Purim seudah
[ב] (Halacha 764)
Question: When is the time for the Purim seudah in an ordinary year (not when Purim falls on Friday)?
Answer: The Gemara1 says: 'Rava said: A Purim seudah that one ate at night — he has not fulfilled his obligation. What is the reason? "ימי משתה ושמחה" ("days of feasting and joy") is written. Rav Ashi was sitting before (Rav Kahana) [Ameimar]; it grew late and the Rabbanan did not come. He said to him: Why have the Rabbanan not come? Perhaps they are busy with the Purim seudah. He said to him: Was it not possible to eat it at night? He said to him: Has the master not heard that which Rava said: A Purim seudah that one ate at night — he has not fulfilled his obligation? He said to him: Did Rava say so? [He said to him: Yes.] He learned it from him forty times, and it became to him as though it were placed in his pocket.'
That is, the time for the Purim seudah is specifically on the day of Purim2.
But within the day itself, when is the proper time to hold the seudah — the Terumas Hadeshen3 wrote: 'Question: In many places, householders and also Torah scholars are accustomed to hold the main Purim seudah in the evening. They go to shul and daven Mincha but not Maariv, and they return to their homes and begin the seudah during the day and continue it into the night, so that most of the seudah is at night. Is there a reason for this minhag or not? Answer: It appears that one can find some reason and support for this minhag. I found copied one responsum, and this is its language: I heard from R. Toviah in the name of the Riva, that any food that the young men take from one another, even without permission, because of the joy of Purim, from the time of the reading of the Megillah until the night of the Purim seudah — which are two nights and one day — is not subject to a claim of theft or of robbery. And one is not summoned to beis din for it, nor is one held liable for it, provided they do not act improperly according to the seven leaders of the city; end of quote from this responsum. It clearly implies that the second night is the main time for the Purim seudah. Yet even for the Riva himself there is a difficulty from this reasoning, for surely the second night is the night of the fifteenth — and how do they thereby fulfill the seudah of the fourteenth day, for us, who are city dwellers, since we read only on the fourteenth? And the Rambam wrote that specifically the fourteenth is for city dwellers, and for the inhabitants of walled cities the fifteenth is for feasting and joy, even though regarding eulogy and fasting they are equal to one another. And it appears that the reason for the matter is that on the morning of the fourteenth there is a delay in the reading of the Megillah, and afterward one is busy and sends mishloach manos and matanos la'evyonim, and there is no leisure to eat the seudah with joy and delight. Therefore our early ones fixed part of it for the evening, and to begin while it is still day, likewise before the Maariv tefillah, in order to fulfill the mitzvah of the seudah during the day, which is the main [time]. And from then he continues it at leisure and with delight into the night and during the night itself. And it is all considered one seudah… Even though I have settled the reason for this minhag, nevertheless my teachers, and I after them, are accustomed to hold the main seudah in the morning, and it seems that so they were accustomed in the Rhineland.'
And the Orchos Chaim4 wrote: 'And the next day they eat the Purim seudah; some are accustomed to eat the seudah in the morning, and some are accustomed to eat it in the evening.'
And in Sefer Haminhagim (Tirna)5 he wrote: 'At Mincha they also daven Al HaNissim, [and] a full Kaddish. [And afterward] they eat the Purim seudah. And they begin and eat most of it during the day, for a Purim seudah that one ate at night, and even on the first night, he has not fulfilled his obligation, as is implied in the Semak, and all the more so on the second night.'
And in the Minhagei Maharil6 it is written: 'Mahar"i Segal said that the minhag of Austria is that on Purim they daven Mincha Gedolah and eat the Purim seudah after midday, and go on eating throughout the night, for if they were to eat beforehand, the time of Mincha would be a time of drunkenness, and the tefillah of a drunkard is an abomination. And so I saw in a letter from Mahar"r Nosson and his son Ha-Rav Liezer and other scholars, who would daven Mincha at the outset and Maariv after the seudah at midnight.'
As halacha the Rema7 wrote: 'And it is customary to hold the Purim seudah after Mincha, and Maariv is davened at night. And Mincha is davened first while the day is still long. And most of the seudah must be during the day, and not as some are accustomed: to begin near evening, with the main seudah being on the night of the fifteenth. And when Purim falls on Friday, the seudah is held in the morning, out of honor for Shabbos; and one who wishes to hold it always in the morning has the right to do so.'
Thus some wrote that it is proper for the seudah to be in the morning, but in practice many were accustomed to hold the seudah in the afternoon after Mincha.
