחייב אדם לקרוא את המגילה בלילה ולשנותה ביום. That's the only thing we have the the night of of Purim and there too Tosafos on the daf says that the reason we make a shehecheyanu again in the day is because the ikkar kria is in the day.

אמר רבי דאף על גב דמברך זמן בלילה חוזר ומברך אותה ביום דעיקר פרסומי ניסא הוי בקריאה דיממא.

So hagam that krias hamegillah is the one is the one mitzvah which is noheges which is noheges balaila, but here too the ikkar kria is bayom. In the lashon haGemara of of רבי יהושע בן לוי's meimra of חייב אדם לקרוא את המגילה בלילה ולשנותה ביום. So it's a strange lashon. Bechallos what the what רבי יהושע בן לוי should have said is חייב אדם לקרוא את המגילה בלילה וביום. Read it at night and in the day the same way I guess the Rambam says at the beginning of Hilchos Krias Shema. So you're laining Krias Shema at night and you're laining Krias Shema again in the morning. Emes is there too the Rambam makes a point of adding it up for pa'amayim bayom. But there too it's the same same diyuk. So why did רבי יהושע בן לוי say ulishnosah bayom? Yitachen yitachen that for whatever reason רבי יהושע בן לוי is saying that the whole din of reading the Megillah at night is that when you read in the day it should be the second kria. That's not only like Tosafos says is it the ikkar kria bayom but ad kedei kach that the whole chiyuv Megillah at night is that when you read it bayom it should be a din of ulishnosah bayom. Whether or not you can learn this this pshat in the Gemara is tolui on a machlokes Rishonim. There is a machlokes Rishonim the bnei kefarim who used to be makdim to the yom hakenisa. So what did they do? So Rashi says that the first Rashi, the Rashi in the mishna says that the kfarim weren't בקיאין לקרות וצריכין שיקרא אותן להם אחד מבני העיר. So Rashi says the villagers didn't have a ba'al kriya amongst them, on sheni ve-chamishi they came into the city anyway. So on sheni ve-chamishi one of the bnei ha'ir would read for them. Okay. So the shaile is what did the bnei kfarim do about the kriya of the night? What did they do about the kriya of the night? They came in, the pshat says they did not come in Sunday night, they did not come in Wednesday night. So what did they do about that? So the Ran already raises that question. What did the bnei kfarim who were taking advantage of the possibility of yom hakenisah, when did they read the kriya at night? He says yitachen that they didn't. He says

יתכן אפשר מגילה דליליא אפשר דלא קרו לה לבני כפרים דמגילה דיומא עיקר כמו שאכתוב לפנינו בסיעתא דשמיא וכשם שהקילו על בני כפרים להקדים כן הקילו עליהם שלא לקרות אלא מגילה של יום או אפשר שקורין אותה בלילה ביחיד ולמחר קורין אותה בעיר בעשרה.

