On the times of judgment and the times of mercy

The eve of Purim is a good time to examine the halachic status of the holiday of Purim and its mitzvot.

The Dispute Between Maimonides and the Author of 'Hilchot Gedolot' (Bah"G)

On the surface, Purim is a rabbinical holiday, and of course its commandments are rabbinical commandments. This is also evident from the words of Maimonides, who dedicates a special collection to the Megillah and Chanukah, and at the beginning he writes:

The laws of the Megillah and Chanukah. They include two positive mitzvahs from the words of the scribes that are not included in the minyan. And in the explanation of these two mitzvahs in these chapters.

This is a unique collection in his work that is entirely devoted to the laws of the rabbis, and therefore he mentions this. It seems that he is alluding in his words to the well-known method of the Ha-Hag , that these two commandments are included in his list of 313 commandments. In his first verse, the Rambam insists that the commandments of the rabbis are not included in the list of commandments, and there he explicitly mentions this method of the Ha-Hag :

The first root is that it is not appropriate to include in this list the mitzvot that are from the rabbis. Know that this matter was not appropriate to raise it for his explanation, because after the Talmud was that six hundred and thirteen mitzvot were told to Moses at Sinai, how can it be said in a matter that is from the rabbis that it is included in the list of the minyan? But we raised it because many erred in it, and included the Hanukkah lamp and the reading of the Book of Revelation in the list of positive mitzvot… and let someone who understands their language be told to Moses at Sinai… and he included the Hanukkah lamp that the Sages established in the second book, as well as the reading of the Book of Revelation.

He then rules out a possible explanation for the B.A.G. method:

Although Moses was told at Sinai that he would be commanded that when it is at the end of our kingdom and such and such happens to us with the Jews, it will be obligatory for us to light a Hanukkah candle, I do not see that anyone would imagine this or bring it up in their mind.

It is unlikely that the Torah at Sinai referred to events that had not yet happened, such as the statement that when we had a victory over the Greeks in history and found a jug of oil, etc., we would light candles, or when manna arose upon us and we were saved, it was called a Megillah. This is a somewhat strange argument, since there is no logical reason to write in the Torah that if there were a tribulation and we were saved from it, we would set a special day for ourselves to commemorate the events, and the sages would prescribe certain actions (such as reading a Megillah or lighting candles) to commemorate the miracle. Maimonides apparently understands that even if there were such a mitzvah, its specific products would have been rabbinical, just as every other mitzvah from the rabbis is based on "do not deviate," and yet it is not counted among the mitzvot.

And indeed, this is exactly his next passage there:

And what seems to me to have brought them to this is that we bless these things that we have sanctified in its commandments and commanded to recite the revelation and to light a candle and to finish the Hallel and the Talmud question (Shabbat 23:1) where they were commanded and said, "Full of tesor."

The Talmud itself says that the commandment for Chanukah (like Purim) is from "not to deviate," and the Rambam in the following passages explains that this does not qualify these commandments as mitzvot from the Torah, and the same is true for Chanukah and Purim. Finally, he concludes:

And indeed, I have told you this so that you do not think that a revealed scripture, because it is a collection of prophets, will be called the Torah.

The 'Chatam Sofer's' explanation of the 'Bahaj' method

The Chas explains the method of the Ha-Hag based on the Gemara in Tractate Megillah 14:1:

Our rabbis gave that forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses prophesied to Israel, and they did not diminish or omit anything written in the Torah, except for the reading of the scroll. What is needed? Rabbi Hiyya bar Abin said, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha said, and what is slavery to freedom? They said, "Singing from death to life, not at all."

We learn the obligation to read the Megillah more or less from Passover: if during a rescue like on Passover, which was from slavery to freedom, one must recite a song (Hillel), then during the rescue of Purim, which was from death to life, not so much.

In Tractate Shabbat, 33a, the Gemara invalidates a Hanukkah candle that is placed higher than twenty cubits. The word "invalid" is used in reference to the laws of the Torah, and therefore the Chass in his novellas there writes as follows:

Invalid as a commandment. The word "dankt" is an invalid language, which is in the Torah, as in the Torah, "tos" is a commandment to give instructions, "the lighting of candles" is actually not from the Torah. "Hanukkah body" and all the nineteen prescribed for miracles from the Torah are according to the opinion of the HaHag, "hallel and megilla" and "hanukkah from the Torah" and "flegi" in this, Rambam and Ramban in the S. of the Mitzvot in the first shersh, end of Teshuvah 1 and Teshuvah 2, in the name of and for "paed" it is not at all surprising to say that "dek" 16 dilfi" pk "magilla" from the Torah is derived from slavery to redemption, saying "singing from death to life". It is not found in the Torah to determine a day for every miracle, but the sages determined what to do on it, according to the nature of the event. In this, reading the Megilla and sending offerings, and in this, saying Hallel and lighting candles, is found in the Torah and its interpretation is from the rabbis:

His argument is that the holiday itself is from the Torah even if its specific commandments are from the rabbis, and the same is true for Purim. This is evidence for the B.A.G.'s approach. He finds the source of the B.A.G.'s approach in the Gemara, which teaches the obligation to read the Megillah, especially the Hallel on Passover. As is known, kal ve humur is one of the virtues required by the Torah, and therefore it is certainly possible to argue that reading the Megillah is a mitzvah from the Torah. [1] According to this, the obligations of Purim are not based on "not to deviate" (as Maimonides suggested in his approach) but on the mitzvah of reciting poetry on Passover. However, there is still room for discussion here regarding the number of mitzvot, since even if it is indeed a mitzvah from the Torah, it is reasonable to include this in the mitzvah of Hallel on Passover and not to count it as an independent mitzvah. [2]