However, the Shelah8 wrote: 'I had a great dispute with some communities abroad, who eat the seudah after Mincha, and thereby nullify the standing arrangement and do not summon [people] to shul for the Maariv tefillah, and there are two evils in this. One, to nullify communal tefillah, and it is a sin of the congregation. And moreover, the people become drunk and forget the Maariv tefillah, which nowadays they have accepted as an obligation, and also Krias Shema, which is d'Oraisa. And is it fitting that on this very day, on which "ליהודים היתה אורה" ("The Jews had light") — this refers to Torah — was fulfilled, one should make an uprooting; is it good in the eyes of Hashem? Therefore the minhag to advance the Mincha tefillah and to hold the seudah afterward is not proper in my eyes, even though the Rema wrote so. Rather, let them do as the minhag of those communities: to daven Mincha and Maariv together, while they hold the seudah beforehand — "the zealous are early" — and when the time of the tefillos arrives, according to the minhag of those communities, then the shammash will summon [people] to shul as is his custom, the daily matter in its day, and they should not change. And even though the people are in the middle of a seudah of joy and feasting, they can go to shul to daven, and they need not recite Birkas Hamazon, as is the ruling of the Tosafos in Maseches Chullin… and so is the ruling of the poskim9. And even if some individual is very busy with his seudah and with mishloach manos and cannot go to shul, nonetheless let him keep in mind to daven when the shammash summons, and then let him daven at the time the congregation davens. And whoever advances and hastens more to hold the seudah early is praiseworthy in my eyes. And so wrote Mahar"r Isserlein10, that he and his teachers were accustomed in all the years to hold the main seudah in the morning. And there is a reasonable rationale, for this seudah is against the seudah of Esther that she made for the king, and surely the seudah was at the time when it is the way of kings to eat. And at this seudah Haman was hanged, and the early ones11 gave a sign: 'וישבת הַמָן ממחרת' ("and the manna ceased on the morrow" — Yehoshua 5:12, punning on Haman)12. That is, Haman was hanged on the day after Pesach, which is the second day, at the time of the Omer, as is stated in Rabbah on Megillah13, that Haman said to him, "My handful [of dust] has overpowered your fistful of Omer flour," etc.; and a sign is a real thing, for it says "on the morrow he was hanged," from which we learn that the seudah of Esther was on the morrow. Therefore, a G-d-fearing person should rejoice with the joy of a mitzvah and begin his seudah on the morrow at the time of the seudah, and sit in joy and gladness of heart with his companions and beloved ones, and let poor people be members of his household, and let him rejoice in the joy of the aforementioned mitzvah all day, and when the time of Mincha and Maariv arrives let him daven them with kavanah… end of the language of the gloss.'
Our minhag is brought in Sefer Haminhagim14: 'An early Mincha and afterward the seudah.'
Thus we have seen that some wrote that it is proper for the seudah to be in the morning before the Mincha tefillah, but many poskim wrote that in practice the minhag is that the seudah is in the afternoon after the Mincha tefillah15, though it is proper that the main seudah be during the day.
Further details regarding the time of the seudah and the continuation of the seudah in the evening we will see, be"H, in the next halacha.
Footnotes:
1 מגילה ז, ב ↩
2 לגבי סעודה בליל פורים ראה מש"כ בהלכה מס' 506 ↩
3 סי' קי ↩
4 ח"א הל' מגלה ופורים אות לה ↩
5 מנהגי פורים ↩
6 הל' פורים טו ↩
7 שו"ע או"ח סי' תרצה ס"ב. וראה גם דרכי משה אות ד, וראה שו"ת הרמ"א סי' קלב אות ה: '.. וכן המנהג פשוט בעירנו, שבליל פורים קובעים סעודת פורים סמוך לערב וממשיכים בסעודה הרבה בלילה' ↩
8 מגילה פרק נר מצוה ↩
9 שו"ע או"ח סי' קע"ח ס"ו ↩
10 תרומת הדשן, סי' קי (הובא לעיל) ↩
11 המנהיג הל' מגילה; אבודרהם סדר תפלת התעניות ↩
12 יהושע ה, יב ↩
13 אסתר רבה פ"י ס"ד. מגילה טז, א ↩
14 עמ' 74 ↩
15 ובנהג כצאן יוסף עמ' רג כתב: 'ומצינו בתרומת הדשן כמו"כ הביאו של"ה והעתקתיהו, והביאו הב"י באו"ח סי' תרצ"ה. ודלא כשו"ע שפסק שם שצ"ל אחר מנחה. *אמנם י"ל דאלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים שצריך להתחיל קודם מנחה ולהתענג ולפנק עד אחר תפלת מנחה ומעריב.* אכן שומר נפשו ירחק שלא ישתכר קודם זמן מנחה ותחלת הלילה שהוא זמן מעריב כדי שלא יבטל מהתפלל מנחה ומעריב והואיל ומצוה להתחיל קודם תפלת מנחה, ראוי שיתחיל קודם זמן מנחה' ↩
[ג] (Halacha 765)
In the previous halacha we saw the various opinions regarding the time of the seudah in an ordinary year — that some wrote to hold it in the morning and some wrote to hold it in the afternoon after the Mincha tefillah.
