On Whether All Israel Fulfills with One Mishloach Manot (Column 460)
With God’s help
Disclaimer: This post was translated from Hebrew using AI (ChatGPT 5 Thinking), so there may be inaccuracies or nuances lost. If something seems unclear, please refer to the Hebrew original or contact us for clarification.
As the “rabbi of all the diaspora,” of the holy community of Lod, whose religion is spread across the universe — I was asked a weighty question of the day; these are the words of the questioner, may he live long:
To the distinguished and great rabbi, a stronghold and tower, faithful like the Jar of Manna; all praise would not suffice, no secret is hidden from him, and blessings pour out before him (Ketubot 10a). His mouth speaks deep matters; all vessels of drink are fitting for him; whoever sees him trembles and cries, “How awesome is this place,” and to him all mouths turn; he opens his mouth with wisdom, and so on and so forth…
In Sukkah 27a we find: “All Israel are fit to sit in a single sukkah.” And in Pesachim 78b we find: “With a single Passover [offering] they go out” (i.e., fulfill the obligation). So with regard to Purim, would it be the same concerning mishloach manot (sending portions)? Can all Israel fulfill [the obligation] with a single sending of portions? May the Master please benefit me with kindness and respond about matanot la’evyonim (gifts to the poor) as well, lest someone say that gifts to the poor are not included. Thus concludes the questioner.
Hearing all this, I was filled with the courage of a lion. “In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man.” I said to myself, and immediately I saw fit not to remain silent at this time—for perhaps it was for this very moment that I came to the kingdom—and to lift my mighty hand upon this matter, to send forth my bow and seek permission to discuss this serious sugya.
As Gevia ben Pessisa said (Sanhedrin 91a): “Grant me permission and I will argue with them before Alexander of Macedon. If they defeat me, say to them: you have defeated the least among us; but if I defeat them, say to them: the Torah of Moses has defeated you.” So with God’s help I begin, may He strengthen the weary and increase power to the powerless.
At first glance, it would seem proper to preface with what we find in various places regarding the halachic constructs of lavud, gud, and dofen akumah (“bent wall”), which descended to us like a sealed letter—straight and poured out directly from Sinai. From the law of lavud we learn that wherever there is a lack of three handbreadths (tefachim) in a ten-tefach wall, we view it as though the whole ten are filled. If so, it is as clear to me as a salted curd that one who sends three portions to his fellow can omit the middle one (just as the Sabbatical year releases at its end), and by the law of lavud send the remaining two; it is then rightly considered as though he sent three. Seemingly, that would suffice.
However, so as not to leave the nations and to display the strength of the hand and the beauty and honor—I shall not be silent, for I yet have more to add; now is not a time to be quiet, now is a time of pressure for Jacob and from it he shall be saved.
It is already known in the gates what our rabbis have investigated regarding the definition of lavud: do we see the missing middle as if it were filled, or do we say it remains lacking, but that lack is not a defect? The practical difference for us concerns the “second side,” i.e., the missing portion. If we treat it as non‑existent, then lavud does not help here. It is true that for mishloach manot two portions to one person suffice; thus, even if the missing portion is treated as non‑existent, we still have two portions with which, by all views, one fulfills his obligation.
And you might wonder: if so, why do we need the law of lavud here at all? This is the question of women and minors and others lacking understanding. For even without lavud what we have here is two separate portions; and what is not meant to serve his adornment does not interpose. We generally rule that we follow the last [gain] when money is being sent; but here, whether we follow the sender’s gain or the recipient’s gain, if the missing portion is not there, there is nothing that was sent.
After I investigated the matter, it depends upon another question: do we go by the status at the time of sending or at the time of receiving? Similar to the law concerning one encircled [by the walls] on the 14th [of Adar] or the Purim of the walled cities; and this is not the place to elaborate.
In the responsa Tzintzenet Ha‑Man (the “Jar of Manna”), I was shown at length a ruling that it is permissible to combine one portion with the others by lavud to complete two portions. He wrote further about whether we say in disputes of the early authorities that it hangs on “halachah together with [another] halachah,” as in the sugya of Sukkah 18a regarding whether we say gud together with dofen akumah. Some early authorities conclude together with it, while others disagree. R. Akiva Eiger (to Orach Chaim 92) proved from the Ran and Ritva that we do not say “halachah with halachah,” while Rashi and the Tur hold otherwise, and in this they disagreed.
