On Whether All Israel Fulfills with One Mishloach Manot (Column 460)
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.
Discussion
Regarding what your honor wrote, that one may fulfill the obligation with three portions while omitting one from among them, it is difficult for me in my poverty, for it is explicit in Daniel: “Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin,” and there it is explained in the verses: “You were weighed in the balances and found lacking” (and the “upharsin” of the verse refers to Persia—the site of Purim). Since he has two portions, why is he lacking? Clearly, then, what are we dealing with here? A case where one omitted one from the middle (and therefore Scripture states it with the term “mene, mene” and not “manot,” as your honor wrote), and this is what the verse teaches us: “you were found lacking.” This requires great study. And one may answer that in your honor’s Bible these verses are omitted, yet the Bible is lacking nothing by the law of lavud, and this is simple.
With God’s help, 12 Adar II, 5782
To the Ramda – abundant greetings,
It seems there is a problem with all Israel fulfilling the obligation through one ‘mishloach manot,’ according to both reasons given for the commandment of mishloach manot. According to the reason that the main point is to help, in a dignified way, someone “for whom nothing is prepared” – certainly it is preferable that there be many recipients, so that the likelihood increases that the poor too will receive.
And even according to the reason that mishloach manot is intended to increase love and friendship between a man and his fellow – you have mentioned more than once in your father’s name that there is a state in which a person “loves the whole Jewish people, but in truth does not love even one Jew.” In a general mishloach manot, the care for a particular person is not evident.
Therefore one must send specifically to an individual friend, who is happy that his fellow is thinking of him and honoring him with a fine and enjoyable gift; thus love increases between giver and recipient. The recipient is thereby granted attention and encouragement, and the giver merits to emerge a bit from his own egocentricity by thinking about how to give pleasure to his fellow.
From Haman we learned what it means to care even about one individual out of a vast multitude. Although millions of gentiles and Jews bowed and prostrated themselves before him, it bothered him that one lone Jew was not “joining the celebration.” And by the rule that “the measure of good is greater,” we too are commanded to give thought to ensuring that not even one Jew remains “outside the celebration.”
With the blessing, “and become joyously intoxicated,” Ḥasdai Betzalel Duvdevani Kirshen-Kvas
Credit to the master who connected Purim and Sukkot through the mystery of “its shade exceeds its sun” and “the king’s wrath subsided,” and through the mystery of “Haman falling upon the couch” and “one who sleeps under the bed,” etc.—and this is not the place to elaborate for one who understands. And as I looked into his words, how glad I was to see that his honor is not, Heaven forbid, among those who disdain the holy laws. Immediately I recalled what I wrote earlier: sources regarding our holy master, who was exceedingly meticulous in the laws of the sukkah.
He would exert himself to fulfill the holy laws such as “lavud,” “a bent wall,” “the edge of the roof descends and closes,” “raise up the partition,” “bring down the partition,” “two walls according to law and a third even a handbreadth,” and “since it is a partition for Shabbat purposes, it is a partition for sukkah purposes,” etc. And once he made a great effort to buy an elephant in order to fulfill the sugya of “one who made an animal into a wall for the sukkah,” for regarding a tied elephant no one disagrees (Sukkah 23).
And he would say: “This is my sukkah ornament,” and he would mock the “Haredim” who supposedly are stringent to sit in sukkot with wooden walls; and it was common on his lips that in the future they would be called to account for kicking against the holy laws given to Moses at Sinai. And once, on the third day of Ḥol HaMoed, a sigh escaped his holy mouth and he said: “Lomdus, lomdus—but from the walls of those people’s sukkot it is evident that they have no faith in the sages.”