In practice, many were accustomed to hold the Purim seudah on the day of Purim in the afternoon and to continue the seudah into the night1, and the Acharonim wrote several reasons for this minhag:
The Levush2 wrote: '…however, let him extend his joy also into the night. And it is customary to hold the seudah after Mincha, and Mincha is davened while the day is still long, in order to eat most of the seudah during the day; and when it extends into the night, then we have no concern with it, for a person is obligated in feasting and joy on the two days, the fourteenth and the fifteenth, and so they were accustomed, for "ימי משתה ושמחה" ("days of feasting and joy") is written, implying the two days, and they were accustomed to rejoice even on the night of the fifteenth in between.'
The Chasam Sofer3 wrote: 'Now, a Purim seudah that one ate at night — he has not fulfilled his obligation; yet nevertheless it is customary to extend the seudah into the following night, for the cursedness of Haman extends into the night that follows the day, since for the Bnei Noach the night follows the day, while the blessedness of Mordechai draws the day after the night; and Chazal ordained [it] only on the day, when both are present — "cursed is Haman" and "blessed is Mordechai" — but not on the night before it, which is only "blessed is Mordechai," and not on the night after it, which is only "cursed is Haman." But on the day, when one is already rejoicing and becoming intoxicated, [the joy] does not cease again on the night that follows, and that is the aspect of "cursed is Haman" [joined] to "blessed is Mordechai," and this is easily understood.'
And his grandson Rav Shimon Sofer, author of the Hisorerus Teshuvah, wrote in his sefer on the Torah, Shir Maon4: 'The common minhag is that one begins the Purim seudah during the day and continues it into the night, as brought in the Rema OC 695:2, and he wrote that most of the seudah should be during the day. And one may give a reason for this: for on the fourteenth we are obligated by the words of tradition, from the Megillah of Esther, which is the Written Torah, and on the fifteenth the obligation is from the words of Megillas Taanis, as is stated in Megillah 5b, as it is written in Megillas Taanis "the fourteenth and fifteenth days, on which one may not eulogize," and Rava said, "it is needed only to forbid this one on that one," and we learn this matter through derivation, which is in the aspect of the Oral Torah; therefore they continue the seudah from the fourteenth day into the fifteenth day, to connect them together — the Written Torah with the Oral Torah — to unite them.'
And the holy Rav of Piltz wrote5 in the name of his grandfather, the author of the Chiddushei HaRim of Gur: 'What I heard from the holy mouth of my grandfather, my teacher and master z"l, as a reason why it is the minhag of all Israel to eat the Purim seudah on the following night, from the statement of Chazal that one who sheds the blood of the wicked is as though he offered a korban, and sacred offerings are eaten for a day and the following night…'.
[A novel reason was written in Shu"t Eretz Tzvi6: since the masses send mishloach manos late, after nightfall, they instituted to lengthen the seudah, so that then the recipient can still fulfill with it the Purim seudah. (But he concludes that it is proper to warn [people] to fulfill the mitzvah of mishloach manos while it is still day, in the primary time of the mitzvah.)]
The Rebbe, at the Purim farbrengens of 57197, explained this minhag and the reason that the farbrengens of our Rebbeim were held on the night of the fifteenth: 'The time of the Purim farbrengen, as the Rebbeim instituted it, is on the night between Purim and Shushan Purim (the Purim of the walled cities). According to Shulchan Aruch, one must begin the Purim seudah while it is still day (on the fourteenth), but the time of its conclusion is not specified. And Israel already had the minhag — and the minhag of Israel is Torah — to continue the seudah from the day into the night (from the fourteenth to the fifteenth). And in addition, the main farbrengen of our Rebbeim was held on the night of the fifteenth, that is, the night between the fourteenth and the fifteenth.
And by way of introduction: with regard to pirsumei nisa, we find that the essence of pirsumei nisa is during the day and not at night. It follows that on the night between the pirsumei nisa of the fourteenth day (the Purim of the unwalled cities) and the pirsumei nisa of the fifteenth day (the Purim of the cities surrounded by a wall), the matter of pirsumei nisa that is present in both is absent. Yet on the other hand, this night is the connector between the fourteenth and the fifteenth, such that one cannot arrive at the pirsumei nisa of the fifteenth without the intervening night, even though the night in itself does not contain the matter of pirsumei nisa. And according to what is explained in Chassidus in many places, that the possibility of connecting two matters is through a matter that is above both of them, it follows that the night between the fourteenth and the fifteenth, which connects them, is above both of them, and from this it is understood that on this night a Jew must rise to a level and state that is above his level and state on the fourteenth and on the fifteenth.