I, too, will blunt his teeth and say: behold, there are three views in practice. According to Rashi and the Tur, who hold that we may build a wall out of various legal constructs (talyata), there is nothing more to add—a single thread suffices, and all the rest is lavud until the end of days, and there is no “left side” nowadays in general—and it is simple. So, too, regarding mishloach manot: one fulfills [the obligation] with a single portion by the law of lavud, and all the other portions are sent only as a matter of stringency, and this will explain why the Israel Postal Service permits one to lose his sendings and to delay them until the end of days, for in the end a single sending suffices and all the rest is fulfillment by lavud. Give to a wise person and he will become yet wiser.
After writing all this I brought forth a new, awesome idea—an ear that did not hear it at Sinai will draw near to the door and be pierced: perhaps we do not even require a single thread, for this “thread” too can come by way of lavud. In the name of the encyclopedic mastery of our teacher the Shach, of blessed memory, I found support from a real‑life episode concerning our master R. N. Bonaparte (Naftali?—read: Bonaparte). As is known to any student, the elders and sages of Paris went out to greet him when he returned from the wars, and they asked him to take a roundabout path. When he asked them to explain, they said they feared the string of the eruv might tear. After they explained to him the operation of the eruv, its greatness, and the legalities with the authorities, and said to him, “It is a law in our hands that this string is considered as if it were a wall,” he answered them in perfect French: “If so, then even if the string tears, there is still ‘as if a string’ here.”
These are ancient matters. And on this it is said: “This is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations”—they saw the beauty of the holy Torah and were dumbstruck, selah. And although we do not teach Torah to a non‑Jew, for the sanctification of God’s Name and the law of the kingdom it is permitted. It appears that the dispute between the aforementioned “R. N.” and the elders of Paris is the same type as the dispute about “halachah with halachah.” They held that even if we consider there to be “as if a string,” still there is nothing upon which to build a wall, like the view of the Ran and the like. But our “R. N.” held that we do say “halachah with halachah,” and we may indeed make an “as if a wall” out of an “as if a string,” and it is simple.
And the truth is from those who saw and received, as it is said: “The sphere is fixed and the constellations rotate” (Pesachim 94b). “Wisdom exists among the nations; believe it.”
Until two more decisors join me, whose belt is thicker than my girdle, and answer amen against their will — I say [only] for the sake of the discussion, that we do not rule practical law from my mouth.
I saw further a matter to discuss: if one sent two portions, can we say there is lavud when the missing portion is in the middle between the two portions, or must it be the first or the last? This too depends on the dispute of our rabbis (Sukkah 18a): all agree that lavud at the side exists, while in the middle it is a dispute. It would seem logically that lavud at the side is preferable, for there [in Sukkah] the lavud meets the wall; but in mishloach manot the case is different: there is no concept of lavud “meeting” another portion. For if we say the “lavud portion” touches another, there are no portions at all here (for it would be one fused mass).
We must also consider whether the principle of “the majority is as the whole” (rubo kekulo) helps here: if one sent only “most” of three, do we view it as three by this principle, or is that, too, merely a case of lavud? This also raises the earlier difficulty about the first or last portion: for by lavud there is no lavud “at the side” when there is nothing for it to meet; but by rubo kekulo it would seem we have no problem, and thus it would be regarded as three portions. And about this it is said: “Eat choice foods, drink sweet drinks, and send portions to whoever has nothing prepared for him.”
Now, our master the author (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 690:3) rules: one must read the Megillah entirely from a written text; if he read it by heart he has not fulfilled [his obligation]. Ideally it should be entirely written before him; but after the fact, if the scribe omitted words in the middle, even up to half, and the reader supplied them by heart, he has fulfilled it. But if more than half are missing, even if they are written but blurred and their outline is not discernible, it is invalid. From here we see that in Megillah too we apply lavud: any missing letter is viewed as connected from both sides. We also see not like R. Naphelian (so to speak), who requires half of the letters to implement lavud; let his view be further analyzed. In any event, the same appears with respect to mishloach manot: why should this case differ from that?
