purim -- derabanan or deoraysa?

This is a little late, but better late than never.

I think there is a fascinating machlokes about this topic.

First, an explanation of the question:  I'm less concerned with whether megillah is treated in halacha as deoraysa or drabanan and more with the origins of the mitzvah of megillah - did it begin as a takana drabanan or is megillah a tzivuy hashem.

I think everyone would probably assume that the former option is correct.  But the Ramban assumes otherwise.  Take a look at this ramban al hatorah (devarim 4):

ולפי דעתי אפילו בדא לעשות מצוה בפני עצמה כגון שעשה חג בחדש שבדא מלבו כירבעם (מ"א יב לג), עובר בלאו. וכך אמרו (מגילה יד א) לענין מקרא מגלה, מאה ושמונים נביאים עמדו להם לישראל ולא פחתו ולא הוסיפו על מה שכתוב בתורה אפילו אות אחת חוץ ממקרא מגילה מאי דרוש וכו'. ובירושלמי (מגילה פ"א ה"ה) שמונים וחמשה זקנים ומהם כמה נביאים היו מצטערים על הדבר, אמרו כתוב אלה המצות אשר צוה ה' את משה, אלו המצות שנצטוו מפי משה, כך אמר לנו משה ואין נביא אחר עתיד לחדש דבר לכם, ומרדכי ואסתר רוצים לחדש לנו דבר, לא זזו משם נושאין ונותנין בדבר עד שהאיר הקב"ה עיניהם וכו'. הרי שהיתה המצוה הזו אסורה להם, א"כ היא בכלל לא תוסיף עליו, אלא שלא למדנו למוסיף על פי נביא אלא מן הכתוב שאמר "אלה המצות" אין נביא רשאי לחדש בו דבר מעתה. ומה שתקנו חכמים משום גדר, כגון שניות לעריות וכיוצא בהן, זו היא מצוה מן התורה, ובלבד שידע שהם משום הגדר הזה ואינן מפי הקב"ה בתורה:

To summarize:  The Ramban quotes from chazal that when the idea of mikra megillah as a mitzvah ledoros was initially proposed, the chachamim at the time were very disturbed by the notion of adding a mitzvah ledoros to the torah.   They felt, claims the Ramban, that to add a new mitzvah to the torah of mikra megillah would be a violation of baal tosif.  Asks the Ramban, if the issur that chazal were worried about was the issur of baal tosif, then why did chazal not quote the pesukim of baal tosif, and instead quote a derasha of  אלה המצות אשר צוה ה' את משה to teach that אין נביא אחר עתיד לחדש דבר לכם.  Explains the Ramban:  While baal tosif does assur adding new mitzvos to the torah, you might have thought that this prohibition does not apply when the new mitzvah is being added through nevuah, because there Hashem is commanding you to add this new mitzvah!  Comes אלה המצות and teaches you that even then, we don't believe the navi and disallow adding a mitzvah to the torah (midin baal tosif).  The Ramban is clearly assuming, then, that mikra megillah was commanded al pi navi.  (So why was mikra megillah allowed to be added in the end -- we'll get it to it).

The Ramban goes further in parshas re'eh by the parsha of navi sheker (devarim 13):

ונראה, שאם יתנבא בשם ה' לצוות מצוה שיחדש, כגון שהיה במקרא מגלה (מגילה יד א), שאינו חייב מיתה, אלא שאין לנו לשמוע אליו, דכתיב אלה המצות (ויקרא כז לד) אין נביא רשאי לחדש בהם דבר מעתה. ואולי כיון שלא נאמין לו הנה הוא נביא השקר, ומיתתו בחנק:

Again:  Chazal's initial reaction to mikra megillah was that it would be a violation of אלה המצות אשר צוה ה' את משה to add it to the torah.  This assumption was so strong that if not ultimately found to be false, Mordechai and Esther might have have been put to death midin navi sheker.  This obviously assumes that the origin of mikra megillah is deoraysa in nature- Hashem directly commanded us to read the megillah on purim as a mitzvah ledoros.