And the matter in this: with regard to the fourteenth, Chazal said "a person is obligated to become intoxicated on Purim," and similarly with regard to the fifteenth — not only in cities surrounded by a wall, but also in the unwalled cities "one is obligated in feasting and some joy." However, with regard to the night between the fourteenth and the fifteenth, in which there is no matter of obligation, but rather the matter of joy in which is done of one's own good will, there is in this the superiority of the matter of "voluntary" over the matter of "obligation," as we find with regard to the matter that the Maariv tefillah is voluntary, that it has a superiority over the Shacharis and Mincha tefillos, which are obligatory (as explained at length in the Biurei HaZohar), and similarly with regard to the superiority of the hakafos of Shemini Atzeres and Simchas Torah. And with regard to our matter: there are those who think that they have already fulfilled their obligation through the joy that they had until now, and tomorrow morning, when they rise from their sleep, they will fulfill their obligation by drinking a cup of milk… for since it is stated in the Gemara that milk is an intoxicating beverage, it follows that according to the law he is "drunk"… And so, they must know that all of this has nothing to do with the joy that must be on this night, which is the night that connects the matter of joy of the unwalled cities with the matter of joy of the cities surrounded by a wall. And may it be His will that from this night we come to "לילה כיום יאיר" ("night will shine like day"), when there will be "אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר" ("light and joy and gladness and honor") in a revealed manner before the eyes of all flesh, and in a manner that the state of "we are still the servants of Achashverosh" will be nullified, since it will be a complete redemption after which there is no exile, through Moshiach Tzidkeinu, very soon indeed.'
Thus we have seen the reasons for the minhag that one continues the Purim seudah into the night of the fifteenth.
In the next halacha we will see the details of the law of inserting Al HaNissim in this seudah that began on Purim and extended to the fifteenth of Adar.
--------------
Footnotes:
1 ראה בפסקי רבינו יחיאל מפאריש סי' נח: 'ופוק חזי מאי עמא דבר שנהגו להמשיך סעודתן עד הלילה.' ↩
2 סי' תרצה, ב ↩
3 דרשות ח"א ע' רא, ג ד"ה וצא ↩
4 פרשת תצוה ↩
5 שפתי צדיק שמות אות מד ↩
6 סי' קכא ↩
7 תו"מ חכ"ה ע' 138. וראה גם ספר השיחות תשמ"ז ח"א עמ' 102 הערה 2. ועמ' 115 וראה שם הערה 11 ↩
[ד] (Halacha 766)
In the previous halacha we saw that the minhag is (in an ordinary year) that the Purim seudah begins while it is still day and extends into the night.
Question: What is the law regarding inserting V'al HaNissim in Birkas Hamazon that is recited at the conclusion of the seudah at night?
Answer: Regarding inserting Retzei V'hachalitzeinu in a Shabbos seudah that extended until the departure of Shabbos, the Rosh1 wrote: 'As for what you asked — one who began eating on Shabbos close to nightfall, and it grew dark for him before he finished his seudah, whether he should mention Shabbos in Birkas Hamazon since the main seudah was on Shabbos. Know that he should not mention Shabbos at all during the weekday, just as with the Mincha tefillah of Shabbos — that if he did not daven it, he davens two weekday [Amidos] on Motzaei Shabbos, for one may not mention Shabbos during the weekday even though this tefillah became obligatory on Shabbos. And so too with a group who were reclining [at a meal] and the [holy] day became sanctified upon them, where Rabbi Yosi says: they finish their seudah — over the first cup they recite Birkas Hamazon, over the second they recite Kiddush of the day. In the Tosefta of Berachos it teaches in the words of Rabbi Yosi that he mentions Shabbos in Birkas Hamazon, even though it was a weekday seudah, since he recites the bracha on Shabbos he must mention Shabbos. So too here, even though it was a Shabbos seudah, since he recites the bracha during the weekday he does not mention Shabbos.'
And based on this the Tur2 wrote regarding the Purim seudah: 'And if he began his seudah during the day and it extended until night, my father and master the Rosh z"l wrote that he does not say Al HaNissim.'
However, the Meiri3, regarding inserting Retzei on Motzaei Shabbos, wrote like the words of the Rosh, but regarding a Purim seudah that extended into the night he wrote that one does say V'al HaNissim: 'And we too, and our fathers, are accustomed on a Purim that falls on Erev Shabbos to begin the seudah while it is still day until the [holy] day becomes sanctified, and we spread a cloth and recite Kiddush and finish the seudah and mention Purim in it, for this reason — that the fifteenth day too is a miracle, and reason dictates to mention Purim in it, even though the fourteenth day passed at the time of the bracha; whereas in other seudos on Erev Shabbos, and Yamim Tovim, and Rashei Chodashim, and their departures, everything follows the time of the bracha, and even if he ate while it was still day and forgot and did not recite [the bracha], and once it became dark he remembered, he recites the bracha appropriate to the time of the bracha; and so we wrote in the last [chapter] of Pesachim, and it is likewise written there that whoever recites the bracha at twilight (bein hashmashos) is judged according to the [holy] day's sanctity and mentions [the insertion] appropriate to the occasion, whether at entry or at exit; and so it appears to me clearly.'
On the other hand, many Rishonim4 wrote that one always follows the beginning of the seudah, and therefore whether on Motzaei Shabbos or Motzaei Purim, he mentions [the insertion] since he began the seudah within Shabbos or Purim, as it is written in the Piskei Rabbeinu Yechiel of Paris5: 'And if his seudah extended until night he recites the sanctification, for he must say Al HaNissim, since we mention [Shabbos] in the brochos of Shabbos on Motzaei Shabbos, and go out and see how the people conduct themselves, that they were accustomed to extend their seudah until night.'