An idea also occurred to me from Megillah 7a: Megillat Esther does not defile the hands because it is like broken pottery that has no handle for ritual impurity (this is not the place to expand). But we have a settled rule from the Rema in his table there: if the omission is at the beginning or at the end, even if it is small, one has not fulfilled; the leniency is only in the middle, and even that only when a complete topic has not been omitted. From here is a proof that cannot be refuted: we are not speaking there about “majority is as the whole,” but about lavud, for there the Megillah has lavud at the side. From here we learn two major laws: that we may say either lavud (or, alternatively, rubo kekulo) for letters on parchment, and that we may also apply lavud to portions of food (so to speak). However, in the Megillah we see that there is no lavud at the very end where there is nothing to meet, and so too with portions: for mishloach manot we need the first and last to be halachic items (cheftzei mitzvah), and we do not dispense with the second by lavud alone; though in the Megillah we saw otherwise—and “who said these words?” Let the matters stand.
Concerning mishloach manot we rule that one must send two portions to one person; from here two questions: can one portion come as rubo kekulo, and also as lavud at the side (since the second portion is the “last”)? Therefore, in the depth of my hidden thoughts I suggest a solution to this stumbling block so it not become a snare: let two senders join together and send three portions to one who lacks; and let them leave one portion in the middle to be completed by lavud or by rubo kekulo. Better yet, three who join and send four portions to one person—thus we “derive two halachot” as above, and this is sufficient.
From now we have merited a ruling: if all Israel gather and send a single portion to a single person, they have, indeed, fulfilled their obligation with hiddur, by the law of lavud (according to the view that we may combine two halachic constructs). But by rubo kekulo we do not find such a sending; rather, when sending two portions and the rest by water, all the additional [portions] are nullified one by one (kamma kamma batil), and this is not the place to expand.
Regarding matanot la’evyonim (gifts to the poor): it suffices with one portion for two poor people; if so, it appears that rubo kekulo does not apply here, but lavud does. According to the approach of our master R. Naphelian, of blessed memory, it suffices to send to an empty vessel, which will be filled with all bounty by virtue of lavud; and then the Purim feast of that poor fellow will be like the banquet of Solomon in his time: “And Solomon’s provision for one day was thirty kors of fine flour and sixty kors of meal; ten fat oxen and twenty pasture‑fed oxen and one hundred sheep, besides deer and roebuck and fallow‑deer and fatted fowl” (I Kings 5:2–3).
Thus conclude the words of one who gathers the ends, and enough, and more than enough. Pleasant to the palate and pleasing to the ear.
Applause to the great Rabbi Mara Demarmorosh who was amazing in demanding in his sermons that Israel be obligated to pay one portion and did not spare Israel's resources, for indeed, the eternal hears as a punishment and makes matters worse, what is it that hears a voice that does not actually come out of the mouth, that receives a meal that is actually made of sugar and cholesterol, etc., is not a law that comes out of the mouth, and what is it that someone who blesses himself but also intends to exclude others excludes everyone who intends to leave, who sends a beautiful portion for himself and intends to exclude all of Israel who intend to leave, not as a result? And the one who demands it does not demand it except for his honor, and He is merciful, He will atone for sin, etc.
And after I sipped a palinka, as is the custom of Hungarian Jews to appease their anger (since the way of kings is according to their heart's desire for wine, as explained in the Maga Aisha), I said to teach a defense on the island of Debra Deva, who collapses from his thick-bellied contraptions, who upholds the law of the Gemara like Rabbi Yehuda, who used to drink D’ Cups on Passover and a headache until the Asherah (Vedrim 49:2) and the poskim were divided on which Asherah, and here for the four weeks and here for the four Shemini Atzerah, and the poskim wrote that one should feel according to his method, because there is enough from the Torah to the grave, and therefore they practiced in the communities of Lithuania, Ya'akov and in particular in Riska'i, who were harsh, as in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, as grave and not as kol'ih, to get drunk all year round lest they make a mistake in counting the day from the previous day due to drunkenness, etc. and they do not sober up except during the Fast of Esther in order to direct the mitzvot, one is obligated to drink in the Puriya, as is well known and well known. And if so, the owner of the Athara Kadisha is bound by the law that a kosher Riscai is strict on himself to get drunk every day from everything from Damascus to wine to Keilit. From all of the above, it follows that it is permissible and commanded to read in his books and columns written throughout the year that are true Torah, written in the joy of Deshma'ta and Hamra for Mary and Tibbut for Shekiya. But in this column, the forgery of which is evident from its content, perhaps written out of sobriety on the eve of the fast of Esther, it is forbidden to read and it is not permissible to rule according to it to spend the wealth of Israel as a gift and to hear joy, etc. Such are the words of Mordechai the Jew who sits on the throne of King Peya'k Tovvab.