The Rambam disagrees with the Ramban, and claims that mikra megillah is only derabanan in nature:

ויש מצוות אחרות שנתחדשו אחר מתן תורה וקבעו אותן נביאים וחכמים ופשטו בכל ישראל כגון מקרא מגלה ונר חנוכה ותענית תשעה באב וידים ועירובין. ויש לכל מצוה מאלו פירושין ודקדוקין. והכל יתבאר בחבור זה: כל אלו המצוות שנתחדשו חייבין אנו לקבלם ולשמרם שנ' לא תסור מכל הדבר וכו', ואינם תוספת על מצוות התורה. ועל מה הזהירה תורה לא תוסף ולא תגרע, שלא יהיה נביא רשאי לחדש דבר ולומר שהקב"ה צוהו במצוה זו להוסיפה למצוות התורה או לחסר אחת מאלו השש מאות ושלש עשרה מצוות: אבל אם הוסיפו בית דין עם נביא שיהיה באותו הזמן מצוה דרך תקנה או דרך הוראה או דרך גזרה אין זו תוספת שהרי לא אמרו שהקב"ה צוה לעשות ערוב או לקרות המגלה בעונתה, ואילו אמרו כן היו מוסיפין על התורה: אלא כך אנו אומרין, שהנביאים עם בית דין תקנו וצוו לקרות המגלה בעונתה כדי להזכיר שבחיו של הקב"ה ותשועות שעשה לנו והיה קרוב לשועינו, כדי לברכו ולהללו וכדי להודיע לדורות הבאים שאמת מה שהבטיחנו בתורה כי מי גוי גדול אשר לו אלהים קרובים אליו כי"י אלהינו בכל קראנו אליו. ועל דרך זו היא כל מצוה ומצוה שהיא מדברי סופרים בין עשה בין לא תעשה:

But while the Rambam may on the surface seem to be the simpler understanding, the truth is that in fact this is very problematic.  Recall the maamarei chazal brought by the ramban where it was clear that chazal originally thought that to establish the mitzvah of mikra megillah would be a violation of baal tosif.  This is easy to understand according to the ramban: Mordechai and Esther were trying to add a mitzvah deoraysa to the torah – something that is clearly not allowed midin אלה המצות אשר צוה ה' את משה.  Thus, they faced a potential violation of baal tosif.  But according to the rambam, Mordechai and Esther were just trying to establish a mitzvah drabanan – something which chazal have the right to do based on the pseukim in parshas shoftim (lo tassur).  Why would anyone think that that would be a violation of bal tosif?

Comes the Rambam and says a tremendous chiddush:  Really, all drabanans should be a violation of bal tosif.  Why should that be?  Shouldn’t we say that the same Torah which assured bal tosif also allowed chazal to make takanos, and thus clearly the torah does not consider said takanos to be a violation of bal tosif.

The Rashba says exactly that sevara, and I’m sure the Ramban would say it as well.  My Rebbe, R’ Twersky, asked this question, and I wrote up a piece about his answer here.  But hopefully we’ll do it better now.

Lets leave that for a second.  There is a machlokes between the Rambam and the Ramban in sefer Hamitzvos that connects to this machlokes about whether megillah is deoraysa or drabanan.  The Rambam attacks the Behag, who counts mikra megillah as one of the taryag mitzvos.  After all, says the Rambam, the taryag mitzvos are described in chazal as "nitnu limoshe misinai" - does anyone think that Hashem commanded Moshe about the din of mikra megillah that will be instituted thousands of years later?  The Rambam claims that to believe that would be ridiculous.

But the Ramban (in his hasagos to shoresh 1) bites the bullet, citing the following yerushalmi:

  רב ור' חנינה ור' יונתן ובר קפרא ור' יהושע בן לוי אמרו המגילה הזאת נאמרה למשה מסיני אלא שאין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה

  Yes, Hashem did already tell Moshe about mikra megillah.  Lishitaso, this must be the case, because that is the only reason why mordechai and esther's new mitzvah wasn't a violation of  אלה המצות אשר צוה ה' את משה - mikra megillah was already given to moshe!

I looked up the yerushalmi cited above, and it is no coincidence that it is immediately preceded by the yerushalmi which had chazal attacking mordechai and esther for violating אלה המצות אשר צוה ה' את משה.  The Ramban reads these 2 gemaras as being 2 sides of the same coin: Because mikra megillah was already given to moshe, it was not a violation of eleh hamitzvos / baal tosif for a later navi to come along and teach us that Hashem wants us to institute a "new" mitzvah lidoros of mikra megillah.

 

But all this gives us another question on the Rambam:  If the gemara’s answer as to why mikra megillah isn’t baal tosif is that it was already nitna limoshe misinai, how can the Rambam come along and claim that to believe such an idea would be “ridiculous”.  Is he arguing on chazal?  How does he answer why mikra megillah isn’t a violation of baal tosif, then?