And so wrote the Hagahos Maimoniyos6 regarding Purim: 'And however, if he delays his seudah until night, the Maharam says that he must recite the bracha of Al HaNissim, as we find that Rav davened [the tefillah] of Shabbos on Motzaei Shabbos [I do not know its source; and in Berachos 27 it is stated that Rav davened [the tefillah] of Shabbos on Erev Shabbos] — from Ha-Rav Koblin, end of quote.'
And in the Minhagei Maharil7 it is written: 'And Mahar"i Segal ruled that one who extends his seudah into the night should nonetheless say Al HaNissim in his Birkas Hamazon, even though the Rosh wrote that one need not then mention Al HaNissim. And likewise one who extends seudah shlishis on Shabbos into the night should say Retzei V'hachalitzeinu in his Birkas Hamazon, as long as he has not davened Maariv, in which he made Havdalah.'
The Rema, in his responsa8, brought some who distinguished between Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh, Chanukah, and Purim, but he does not agree with this distinction, and writes that perhaps one should say it depends on the importance of the seudah, and accordingly one should distinguish between Chanukah and Rosh Chodesh, and Shabbos and Purim: 'You further asked about that which is the custom, that on Shabbos, when one extends the seudah until Motzaei Shabbos, he recites Retzei, but on Rosh Chodesh and Chanukah and Purim, when one extends the seudah, it is not the custom to recite Yaaleh V'yavo or Al HaNissim. I have not heard such a minhag. On the contrary, the Rosh wrote in his responsa regarding Shabbos that if one extends his seudah until Motzaei Shabbos he should not recite Retzei. And we are accustomed to recite it, since we find the Maharam who wrote regarding Al HaNissim on Purim that if one extends his seudah until Motzaei Purim he recites Al HaNissim. And so is the widespread minhag in our city, that on the night of Purim they fix the Purim seudah close to evening and extend the seudah much into the night, and at the end they recite Al HaNissim in the last house. And if you have seen [people] accustomed on Rosh Chodesh or on Chanukah not to recite it, one can say that their seudos are not so important as to be called a fixed [meal] such that one follows the beginning of the seudah, as in these [cases], and it is a sound reasoning.'
And the Shelah9 wrote: 'My teacher Mahar"sh z"l of Lublin told me that this is the ruling of the matters: one who extends his Shabbos seudah into the night should mention Retzei in Birkas Hamazon, because it is a mitzvah to add on to Shabbos; and even if Rosh Chodesh fell on Shabbos, though there is no mitzvah in his addition [for Rosh Chodesh], nevertheless, since he adds on to Shabbos, and as long as it is Shabbos then it is Rosh Chodesh, therefore he mentions Rosh Chodesh as well. But Rosh Chodesh that fell in the middle of the week, and his seudah extended into the night, he does not mention Rosh Chodesh, since it is no longer Rosh Chodesh, and there is no mitzvah in his addition. And when Rosh Chodesh fell on Sunday and his seudah extended into Motzaei Shabbos, then he does not mention Retzei, but rather says Yaaleh V'yavo, since in truth it is now Rosh Chodesh, and Shabbos has already gone, except that he added of his own accord; it is not proper to make the primary secondary and the secondary primary. And one should not say [that] he should say both Retzei and Yaaleh V'yavo — it is impossible to do so, for these contradict one another, for if he says Retzei he makes it Shabbos, and by saying Yaaleh V'yavo he makes it Sunday; and understand this well.'
Thus we have seen that the Rishonim disagreed regarding when one recites Birkas Hamazon at night after the seudah, whether he should say Al HaNissim in Birkas Hamazon. And we saw several rationales in this dispute: a) Whether we relate to the time of eating or to the time of the bracha (and accordingly Shabbos, Rosh Chodesh, Purim, and Chanukah are equal). b) Whether the matter depends on the days on which there is a mitzvah in adding to the day (and thus on Shabbos one must say it, but on Purim one does not say it). c) Only on Purim, on which the following day too is connected to Purim since a miracle occurred on it (unlike Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh). d) The matter depends on the importance of the seudah (and thus on Shabbos and Purim one mentions it, and on Rosh Chodesh and Chanukah one does not mention it).
In the following halachos we will see more details in this, and how it is ruled as halacha.
Footnotes:
1 שו"ת כלל כב סי' ו ↩
2 או"ח סי' תרצה ↩
3 כתובות ז, ב ↩
4 ראה אורחות חיים ח"א הל' מגלה ופורים אות לה בשם הר"י מקורביל. לקט יושר ח"א או"ח עמוד קנט ענין א. ועוד ↩
5 סי' נח ↩
6 הל' מגילה פ"ב אות א ↩
7 הל' פורים וראה ג"כ שו"ת מהרי"ל סי' נו אות ו ↩
8 סי' קלב ↩
9 שער האותיות בהגה לאות ק - קדושת האכילה (א) ↩
[ה] (Halacha 767)
In the previous halachos we saw the words of the Rishonim regarding a Shabbos or Purim seudah that extended into the night.