The Ran gives two possibilities. He says either the same way they were given a kula of yom hakenisah, so maybe they were given a kula not to read the megilla at night. Or he says maybe they read it be-yechidus, assuming d'lo ke-Rashi that they know how to read it, and they only need a sheni ve-chamishi to facilitate a minyan. The Meiri also deals with this question, and the Meiri has a possibility that maybe the krias halaila was at night, was Monday night. Maybe the krias halaila for the bnei kfarim was on Monday night, was on Thursday night, that they stayed around in the ayaros or wherever they were miskabaitz for a minyan until nighttime and they had the kriya at night. And the Meiri says and what's more, the emes is it's really better to do it that way. It's really better that the krias halaila should follow the krias hayom because the pasuk which is the asmachtah of krias amegilla אלוקי אקרא יומם ולא תענה ולילה ולא דומיה לי is mashma that first comes the krias hayom, then the krias halaila. Says ela mai, we can't do it because of velo ya'avor. When we have our krias hayom on Yud-Daled, so it's velo ya'avor that our krias halaila should be the night of Tet-Vav. If you have your krias hayom on Tet-Vav, so you can't have your krias halaila the night of Tet-Zayin. But if you're already a ben kfar who's reading on yom hakenisah, so then you can, it's not the best moshal for today, but then you can have your cake and eat it too, and then you can have the krias halaila following the krias hayom. Oh. So comes out le-maiseh there is a machlokes rishonim. According to the Ran this possibility is not on the radar screen. The Ran says either they didn't read at night or they read the previous night, but he can't be masig this possibility. So this pshat that we're saying that yitachen that not only is the ikkar kriya by yom, but maybe it's even the case that the kriya balaila is so tafel to the krias hayom that it's just there that it should be lishonah bayom is nitenes l'he'amer according to the Ran, is not nitenes l'he'amer according to the Meiri. Someone told me in the name of the Rav, I don't know, I didn't hear this, I don't know, that he said such a pshat, and ad kedei kach, I don't know whether he said it le-halacha or maybe just to illustrate what would follow if one would be totally sure of the pshat. But let's say a person knows that he can't read by yom. He's rachmana litzlan has to undergo surgery and the anesthesia is going to be applied before he can read by yom, but at night he can still read. So is there a mitzva to read at night? So if you mamash go to the last mile, you take this to its logical conclusion that the whole din of krias halaila is that it should be lishonah bayom, you could even come out with a conclusion that if a person knows he can't read in the day that he wouldn't read at night. Either way, the only mitzva we have at night is megilla, assuming not like the Rav Amram. Even megilla, the ikkar kriya is by yom, and even megilla yitachen the whole thing is just setting the stage for the krias hayom. Now the Sfas Emes quotes a kasha from the Tur Ha-Even. Tur Ha-Even says the gemara in daf hey that we mentioned before where the gemara tells the story how Rav l'atyei, Rav cursed this person who was planting on Purim. So the gemara here is a whole diyun for a good part of an amud here whether or not there's an issur melacha in Purim, there isn't an issur melacha in Purim. So the Tur Ha-Even says the Yerushalmi proves it from a mishna. Yerushalmi says it's an ofen a mishna that there is no issur melacha in Purim because the mishna at the beginning of the second perek says היה כותב דורשו ומגיה אם כיוון לבו יצא. If you're writing the Megilla and while you're writing the Megilla you also read and you're mechaven latzeis or you're mechaven to read properly whatever so then you're yotzei. So you see that on Purim he's writing. So the Yerushalmi says mikan that it's mutar b'asiyas melacha. So the Tur Ha-Even asks how can it be that the Bavli the Amoraim are being done back and forth is there isn't there an issur melacha the Yerushalmi points out it's a meforash mishna. So the Sfas Emes answers he says the way the meforshei Yerushalmi read it the Yerushalmi itself is dokha but apparently the Tur Ha-Even read the Yerushalmi differently as did the Sfas Emes because he says his own teretz. He says no the Bavli will assume that this mishna of haya kosev doresho can be talking about the kriya of the night and even if there would be an issur melacha Purim the issur melacha would be bayom. It was never in the realm of possibility that there was an issur melacha balaila. The diyun was is there an issur melacha bayom. So in the context of that diyun you quote the mishna no the mishna of haya kosev is talking about the krias halaila. So why should that be? So again the pashut is that basically the night of Purim doesn't have any of the dinim of Purim again with the exception and even that it's a question of how to define it with the exception of chiyuv krias hamegilla. In the lashon HaRambam it's very meduyak what the Sfas Emes says in the lashon HaRambam is very meduyak. The Rambam says that אמרו חכמים כל העושה מלאכה ביום פורים. Right so the same way beyom Purim same way mistama the halacha tes-zayin חייב לחלק לעניים ביום פורים means that bayom velo balaila. So l'chora the mashmas in the Rambam also is that the issur melacha what again we don't have issur melacha but the אין כל העושה מלאכה אינו רואה סימן ברכה is davka bayom not balaila. All this again besides its I guess applications in terms of the אין ראוי לעשות מלאכה has another application as well. There is a machlokes quoted in Shulchan Aruch whether or not rachmana litzlan aveilus is nohegas on Purim or not. Mechaber says aveilus is nohegas on Purim the Rama says no yesh omrim that it isn't nohegas and a whole diyun in the achronim as well. So I think they quote beshem Reb Shlomo Zalman that Reb Shlomo Zalman says that these deios in Shulchan Aruch about whether there is or isn't aveilus in Purim is only about the day of Purim but les man de'palig that there's certainly aveilus rachmana litzlan the night of Purim. Why because basically as we were just discussing the night of Purim doesn't really have so much the status of Purim. Certainly again in light of the din of סעודת פורים שעשאה בלילה לא יצא ידי חובתו doesn't really have the chiyuv simcha. And again in the leshonos HaRambam it's the Rambam doesn't talk about the question of aveilus in Purim but in terms of the leshonos HaRambam here by issur melacha so it is mashma like that. L'chora there is given that that's the case I mean even without Reb Shlomo Zalman's psak but Reb Shlomo Zalman's psak only highlights it. L'chora how do we sort of reconcile that with the way that the night of Purim is observed in yeshivas. Right so lav davka that the way it's observed is correct right people get drunk the night of Purim and there's no inyan to get drunk the night of Purim so maybe אי דבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה you know so who says that it is right maybe it's not right. I mean Well when there's no mitzvah to get drunk, it's stam hollelus, it's stam hollelus, it's nothing nothing more more redeeming about it than than that. And even bayom, so a person has to know what what it does to him, has to know what what effect it has. It certainly acharei kechol hakol, there's certainly no mitzvah if it doesn't, if it doesn't elevate a person. So lichora, so what's the pshat the night of Purim? So lichora is as follows. The Rav has a remarkable he'ara about bein hametzarim, about the three weeks. And he he asks, so we know we have lots of minhagim that we're noheig in the three weeks, haircuts, weddings, but what's midina degemara in the three weeks? What which restrictions, which nihugei aveilus are midina degemara during the three weeks? So he says you search high and low, the only thing that's midina degemara of the three weeks is that we have special haftoros, is the gimmel depuranusa, is that you change the haftoros. So there's no nihugim which are midina degemara during the three weeks. A remarkable he'ara. What's the pshat? So he says basically the three weeks me'ikar hadin, midina degemara, is just a preparation for for the nine days and shevuah shechal bo and ultimately for Tisha B'Av. Ela mai, Chazal know that that you can't flip a switch come Rosh Chodesh Av, על אחת כמה וכמה that we can't flip a switch come Tisha B'Av, so we're supposed to begin to think and and be preoccupied with and get in a mood for for Chodesh Av and Tisha B'Av. And that begins with the haftoros of the gimmel depuranusa. Ela mai, ela mai, the minhag developed because we see that that it's too easy for us to overlook that, not take advantage of it, so the nihugim we have are to sort of reinforce the haftoros, reinforce this as a period of preparation. Period of preparation, again, for where the dinim begin to be noheig me'ikar hadin from Rosh Chodesh Av and on. So itachen the same is true about the night of Purim. And itachen that the minhag of a chagiga is again not because that it's the mitzvah bishel atzmah. Again, so according to the Rav Yadler there is a mitzvah, מקצת מצות שמחה בלילה על כל פנים. But mistama even according to, without invoking that de'ah, it's to to put one in the mood for the simchas Purim bayom, the same way at the other end of the spectrum, the the haftoros which we then bolster with the nihugim of the three weeks is to put one in the appropriate mood for what will be come come Rosh Chodesh Av and Tisha B'Av. Okay, now let's continue a little bit, Halacha Tes Vav.