It is now appropriate to cite some relevant sections of the previous piece on this topic:

“The answer [to our first question] lies in the rambam's formulation of the ninth ikkar emunah: ויסוד התשיעי הבטול. והוא שזו תורת משה לא תבטל, ולא תבוא תורה מאת ה' זולתה, ולא יתוסף בה ולא יגרע ממנה לא בכתוב ולא בפירוש, אמר לא תוסף עליו ולא תגרע ממנו.
 The source of the ikkar emunah that the torah won't change is the mitvah of bal tosif and bal tigra.  What this means is that bal tosif and bal tigra are much more than just technical mitzvos - but rather, they frame the Jewish worldview by being part of our ikkarei emunah - our principles of faith.
 Its not just a plain old issur to add to the torah - to add to the torah reflects heresy.   Part of our faith is that G-d gave us a perfect Torah.  Perfect means that it doesn't need improvement, it doesn't need the Christians, or Muslims, or anyone else, to come along and make changes and "refine" it.  To add to the torah is to deny its, and in a sense, G-d's perfection, by implying that the torah needs your human input to be better / complete.
 If bal tosif were a regular issur, our comparison to shechita on shabbos would hold.  Just like we said by shechita, we would say the torah can make exceptions to the rules it itself made (and allow chazal to be mosif al hatorah).  But bal tosif is an idea - the torah is perfect and cannot be added to.  If thats true, what room is there for chazal to add to / improve upon the torah?  Doesn't the torah itself imply that it is not perfect since it leaves room for chazal to add to the torah - but that can't be?”

How does the Rambam, then, answer why all drabanans are not baal tosif? Again I quote:

With this perspective, we look at the Rambam's answer in an entirely new light.  The hashkafic drush now becomes an integral part of the point the rambam is driving out.  Says the rambam, chazal's license to enact new legislation doesn't violate the perfection of the torah as long as chazal recognize their limits - if they try to pass off their new law as a deoraysa, that reflects that they think the torah is imperfect - it needs their addition to be complete, which would be heretical.  What chazal can do, however, is enact a law to apply the eternal, non-changing values of the torah to the new situations and circumstances of today.  Thus, an enactment of chazal is not a violation of bal tosif if 1) chazal don't pass it off as deoraysa and (perhaps even more importantly) 2) the legistlation is a 'kiyum deoraysa' - it is an application of Torah values to new circumstances / realities.  Mikra megillah isnt bal tosif because it reflects a value in the torah itself - to recognize the truth of the pasuk כי מי גוי גדול אשר לו אלהים קרובים אליו כי"י אלהינו בכל קראנו אליו.  Thus, all chazal did when they legislated mikra megillah was to apply the values of the torah to the new historical reality of purim.  That is the role G-d gave chachamim, and that doesn't conflict with the Torah's perfection. ועל דרך זו היא כל מצוה ומצוה שהיא מדברי סופרים בין עשה בין לא תעשה

When the Rambam saw the Ramban’s yerushalmi about the megillah being nitna limoshe misinai, the Rambam saw his own answer in the yerushalmi!  It doesn’t mean that the megillah was literally given to Moshe; that, the Rambam thinks, would be ridiculous. Instead, it reflects that the ideals and values expressed in krias hamegillah are deoraysa values – they are rooted in the torah that was nitna limoshe misinai.

The machlokes Rambam / Ramban extends to the next yerushalmi there:

 ר' יוחנן ורשב"ל ר' יוחנן אמר הנביאים והכתובים עתידין ליבטל וחמשת סיפרי תורה אינן עתידין ליבטל מה טעמא [דברים ה יט] קול גדול ולא יסף רשב"ל אמר אף מגילת אסתר והלכות אינן עתידין ליבטל נאמר כאן קול גדול ולא יסף ונאמר להלן [אסתר ט כח] וזכרם לא יסוף מזרעם

For the Ramban, this mean the following: Megillas Esther, unlike all the rest of Nach, will never lose its status as kisvei hakodesh, and its story will never be forgotten, because it is part of a mitzvah deoraysa - it is part of the torah shebaal peh that was nitna limoshe misinai - just like the rest of the torah that was given at sinai is eternal, so too mikra megillah is eternal and will never be battel.  If Mikra megillah were to be drabanan, then this statement of chazal would clearly not hold (according to the Ramban).