It is written that you should leave the offerings, one of which is omitted, because it is explained in Daniel, "a portion, a
In the 12th century, in the 19th century, in the 19th century, in the 20th century, in the 21st century, in the 21st century, in the 22nd century, in the 23rd century, in the 24th century, in the 25th century, in the 26th century, in the 27th century, in the 28th century, in the 29 Therefore, one should send it to a particular friend, who is happy that his friend gives his opinion about him and honors him with a beautiful and enjoyable gift, and thus the love between the giver and the recipient grows. The recipient is thus given attention and encouragement, and the giver is able to step out of his egocentricity a little in thinking about how to please his friend.
From him we learned to care for even one individual from a vast group. Although millions of Gentiles and Jews knelt and bowed to him, he was disturbed that not a single Jew was not a "participant in the celebration." And, to a great extent, we are also commanded to make sure that not even one Jew is left "outside the celebration."
With the blessing of "Ivtsumi of Ra'anana", Hasdai Bezalel Duvdevani Kirshen-Kvas
In addition to emphasizing solidarity at the individual level, ‘one for another’– local identity is also emphasized during the days of Purim,’ when every city, town, and village has its own unique Purim day that includes ‘all who are’ in the place, and even a temporary resident ‘born’ – he is like a native of the place from time immemorial, ‘a foreigner as well as a citizen’.
This was the great innovation of the ‘people of the Great Knesset’: positioning the local community as the guardian of public unity even in a situation of a ‘dispersed and divided people’.
With greetings, הב דקב
On the occasion of Purim Deparzim Tishf
Perhaps the author's words about sending one manot to all Israel should be observed, in a necessary way, according to the words of Rashi, who said that the rule "You shall not serve your neighbor" also includes the commandments between man and place, for "You shall not forsake your neighbor or your father's neighbor" was required by the Sages of God, the Holy One.
And most importantly, it is said that it is appropriate for all Israel to unite "as one man with one heart" to send a joint manot that will bring peace of mind to "your neighbor in heaven."
With the blessing of ‘Ihatsumi of Raanana’, Ch. B. D. K.
I gave Mr. Dehiever Purim and Sukkot the secret of ‘salvation is abundant because of her’ ‘the king's war that fell like this’ and the secret of ‘Haman falls on the bed’ ‘the one who sleeps under the bed’ etc. and he understood. And as I studied his words, how happy I was to see that he was not one of those who disregarded the holy laws of the Law. I remembered what I wrote earlier about the sources of our Rabbanu K’ who was extremely meticulous in the laws of the Sukkah.
He would strive to observe the holy laws such as ‘Levod’ and ’Dufan Akuma’ And the roof of the house will fall and close, and the wall of the house will be covered, and the wall of the house will be covered, and the two will be as they have done, and the third time, I will touch it, and the faded wall will be a wall for the Sabbath, and the wall will be a wall for the Sukkah, etc. And once he was determined to buy an elephant to fulfill the issue of making an animal a wall for the Sukkah, and the elephant was tied, so that it would not be loose (Sukkah 23).
And he would say: "This is my Sukkah decoration," and he would joke with the Haredim. The supposedly strict ones were to sit in wooden-sided sukkahs, and they were talking about the future judgment for violating the holy laws of Moses from Sinai. And once in the G-d, a sigh escaped from the holy one's mouth and said, "Lomedes lomedes, but from the walls of their sukkahs it is clear that they do not have the faith of the sages."