Question: What is the law in the opposite case, where one began the seudah on an ordinary day and it extended into a day that is obligated in a special insertion — must he say the insertion even though the beginning of his seudah was not on the day obligated in the insertion?
Answer: In the previous halacha we saw that the Rosh brought from the Tosefta, which wrote that one who finishes a Friday seudah on Shabbos mentions Shabbos; the Rosh learned from this that one always follows the time at which the bracha is recited.
But some wrote that one can distinguish and say that even according to the view that one follows the time of the beginning of the seudah, nevertheless when the seudah extended into Shabbos he in any case says Retzei; and by way of introduction:
The Mechaber mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch in three places the laws of one who began a seudah, and the seudah extended into a time in which there is a change in the insertion, and the poskim discussed the elucidation of his words, as follows:
a) In the laws of Birkas Hamazon1 the Mechaber wrote that one follows the time of the beginning of the seudah: 'If one was eating and Shabbos departed, he mentions Shabbos in Birkas Hamazon, for we follow the beginning of the seudah; and the same applies to Rosh Chodesh, Purim, and Chanukah.'
b) In the laws of Purim2 the Mechaber likewise wrote anonymously (as the primary ruling) according to the view that one follows the beginning of the seudah, and brought the dissenters as "there is one who says": 'One says Al HaNissim in Birkas Hamazon in Birkas Ha'aretz; and if one began his seudah during the day and it extended until the night, he says Al HaNissim, for we follow the beginning of the seudah; and there is one who says that one should not say it' [and the Rema wrote in his gloss: 'And it is customary like the first view'].
c) In the laws of Shabbos3 the Mechaber wrote, in a case where one began to eat before Shabbos and recites the bracha during Shabbos, and he ruled that one must mention [it], and did not write that one follows the time of the beginning of the seudah: 'If he finished his seudah and the [holy] day became sanctified before he recited Birkas Hamazon, he recites Birkas Hamazon over the first cup and afterward says Kiddush of the day over the second cup, and he must mention Shabbos in Birkas Hamazon even though he recites the bracha before Kiddush.' [And the Rema wrote in the gloss: And there are those who say that he does not mention Shabbos, for we follow the beginning of the seudah, and so is the essential [ruling], as explained above at the end of siman 188].
And seemingly there is a contradiction in the words of the Mechaber4, for we saw that according to the view that one follows the time of the bracha — the opinion of the Rosh — then just as when one began before Shabbos and recites the bracha on Shabbos one must mention [it] because one follows the time of the bracha, so too in the opposite case, where one finished a Shabbos seudah on Motzaei Shabbos, one should not mention Retzei?
And the poskim wrote several approaches to elucidate the words of the Mechaber:
a) The Taz5 wrote: 'And it appears in my humble opinion that all is settled, for surely we indeed follow the beginning with respect to this: not to detract from what pertains to the beginning, such as Retzei and Al HaNissim; [but] if an additional sanctity comes upon him at the time of the conclusion of the seudah, he surely also says [the insertion] corresponding to that sanctity, and this is not a nullification of following the beginning; therefore he indeed mentions Shabbos when a seudah that he began on a weekday extended [into Shabbos], and at Mincha on Shabbos and Yom Tov [when the seudah began] on Sunday and the seudah extended until night, we follow the beginning and he is obligated to say Retzei6.'
That is, the Taz explains that saying an additional insertion is no contradiction to the [rule] that one must follow the beginning of the seudah, since the essential point is not to detract from the insertion that stems from the beginning of the seudah; but there is no impediment to adding the additional [insertion] that stems from the sanctity of the new time.
b) The Magen Avraham7 wrote: 'And he must mention Shabbos. Even though at the end of siman 188 he ruled that we follow the beginning of the seudah, one can say that he is in doubt, and out of doubt one must in any case mention [it], since there is no objection if one mentions unnecessarily, as he wrote at the end of siman 108.'
Thus, according to the understanding of the Magen Avraham, the Beis Yosef was in doubt how to rule, and therefore ruled that one always mentions [it], and this does not detract.
However, the Magen Avraham wrote8: 'And if one ate at night, according to all opinions he also mentions the present [day], as is stated explicitly in the Tosefta; therefore he mentions Rosh Chodesh, as the Shelah wrote according to his approach, and all the more so on Motzaei Shabbos [that leads] into Yom Tov; but on Motzaei Shabbos [that leads] into Chanukah he does not mention Chanukah, since mentioning it is only voluntary, as [explained] above.'
And according to the words of the Magen Avraham, one can explain the Tosefta — that there is a difference between a case where one continued to eat also at night and a case where one only recites the bracha at night.