But while the Rambam clearly does not buy in whatsoever to shittas haramban, he does quote this last part of the yerushalmi:

כל ספרי הנביאים וכל הכתובים עתידין ליבטל לימות המשיח חוץ ממגילת אסתר והרי היא קיימת כחמשה חומשי תורה וכהלכות של תורה שבעל פה שאינן בטלין לעולם. ואע"פ שכל זכרון הצרות יבטל שנאמר כי נשכחו הצרות הראשונות וכי נסתרו מעיני. ימי הפורים לא יבטלו שנאמר וימי הפורים האלה לא יעברו מתוך היהודים וזכרם לא יסוף מזרעם

For the Rambam, this is expressing a very powerful idea.  Megillah is only derabanan, and by all logic it should therefore be battel – especially according to the Rambam who limits drabanans more than all the other rishonim with his baal tosif – what room is there for a permanent addition to the torah if the torah is really perfect?  But that’s exactly the point.  Because every drabanan, and mikra megillah in particular, express a kiyum deoraysa, even the actions and ideas that we add to the torah can become a permanent part of the torah itself, as long as we are rooted 100% in torah principles.  Halevai we should all be zocheh!

purim

I have to do teshuvah from my ridiculous dvar torah for purim last year, so hopefully this will be better.  I'm still looking for help with this, so any ideas would be really appreciated. I prefer, at least for now, to keep the harsh rhetoric down a level or two, so lets keep it nice.  Thank you.

There are a few questions I had in the rambam concerning purim.

1.  The Rambam names theses halachos hilchos megillah vichanukah - why not hilchos purim vichanuka?  Wouldn't that make more sense, especially given the parallel with chanukah?

2.  The Rambam, in the koteres, says that hilchos megillah vichanukah contains two mitzvos midivrei sofrim.  Presumably, these two mitzvos are mikrah megillah and ner chanukah.  What about the other mitzvos of purim, i.e. mishloach manos, matanos laevyonim, the seudah.  Aren't they also mitzvos midivrei sofrim included in these halachos and therefore they should also be counted in the koteres?

3.  Why don't we make a bracha on the other mitzvos of purim?  Maybe you can kvetch and get out of a birchas hamitzvah on mishloach manos and matanos laevyonim, but you still have to deal with shehechiyanu (and yes, I know that you're supposed to have in mind the other mitzvos of the day when you say shehechiyanu on purim day, but that doesn't answer the question.)

4. The hagahos maymonios brings down from Rav Amram Gaon that one should not say al hanissim in maariv on purim night, because at that point we have not yet lained megillah.  On this the hagahos maymonios asks, why is purim different than any other yom tov, where you say yaaleh viyavo at night even if you havent yet had the seder/ shaken lulav / been mekadesh the chodesh.  The very day of purim is mechayev in al hanissim, so what difference does it make if we have not yet read the megillah.  Can we answer this question?

From all the above, it seems clear that there is really only 1 mitzvah on purim  - and that is megillah.  Everything else - mishloach manos, matanos laevyonim, seudah, and even the entire "kedushas hayom" of purim itself (al hanissim), all stem only from the chiyuv of megillah.

Lets switch focus for a second.  We know that simcha on purim is elevated to an extreme.  And I quote the famous rambam:

...מצות יום י"ד לבני כפרים ועיירות ויום ט"ו לבני כרכים להיותן יום שמחה ומשתה ומשלוח מנות לריעים ומתנות לאביונים.
כיצד חובת סעודה זו שיאכל בשר ויתקן סעודה נאה כפי אשר תמצא ידו. ושותה יין עד שישתכר וירדם בשכרותו.

So a very chashuv person brought to my attention the following question (its well known, but somehow he put a fresh perspective on it that helped me to understand):  There is a stark contrast between the rambam's description of simchah in hilchos lulav and hilchos megillah.  In hilchos lulav, the rambam emphasizes how simcha ba-avodas hashem is "avodah gedolah hi".  Not everyone who wants to participate in this simcha is rauy to do so:

מצוה להרבות בשמחה זו. ולא היו עושין אותה עמי הארץ וכל מי שירצה. אלא גדולי חכמי ישראל וראשי הישיבות והסנהדרין והחסידים והזקנים ואנשי מעשה הם שהיו מרקדין ומספקין ומנגנין ומשמחין במקדש בימי חג הסוכות. אבל כל העם האנשים והנשים כולן באין לראות ולשמוע:

So how can it be that comes purim, and all of a sudden every Tom Dick and Harry is rauy to be misameach and drink until he doesn't know the difference between arur haman and baruch mordechai?  Something just doesn't add up.