כיצד חובת סעודה זו שיאכל בשר ויתקן סעודה נאה כפי אשר תמצא ידו. ושותה יין עד שישתכר וירדם בשכרות.

Right, so the Rambam stipulates that what a person is supposed to drink is wine, not any intoxicating beverage, but but wine. And the pshat is because Rashi in Megilla says the same also on the chayav inish levissumei, so Rashi says beyayin. Where does that come from? How do you know that? The Gemara just says to be intoxicated. So how do you know that it means yayin? So the pshat is that Rashi and the Rambam both understood that midrabba, who's the ba'al ameimra, so what's pshat? Rava made up a new mitzvah? He he's telling us about a mitzvah that we didn't realize yet existed. He's he's in- Ella mai Rava says, the Rabba's name is Rava? Yeah, I think so. Ella mai Rava says you're wondering what the shiur is, let's say on Yom Tov, what does a mitzvah to do in wine? So I'll say a shaylah what the shiur is, how much you're supposed to, how much you're supposed to drink. Not... that's not... that's not one of the... in the multiple choice test, that's not one of the... even on Simchas Torah that's not one of the... one of the choices. Ella mai, Rava is not telling us a new mitzvah. The chayav inish livsumei is telling us a shiur of a mitzvah. What's it telling us? A shiur of a mitzvah of mishteh v'simcha. Oh, if it's a shiur of a mitzvah of mishteh v'simcha, so then hadran l'klala that אין שמחה אלא בבשר ואין שמחה אלא ביין and the ad d'lo yada is just a shiur in a mitzvah. It's not a... again, or... or the way Rav Salanter says, but either way it's a hagdarah within a mitzvah as opposed to an independent mitzvah. Hagdarah within a mitzvah, so then it's pashut that it should be b'yayin. Rambam continues

וכן חייב אדם לשלוח שתי מנות של בשר או שני מיני תבשיל או שני מיני אוכל לחברו שנאמר ומשלוח מנות איש לרעהו שתי מנות לאיש אחד וכל המרבה לשלוח לרעים משובח.