And as halacha the Alter Rebbe9 wrote: 'If one was eating on Shabbos and his seudah extended until it grew dark, even several hours into the night, he mentions Shabbos in Birkas Hamazon because everything follows the beginning of the seudah, for then the obligation of mentioning [the insertion] corresponding to the occasion took effect upon him, and this obligation was not removed from him at the departure of the day. And the same applies to Rosh Chodesh, Chanukah, and Purim. And there are those who say that on Rosh Chodesh, Chanukah, and Purim, since there is in them no addition of the mundane onto the holy, one does not mention [the insertion] corresponding to the occasion after the day has departed; and it is not the custom to do so. Yet nevertheless, if his seudah on Erev Shabbos or on Erev Rosh Chodesh extended into the night, he must mention Shabbos or Rosh Chodesh if he ate a kezayis after it grew dark, even though at the beginning of the seudah he was exempt from mentioning [it], because the obligation of mentioning [it] nonetheless took effect upon him with the eating of a kezayis after it grew dark. And the same applies to Chanukah and Purim. And there are those who say that even if he did not eat a kezayis after it grew dark he must mention [it], since at the time he recites the bracha the day of Shabbos, or Yom Tov, or Rosh Chodesh, Chanukah, or Purim, has already become sanctified. And likewise, if his seudah on Shabbos, or Rosh Chodesh, Chanukah, or Purim, extended until night — even though he finished it while it was still day but recites the bracha at night — he does not mention [the insertion] corresponding to the occasion (of that day), since the day has already turned; and the custom is like the first view.'10.
That is, according to the opinion of the Alter Rebbe, the ruling is that one follows the time of the beginning of the seudah, unless he also ate after the new obligation began. Further details in this law we will see in the next halacha.
Footnotes:
1 או"ח סי' קפח ס"י ↩
2 או"ח סי' תרצה ס"ג ↩
3 או"ח סי' רעא ס"ו ↩
4 ראה ב"ח או"ח סי' קפח. ערך לחם למהריק"ש. כנה"ג שבהערה 6. וראה עוד הנסמן בהלכה ברורה סי' קפח בירור הלכה אות לח ↩
5 סי' קפח ס"ק ז ↩
6 וראה שכנה"ג הגב"י או"ח סי' קפח יז ↩
7 סי' רעא ס"ק יד ↩
8 סי' קפח ס"ק יח ↩
9 שו"ע או"ח סי' קפח סי"ז ↩
10 ראה שוע"ר מהדורה חדשה הערה קמה. ושוע"ר מהדורת רא"א הערה קצו. שנוהגין כסברא הא' הן בכך שהולכים בתר התחלת הסעודה, והן בכך שהולכים לפי זמן האכילה ולא לפי הזמן של ברכת המזון ↩
[ו] (Halacha 768)
In the previous halacha we saw that it was ruled as halacha that a person who continues the Shabbos or Purim seudah after the departure of Shabbos or Purim nonetheless says, at the conclusion of his seudah, the insertion of Shabbos or of Purim.
Question: What is the law when he davened Maariv in the middle of his seudah?
Answer: The Maharil1 wrote, brought in the Beis Yosef2: 'And if the seudah extended until night… but Birkas Hamazon comes upon the seudah that he ate on Shabbos, and since he has not yet davened the weekday Maariv, he must mention [the insertion] corresponding to the occasion in Birkas Hamazon. And so is the widespread minhag [in the country of] the Bnei Ch"t, to say Al HaNissim in such a case. And likewise on Motzaei Shabbos [when the seudah extended]…'.
It is understood from his words that in a case where his seudah extended into the following night, but during the seudah he davened Maariv, he no longer mentions the insertion that pertains to the time of the beginning of the seudah.
And similarly it is explained in the Hilchos Semachos of the Maharam3: 'One who has already davened Maariv, and it is still day before the emergence of the stars, and he heard a report about his deceased [relative], it appears to me that he counts from the following day, and that day does not count for him, even though it is still day; and the reason is that we do not say two lenient [rulings] that contradict one another — after he has already davened Maariv [and thereby] made it night, then having made it night [for you] you now make it day… And though for stringency we make it day for him, such as if he davened Maariv on Motzaei Shabbos while it was still day, that he is forbidden in the performance of melacha until the emergence of the stars, nevertheless for leniency we do not say [so]; and so Rabbi Yehudah explained there regarding those Amoraim who davened [the tefillah] of Motzaei Shabbos on Shabbos and recited Havdalah over the cup, that some circumstance compelled them, that they did not have wine or another compelling circumstance, for without cause it is obvious that they would not make Havdalah while it was still day — thus [we see] that for leniency we do not say [so]; and though this itself is a leniency, that if it is Motzaei Rosh Chodesh or Motzaei Yom Tov there is no mention [of it] in the tefillah and Birkas Hamazon [this applies only to tefillah and Birkas Hamazon], for in this we say "one who acted according to Rabbi Yehudah has acted [validly]," but for all [other] matters it is day for stringency [and we consider it night as well for stringency] since he has already davened Maariv, so that the matters of the Rabbanan not be as a mockery and a jest.'