And once he was reclining with the holy fellowship in a sukkah whose walls were flimsy, with the breaches greater than the standing parts, and it was elegantly made such that its walls existed by the law of lavud, from fishing lines, until they were not visible at all to the human eye. He mentioned an incident involving a certain scholar who was strolling about in a sukkah valid by lavud and discussing the laws of sukkah, when a cat entered between the lines. That scholar was amazed and said, “See this ignorant cat, which does not know the law of lavud.” And our master said that it was not the cat but that scholar who was the ignoramus; proof being that with him (that is, with our master) a cat never entered through a lavud partition, because he (that is, our master) truly believed the words of Hazal that lavud is literally a full partition.
And one year, on the night after Yom Kippur, he answered and said: “This year we shall merit to sit in a sukkah by the law of a piece of roofing that extends out from the sukkah, according to Rabbah and Rabbi Yose in Rashi’s view.” He was overjoyed, his face radiant, and he said: “Who knows whether anyone has merited this since the days of Moses our teacher? Perhaps we came into the world only to fulfill this great halakhah regarding the sukkah.”
And he would strive to sit each day in a sukkah valid by a different legal principle: the first day by ‘raise up the partition,’ the second day by ‘bring down the partition,’ and so on. And on that day of ‘a piece of roofing extending out from the sukkah,’ the ushpizin of Moses was present, and afterward he said to us: “Every year Moses comes to me alone; this year he came accompanied by two sages.”
Who those two sages were, he did not say. Thus ends a selection of our holy master’s sacred chronicles.
To the esteemed rabbi, the author, may he live long – abundant peace and salvation,
I, the undersigned, throw at the Ukrainians a ‘mishloach manot’ of bombs and countless firecrackers of every kind and type, and I have fulfilled “the zealous perform commandments early” – perhaps even from the beginning of the month, according to the Jerusalem Talmud’s view.
Now I have seen what your honor proved plainly, that one sending suffices for an entire nation. And my soul asks: would it not be preferable to send a single ‘mishloach manot’ bomb that would destroy all of Ukraine at once, and then the whole matter of ‘Kiev-Head’ would be over and done with?
With blessings, Vladimir Velvel, Putin Putin from well-known Catastrophia
Besides emphasizing solidarity at the individual level, “a man to his fellow” – the days of Purim also emphasize “local identity,” in that every city, walled town, and village has its own unique Purim day that includes “all who are found” in that place; and even a temporary resident, “one of a day” – is regarded as a local resident from time immemorial, “like the stranger, like the native-born.”
This was the great innovation of the Men of the Great Assembly: establishing the local community as the guardian of public unity even in a condition of “a people scattered and dispersed.”
With blessings, Ḥ.B. of the holy community
In honor of the great gaon etc. etc. etc., the angel Michael son of Terah, may his peace increase forever
Behold, they showed me his exalted responsum, that great man’s, concerning whether all Israel can fulfill their obligation with one mishloach manot—two portions, one man to his fellow—and that itself is a respectable portion.
Now, he ascended mountains and descended into valleys and came up with shards in his hand. But I was left with a great and terrifying doubt: is this the Torah of Purim, or the Torah of Doeg and Ahithophel? And I recalled that once the great gaon Rabbi Shmuel Fisher of blessed memory published words as hard as sinews against Rabbi Yosef Ibn Kaspi, to the point that he took issue with one who republished his books, for in his opinion it would have been better had they remained buried and not entered the congregation of Israel. And I, the insignificant one, wrote in my poverty some critical remarks about this, and I mentioned something similar that happened with the book of Rabbi Judah he-Ḥasid on the Torah; and he replied that his anger at Kaspi was not only because of the false and invalid opinions found in him, but because he does so by way of mockery, and thus he mocks the words of the sages, etc.
The question is whether there are limits to humor, provocation, and mockery, and whether it is proper to make great halakhot out of matters that are supposedly ridiculous to the human-philosophical-rational-superficial intellect.
And I think that in this I have fulfilled my obligation of returning a mishloach manot with a portion worthy of honor.