The Tzvi Pesach Frank in Mikrae Kodesh calls attention to that there is a somewhat cryptic gemara here. The Rishonim have at least... I think there's at least three different girsaos in the gemara. Gemara on the bottom of Zayin Amud Aleph going over to Zayin Amud Beis in Megilla.

רב יהודה נשיאה שדר ליה לרבי אושעיא אטמא דעיגלא תילתא וגרבא דחמרא.

Sent him a cut of meat and a certain (excuse me) quantity of wine. Shalach lei, so Rabbi Oshaya sends back, sends back a message to him: kayamta banu rabbeinu, Rashi has the girsa u'mishloach manos, Rabbeinu Chananel has the girsa u'matanos l'evyonim, the Maharsha has the girsa both that קיימת בנו משלוח מנות ומתנות לאביונים. Rashi has the girsa קיימת בנו רבינו משלוח מנות דהא תרי מנות איכא. The Ritva, I think, asks so what's the chiddush? You sent shalach manos to someone and they send you back, oh, you're mkayem shalach manos. Rabbeinu Chananel who has the girsa not kayamta banu rabbeinu u'mishloach manos but קיימת בנו רבינו מתנות לאביונים, so this is the Rabbeinu Chananel that Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank spotlights, says כלומר נתינת אביונים נתת לי מנה אחת והיא הירך. What do you mean you only sent me a manah achas? He sent him meat and wine. So Rabbeinu Chananel apparently holds that you're not yotzei shalach manos with mashkeh, that the shtei manos both have to be ochal. Have to be two manos of food, not one food and one wine. That lichora the answer to the Ritva's kashya in Rashi is, according to Rashi, that's the chiddush of the gemara. What the... the chiddush of the gemara is d'lo k'Rabbeinu Chananel. Okay, so that's a machlokes in the Rishonim. Rabbeinu Chananel, again, it's only according to Rabbeinu Chananel's girsa that this emerges. According to the Rashi's girsa that's the chiddush of the gemara, according to the Ritva it's a davar pashut, according to the Maharsha's reading of the gemara that he was mkayem קיימת בנו משלוח מנות ומתנות לאביונים, it's not true, but Rabbeinu Chananel does have that shita. So in the Rambam, the emess is the Rambam's illustration of shalach manos is all... is three examples of two foods. He doesn't give the example of... of... of one food and one... one drink. Rambam continues:

ואם אין לו מחליף עם חברו זה שולח לזה סעודתו. וזה שולח לזה סעודתו כדי לקיים ומשלוח מנות איש לרעהו.

So this is the Rambam's understanding of the Gemara. Right, the Gemara tells the story that Abaye bar Avin and רב חנינא בר אבין machlifay seudosaihu l'hadaday. That they used to exchange seudos. So Rashi says that means, questions according to Rashi what the point of it is, that they used to alternate hosting the seudas Purim. One year the seudas Purim was by Abaye bar Avin, and the other it was by רב חנינא בר אבין, that they alternated. Who went to who for the seder? The Gemara doesn't at all tell us. But at least what they used to do for seudas Purim, so we know what they used to do for seudas Purim. The Rambam understands no, it's not that they're alternating years. The Rambam says it's talking about people who are so pashutus, so poor, I guess you could say that they're not poor they just don't have food on hand. But mistama the simple pshat without an okimta is that they, that they're so poor that they don't have enough food for both mishloach manos and seudas Purim. So the Gemara gives an eitzah. The Gemara gives an eitzah. And don't say that since they're exchanging mishloach manos maybe it's not really mishloach manos. No. Still mishloach manos. Now assuming that you understand the Gemara this way that when the Rambam says ein lo, it can even mean because he's so impoverished, not just because he just doesn't have that much food on hand, so then the question is that mistama if a person is so poor that he needs, that he doesn't have enough food both for seudas Purim as well as mishloach manos, so it should be המבזבז אל יבזבז יותר מחומש. So he should be patur from mishloach manos. He should be patur from mishloach manos. So the simple, the simple pshat seems to be that mishloach manos is an exception to the rule. mishloach manos is an exception to the rule. And that by mishloach manos even though the mishloach manos represents a yoser m'chomesh, a person is mechuyav to give mishloach manos. Heicha teisa that should be an exception? So l'chora as follows. Right, the Gemara says that daled kosos is an exception. Right,

אפילו עני שבישראל לא יפחתו לו מד' כוסות של יין.