And once he was sitting with the Havria Kadisha in a sukkah whose walls were flimsy, with a large gap for the one standing, and the fact that its walls were made of felt and fishing lines so that they were not visible to the human eye at all. And he mentioned an incident with a scholar who was walking in a sukkah made of felt and was meditating on the laws of the sukkah, and a cat (which they call "ket") entered from among the lines. The scholar was surprised and said, "Look, this cat is from the land who does not know the law of felt." And our rabbi said, not the cat, but that scholar was with the land, and it is evidence that with him (we were with our rabbi) a cat never entered through the partition of the Lobod, since he (we were our rabbi) truly believed in the words of Chazal Delbod as a real partition.
And one year, on the eve of Yom Kippur, he answered and said: This year we will be worthy to sit in the Sukkah from the idol that comes out of the Sukkah, according to the teachings of the Darba and the Rishi, according to the method of Rashi. He was very happy and his face was radiant and said: Who knows if anyone from the days of Moses our rabbi has been worthy of this, and perhaps we did not come into the world except to observe the great pilgrimage to this Sukkah.
And he would strive to sit in the Sukkah every day from a different date, the first day from the date of the ′′ God Asik ′′ and the second day from the date of the ′′ God Achit ′′ and so on. And that day, the statue that came out of the Sukkah was a hospital for Moses, and he told us later: Every year Moses came to me alone, this year he came with two wise men.
And who those two wise men were, he did not say. So, from some of the stories of our rabbi in the holy place
To the author Rabbi Shalit, peace and blessings of the Lord,
I, the rabbi, am throwing at the Ukrainians a "delivery of parcels" of countless bombs and explosives of all kinds and types, and I have carried out preemptive strikes" from Rosh Chodesh, according to the Jerusalemite method.
And now I saw what the rabbi had proven in the field that one shipment was enough for an entire nation. And my soul asked: Isn't it better to send a "delivery of parcels" of one bomb that would destroy all of Ukraine at once, and eliminate the order of "Kiev Rosh"?
With greetings, Vladimir Velvel, Putin Putin from Catastrophe Knowledge
In honor of the Rebbe, etc., etc., etc., etc., the angel Michael ben Terah, may his peace be with him forever.
Here is the lofty answer of Mr. Niyo Rava, regarding the inability of all Israel to go out in sending one manot, two menots, each to his neighbor, and that itself is a considerable manot.
And here he went up to the mountains and went down to the valleys and brought up pots in his hand. But I was satisfied with a great and terrible doubt, whether it was the Torah of Purim or the Torah of Doag and Achitophel. And I remembered that once the great Gaon, Rabbi Fisher, ztchl, published harsh words against Rabbi Yosef Ibn Caspi, to the point that he resented those who republished his books, which in his opinion were better for them to be buried and not come to the Jewish community. And I am the one who I wrote some critical words about this, and I mentioned something similar to what happened in the book of Rabbi Yehuda the Hasid, and he replied that his anger at Kassip is not only because of the false and invalid opinions in it, but because he does so through ridicule, and the Rabbi mocks the words of the sages, etc.
The question is, are there limits to ridicule, to cantor, and to ridicule, and is it appropriate to make great laws for things that are supposedly ridiculous in the human-philosophical-rational-superficial mind?
And I think that in this I have fulfilled the obligation of returning the Shabbat of the offering of food in the portion that deserves to be honored.
The Lord, in peace, Avishalom
My wonderful horror is upon Mr. Kazb”i, whose name is known in the gates as a wonderful scholar, and surely Mr. knows that this path is paved by our masters until Mr. finds it appropriate to joke (v”3: to joke) Good on Purim will happen to my daughter, and perhaps there should be a hanging of a dove. Somewhere in the place where the boxes of Mr.'s words fell, and they looked to me as if they were a portent. Therefore, he is a slave and a slave (I will not eat a dove on Purim) J.P. In my petition, the K’ D”A ben Netin”A.
On the occasion of Purim Deparzim 5772
The wonderful sage, and the honor of the full, the man of science and research, the man of science and research, visited Shlomo Rava
I saw that the seal of ‘Dam”a ben Netin”a’ was ‘David Michael Avraham’. But what is the meaning of the initials ‘Netin”a’?
With the blessing of ‘Abetsumi of Raanana’, Eliam Fishel Werkheimer