The insignificant one, Bash"i, Zeh Benshalom Avishalom
I was tremendously astonished by the master, B.K.Z.B.Y., whose name is known in the gates as a wondrous scholar; and surely the master knows that this path is well trodden from our rabbis onward, so that the master saw no need to offer a fine gloss (and some versions read: to clown) upon my own Purim Torah. Perhaps it may be ascribed to the law of lavud that some words from the master’s remarks slipped away from their place, and in my eyes it is as though he had set them forth explicitly. Therefore let them be forgiven and permitted to the master (if he eats soaked matzah on Purim) three times. So I pray, the insignificant D.M.A. son of Netina.
With God’s help, Purim of the unwalled towns, 5782
To the wondrous sage, filled with the glory of God, the man of science and research, the precious Adam – great peace
I saw that his honor signs “D.M.A. son of Netin"A.” “D.M.A.” means “David Michael Abraham.” But what is the meaning of the initials “Netin"A”?
With the blessing, “and become joyously intoxicated,” Eliam Fish"l Vorkheimer
With God’s help, Purim of the unwalled towns, 5782
Perhaps one may uphold the author’s words about one mishloach manot for all Israel by way of homiletics, based on Rashi’s comment that the rule “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow” also includes the commandments between man and God, for “Do not forsake your companion and your father’s companion” is expounded by Hazal as referring to the Holy One, blessed be He.
So too here we may say that it is fitting that all Israel unite “as one man with one heart” in a joint mishloach manot that will bring pleasure to “your Companion above.”
With the blessing, “and become joyously intoxicated,” Ḥ.B. of the holy community
Profuse thanks to the great rabbi, master of Maramureș, who has excelled in expounding faulty homilies so as to obligate Israel to one additional portion, and had no pity on the money of Israel. For we hold that “one who hears is as one who answers”; and all the more so: if one who hears a voice, which has no substance, fulfills his obligation, then one who receives mishloach manot, which has substance—candies and cholesterols and so forth—should certainly fulfill his obligation, should he not? And if one who recites a blessing for himself but also intends thereby to discharge another indeed discharges everyone who intends to fulfill his obligation, then one who sends a fine portion to himself and intends to discharge all Israel who intend to fulfill their obligation—how much more so! But the preacher expounded only for his own honor; and He is compassionate, He will atone for sin, etc.
And after I had sipped palinka, as is the custom of Hungarian Jews, to soothe their wrath (for such is the way of kings: when their hearts are merry with wine, as explained in the Magen Avraham, see there), I said I would teach some merit regarding this man, this destroyer of pages in his thick-bellied pamphlets, who fulfills the Talmudic law in accordance with Rabbi Yehudah, who would drink the four cups on Passover and suffer a headache until Atzeret (Nedarim 49b). The decisors disputed which Atzeret this means: some say Shavuot and some say Shemini Atzeret, and the decisors wrote that one must take his view into account, for in a doubt regarding a Torah law we rule stringently. Therefore, in the communities of Lithuania, may they be established, and especially among the Briskers—who are stringent like Beit Shammai and like Beit Hillel, taking their stringencies but not their leniencies—the custom arose to get drunk all year long, lest they erred in counting yesterday’s date because of drunkenness, etc., and they are sober only on the Fast of Esther so as to have proper intention in the commandment that a person is obligated to become intoxicated on Purim, as is known, and this is not the place to elaborate. If so, there is a presumption regarding the master of this holy site that, as a proper Brisker, he is stringent with himself to get drunk every day from anything intoxicating, from wine to Adullam figs. And from all the above it emerges as practical law that it is permitted and even a commandment to read his books and columns, written throughout the year, for they are words of true Torah, having been written in the joy of learning—“the wine belongs to its master, and gratitude to the one who poured it.” But this column, whose falsity is evident from within, having perhaps been written while sober on the eve of the Fast of Esther, is forbidden to read; and all the more so one may not rule on its basis so as to consume the money of Israel, as stated above. And the listener will find it pleasant, etc. Thus are the words of Mordechai the Jew, who sits on the king’s throne in the holy city, may it be rebuilt speedily in our days.