So the Gemara says in Pesachim because of pirsumei nisa. Now, the Gemara in Megillah daf dalet which says נשים חייבות במקרא מגילה שאף הן היו באותו הנס. So based on what the Rav used to quote from his father that you apply אף הן היו באותו הנס where it's a mitzvah of pirsumei nisa. Right, the Chasam Sofer's teshuvah: why don't you apply that to tefillin? tefillin is zecher l'yetzias Mitzrayim, so why not say that nashim should be chayavos in tefillin because אף הן היו באותו הנס? No, אף הן היו באותו הנס is not when the ta'am hamitzvah is zecher to a nes, but when the mitzvah itself, the content of the mitzvah is pirsumei nisa. Pshat. So krias hamegillah is pirsumei nisa. Pshat. Now when it says in Shulchan Aruch that nashim hachayavos in mishloach manos and matanos l'evyonim. So the Gaon is metzayen this Gemara of אף הן היו באותו הנס. He's metzayen the Gemara of נשים חייבות במקרא מגילה שאף הן היו באותו הנס that that's the makor for the din that nashim hachayavos in mishloach manos and matanos l'evyonim. So what follows from that? What follows from that is that the Gaon is saying that not only if you m'tzaref, again what the Rav said in the name of his father with the Gaon, that not only is mikra megillah a din of pirsumei nisa, but the other mitzvos hayom as well, that mishloach manos and matanos l'evyonim are also a din in in pirsumei nisa. Oh. So if that's the case, so not only will that have a nafka mina that nashim should be chayavos, even though the rule of מצוות עשה שהזמן גרמא Tosafos points out applies to d'rabanans as well, but it should also have a nafka mina that the din of המבזבז אל יבזבז יותר מחומש doesn't apply. Just like by daled kosos the Gemara says since daled kosos is pirsumei nisa, so

אפילו עני שבישראל לא יפחתו לו מארבע כוסות של יין,

so too now that we've established that not only is krias ha'megillah but also שלח מנות ומתנות לאביונים and אף הן היו באותו הנס, a pirsumei nisa'dike mitzvah, so then that will account not only for nashim being chayavos but also for the rule of המבזבז אל יבזבז יותר מחומש not applying. Hence, that's why you have to find an eitzah. If you don't have enough food for seudas purim and shalach manos, that doesn't mean that the person is patur. He still has to find an eitzah and that's why the Tosafos says the chiddush that exchanging seudos is a correct eitzah. Halacha Yud-Zayin the famous famous Rambam

מוטב לאדם להרבות במתנות אביונים מלהרבות בסעודתו ובשלוח מנות לרעיו שאין שם שמחה גדולה ומפורה אלא לשמח לב עניים ויתומים ואלמנות וגרים שהמשמח לב האומללים האלו דומה לשכינה שנאמר להחיות רוח שפלים ולהחיות לב נדכאים.

So lechora you see from this Rambam, again, have to integrate this with what we just said a minute ago, but you see from this Rambam the following, right? The Rambam says how do I know that one should allocate more money to matanos l'evyonim than to seuda and shalach manos because matanos l'evyonim is the greatest form of simcha. Right, on a scale of simcha, matanos l'evyonim registers higher than seuda, than shalach manos, it registers the highest. Okay, so what? But who says that we should rank these mitzvos by a standard of simcha? Maybe shalach manos is its own kiyum. So you see klar lechora according to the Rambam that all three of these are expressions of simcha and mimaila if you want to know what should have a priority within these three that you can judge them based on a standard of simcha. But if each of these, and seudas purim is obviously simcha, right? But if the others aren't a kiyum simcha, let's say especially shalach manos, okay, so shalach manos isn't simcha, so who's to say that the highest form of simcha should outweigh shalach manos? But if shalach manos is niskan under the heading of simcha as a form of simcha, so then ein hachinami, so then you takeh weigh them according to the standard of simcha. How does that work with what we were just saying that these mitzvos are part of the pirsumei nisa? So the teretz is that the simcha is a pirsumei nisa. The simcha has a content. What is a person being sameach about? What's being celebrated? So the simcha is, again, it's two sides of the same coin, but that all the mitzvos hayom, again, shalach manos, matanos l'evyonim as well, not only seuda, according to the Rambam, are all intended as forms of simcha.