It must be that the source of our simcha on yom tov is very different from the source of our simcha on purim. There is more to say about this, but the simcha of yom tov is the simcha in " עשיית המצוה ובאהבת האל שצוה בהן"  - its the simcha that we have taken our lives and transformed them into something meaningful through torah and mitzvos.  Thats not a simcha that anyone can just wake up one day and experience.  Its a simcha that requires years, and really, a full lifetime of effort to be able to truly appreciate - only the true gedolei yisrael can dance at the simchas beis hashoevah.  The rest of us watch the dancing, aspiring to one day have an inkling of what it means to feel a true simcha in עשיית המצוה ובאהבת האל.

What is the simcha of purim?  On purim, klal yisrael faced an existential threat to our existence - we really thought that we were all going to die.  And unfortunately thats what it took, but it brought us all together.  We gathered as one - lech kenos es kol hayehudim - and we begged G-d to spare us.  And G-d answered our prayers, and vinahafoch hu - everything turned upside down, and we were saved.  What a simcha - to appreciate the life that Hashem has given us - to appreciate our fellow Jews, to all come together and rejoice in our salvation -- its really a tremendous simcha.

Its a simcha that, by definition, cannot be limited to only gedolim or yechidei segulah - because its all about achdus and appreciation of all that G-d has given to each and every one of us.  Every year, we come together and we relive our shared history: the mitzvah isn't to simply read the megillah - its to relive it.  As explained above, megillah is the only mitzvas hayom - we relive the story, and mimeila we come together again with mishloach manos, matanos laevyonim, and a joyous seudah.

Don't get me wrong - seudas purim is an integral part of the day, and it is a joyous and (slightly) over the top experience.  But purim is NOT chas vishalom about simcha shel הוללות (the way a certain talmid chacham described it, hashem yerachem.)   It is a simcha because we are so thankful for just our lives, our families, our friends.  The Rambam's penultimate halacha in hilchos megillah almost follows automatically:

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

When we appreciate all that G-d has given us, we cant forget those less fortunate.  And the real simcha of purim, says the rambam, is to make even those people happy - to give them too a taste of simchas purim, of the joy in coming together with achdus and hakaras hatov to hashem for everything.  If we do that, then we are truly דומה לשכינה.

We should all be zocheh!

A freilichen purim to all.

gedolah hachnasas orchim

 I know what I'm about to say might set my serial commenters off for its ridiculousness (in their eyes), but so be it.

We are all familiar with the famous chazal, אמר רב יהודה אמר רב גדולה הכנסת אורחין מהקבלת פני שכינה.   Chazal learn this out from avraham - in the middle of hakbalas pnei hashechinah, avraham gets up and puts G-d on hold to go perform the mitzvah of hachnasas orchim.  From here we learn that hachnasas orchim is "greater" than hakbalas pnei hashechinah.

I think it is criminal to learn a chazal like this without being attentive to its normative implications.  Chazal are saying a halacha: hachnasas orchim is docheh hakbalas pnei hashechinah.

But that leads to a question:  Is only hachnasas orchim docheh hakbalas pnei hashechinah?

Suppose you lived in a city with no lulav and esrog, and in the middle of having a conversation with G-d, you saw a man passing by with lulav and esrog - if you don't interrupt the "conversation", you miss lulav and esrog.  If chazal only said that hachnasas orchim is docheh hakbalas pnei hashechinah, are other mitzvos not?  Why not?  And if other mitzvos are docheh hakbalan pnei hashechinah, then whats so special about the fact that hachnasas orchim is also docheh it?

I think the latter option is correct.  What halachic justification could one offer to be mevatel a mitzvah for hakbalas pnei hashechinah (which, as far as I know, is not a mitzvah whatsoever)?  Furthermore, it seems unlikely that hachnasas orchim would be the only mitzvah to be docheh hakbalas pnei hashechinah, when there are other mitzvos that would seem to be greater.

So why did chazal single out hachnasas orchim?  I don't know.  But a possible suggestion:

There is a clear parallel between hachnasas orchim, inviting a guest into your home, and hakbalas pnei hashechinah, inviting the shechinah into your home.  From a strict halachic perspective, as we mentioned before, all mitzvos should be docheh hakbalas pnei hashechinah.  But specifically by hachnasas orchim, there was a counter sevara - what a chutzpa to Hashem to prioritize inviting some random guest into your house over inviting in the shechina!  It was that sevara that chazal had to counter: to the contrary: Hashem himself would rather you give precedence to the mortal guest over the shechinah.

The most real way to be makbil pnei shechinah, chazal are telling us, is not through lofty prophetic vision, but through the down to earth, mundane, helping someone out and making people, tzelem elokim, feel welcome.

Shavua tov!