Expansion of the easy and the hard

This issue appears in the Chas's several places in the Responsa. One of them is in a type of 'riddle' regarding Lag BaOmer (Yod. C. Relag), where he explains why he does not immigrate to Eretz Yisrael:

I knew for certain that I had heard that now I would prepare my dwelling and that from afar they would come and seek the Lord in Safed on the day of Lag BaOmer, in the hall of the late Darshbi. And even if all their intentions are for the Lord, their reward is without a doubt great. …But for this reason itself, I was one of the Pharisees, as a son of Druthai, so that I would not have to sit there and change their custom in front of them, and that I would not want to associate with them in this. Because already several Karkurim Karkar in the Book of Prohibitions, 14th letter, in the booklet of Prohibitions, about the places that perform Yot on the day a miracle was performed for them…

He writes that he does not immigrate to Israel in order to avoid getting entangled in the customs of Lag BaOmer, which have good intentions and great rewards, but are not proper. His argument is that there is a "do not add" here, since a date is added here that is not written in the Torah and was not corrected by the Sages.

He then adds:

For the Pen"d of Damrian [ = meaning the reason why they do Yot on the day that a miracle happened to some community – Purim Frankfurt or Casablanca ] is from the island of Kw from slavery to freedom Amirian, singing from death to life, not at all [= the Kw from Pesach] But to set a date on which no miracle was performed and which was not mentioned in Shas and the rulings anywhere, and a hint and allusion, is only a custom to prevent eulogies and fasting, and the reasons for this are not known to us.

The holidays that various communities add to commemorate miracles that happened to them are based on the circumstances we saw in the Megillah issue. Every saving from death to life requires confession and singing, and this is apparently an obligation of the Torah. This is of course contrary to the Rambam's assumption that such a claim of the Torah about the future is not possible. Although it is likely that the Rambam would also agree that it is permissible to celebrate such a holiday by virtue of that circumstances, in his opinion it should not be considered a Torah holiday and certainly not be counted among the mitzvot.

The Chas concludes that Lag BaOmer is a time on which nothing worthy of celebration occurred, and therefore it should not be lightly associated with Passover, and in any case, its existence raises the concern that the prohibition "do not add to it" applies.

An interesting reference to Lag BaOmer

The Hatas concludes there with a riddle that nevertheless offers a possible explanation for this problematic date:

And in the siddur of Mahar"Yavetz 20, according to Nether, it is stated that all of them are obligated and all are entitled, that is, "Hod in Hod" is the word "Hod." But according to Piz"z, it was appropriate to determine all good when we reach the heights [ =Gevura of Gevura ] on the ninth day of the numbering of the children of Israel [ =Ten of the Omer ], but in the Lord's name they are the days of Nisan and there is no eulogy on it …

Brief Explanation: Lag BaOmer belongs to the sefirat 'Hod in Hod' (the fifth day of the fifth week). The sefirat Hod is one of two sefirats that are located on the left side of the Kabbalistic structure of the sefirot (Gevura and Hod), and therefore belongs to the line of dhanin (as opposed to the line of dhanin on the right: dhanin and netzah). Therefore, Lag BaOmer (as well as the 9th of Nisan) is considered a 'judgment within a judgment', and as is known in the law of souls, if all the judges of the court sentence the accused to death, he is acquitted: a judgment within a judgment is nothing but dhanin. [3] Lag BaOmer is a time of dhanin, not of dhanin.

To understand the terminology, it is important to remember that the term 'Din' in the language of the Sages means 'complex' ("There is no punishment from the law", "Isn't it a law?!"). Purim and all the memorial days of the various communities that follow it are days of law, as they are all learned in a complex way from Passover. In contrast, Lag BaOmer is the only day that is not fundamentally complex and therefore is not a day of law, but is a day of 'law within the law', and therefore is actually a day of grace. A day that is special for that which goes beyond ordinary understanding (from the law) and focuses on the hidden Torah that is hidden behind it.

* Rabbi Dr. Michael Avraham, Higher Institute of Torah at Bar-Ilan University.

[1] Although according to the Maimonides' method in Shoresh the Second, laws that are taught in midrashim are from the words of scribes and are not enumerated. This explanation is given only for the method of the Ha-Hag himself.

[2] The Rambam in the first root raises such an argument against the Ha-Hag regarding various obligations of performing acts of kindness: He does not claim that these are rabbinical commandments, but rather that they are included in the commandment to "satisfy one's needs."

[3] Behind this obscure statement lies a broad and profound philosophical-logical concept. In short, a matter of course is a law because it is understood logically and expresses a conclusion that logically follows from the premises (what follows from the law is learned logically from what is discussed). The 'understanding' is the understanding of a thing from a thing (logical inference – which draws a conclusion from the premises), and is of course the sphere that stands at the head of the law line on the left. But when asked what the basis for the principle of logical derivation itself is (what is the logic in logical inferences such as a matter of course), we will not have an answer in terms of logical inference (another law). Therefore, to the question of the law in the law (the logic behind logic itself), the answer is that it is true from within itself and not on the basis of another premise. If the conclusion of a logical argument is a law, then such a claim is in the nature of wisdom, which, as is known, is the sphere that stands at the head of the line of grace on the right.