And so it is written in the Mateh Moshe4 in the name of the Minhagei Tirna: 'And if the seudah extended into the night… and Mahar"r Isaac Tirna wrote (Minhagim, minhag of Purim) it is just as with seudah shlishis of Shabbos that extended into the night, when one mentions Shabbos — so too Al HaNissim, since he began during the day and did not daven Maariv.'
And so it is explained in the Acharonim, as the Magen Avraham5 wrote on the words of the Maharil: 'It implies that if he davened Maariv he no longer mentions Shabbos, even if he davened while it was still day. And so it is written in the Hilchos Semachos of the Maharam, and so it is implied by what he wrote in siman 695:3. And even though, according to the reasoning that we follow the beginning of the seudah, then even if he davened Maariv he ought to mention [it] — one must say [it is] because it appears as [things] contradicting one another, as [explained] at the end of siman 30; and if so, even if he davened while it was still day he does not mention [it]; see what [he wrote in] siman 419.'
And in the laws of Purim6 he brought that they disagreed in this: 'And I found written in a Mordechai written on parchment: if one was eating the Purim seudah on Erev Shabbos, he davens and spreads a cloth and recites Kiddush, and in the Birkas Hamazon he says Al HaNissim, end of quote; and in the Mateh Moshe and in the Minhagim they wrote "since he did not daven Maariv," implying that if he davened he no longer says Al HaNissim; and so wrote the Shelah and the Maharil in his responsa siman 56. Therefore it appears to me that one should recite Birkas Hamazon first and afterward daven Maariv, to remove himself from the dispute, and also so that he not become drunk and not recite Birkas Hamazon.'
And there are Acharonim who wrote that specifically with regard to Purim and Chanukah, even though they davened Maariv, one nevertheless mentions V'al HaNissim, as Ha-R"i Bachrach wrote in the Mekor Chaim7: 'And on Chanukah and Purim, in which there is no request but only the mention of the miracle, surely the minhag of the world to mention [it] within the night is well-established and accepted. And it appears to me [that] even if he has already davened Maariv [he mentions it], since he can say "in this time", and even lechatchilah it is perhaps proper to do so, that he daven Maariv before he recites Birkas Hamazon, for it is a mitzvah to become intoxicated on Purim, etc., and a drunkard is forbidden in tefillah but permitted in Birkas Hamazon…'.
And so wrote the Yaavetz8: 'And if he began his seudah during the day and it extended until night he says Al HaNissim… and not only that, but even if he has already davened Maariv within the seudah he too mentions [it], and so I do in practice.'
And so wrote the Shaarei Teshuvah9 in the name of Shu"t Har HaKarmel10: 'For even the Maharil said [it] only regarding Shabbos, but on Purim it is not [a case of] "contradicting one another" that he does not say Al HaNissim in the tefillah, for that is silence and is not a contradiction like speech; and he indeed must mention Al HaNissim at night even if he davened within his seudah, see there11.'
As halacha the Alter Rebbe12 wrote: 'And that is [only] provided he has not davened Maariv, even though the congregation has already davened; but if he davened Maariv, even while it was still day, in the middle of his seudah, he no longer mentions [the insertion] corresponding to the occasion of that day, even if he also recites the bracha while it is still day; and needless to say [regarding] one whose seudah extended into Motzaei Shabbos and he davened Maariv, that he no longer mentions Shabbos in Birkas Hamazon. And even though, according to the first view, that everything follows the beginning of the seudah, it would be fitting to mention [it] even after the Maariv tefillah, nevertheless it would appear that his words contradict one another, that first he davened the tefillah of the following day and afterward mentions the past day.'
Thus, in practice, one who began his seudah while it was still day, on which there is an obligation of insertion, and continued into the night, but davened Maariv during the seudah — he does not mention in Birkas Hamazon the insertion of the time of the beginning of the seudah.
--------------
Footnotes:
1 סי' נו אות ו ↩
2 או"ח סי' קפח ↩
3 סי' קיז ↩
4 עמוד העבודה סי' תתריא ↩
5 סי' קפח ס"ק יז ↩
6 סי' תרצה ס"ק ט ↩
7 או"ח סי' קפח ↩
8 סידור שער השמים שער הדגים - דיני סעודת פורים אות יג ↩
9 סי' תרצה ס"ק ו ↩
10 סי' ז ↩
11 אך ראה בדברי אדמו"ר הזקן דלקמן שאין הסתירה דוקא במקרה של הזכרת יום אחר, אלא בכך שהוא מתפלל את תפלת היום הבא ולאחר מכן מזכיר את יום העבר, וא"כ הוא הדין למוצאי פורים ↩
12 או"ח סי' קפח סי"ז ↩
[ז] (Halacha 769)
Question: What is the law if one began his seudah on a day that has an insertion, and continued his seudah into the following night, which has a different insertion, [such as a person who began his seudah on Shabbos, when one mentions Retzei V'hachalitzeinu, and continued to eat also on Motzaei Shabbos, which is Rosh Chodesh; and likewise on a Purim that fell on Friday, and he spread a cloth and recited Kiddush] — does he mention both insertions?
Answer: In the previous halacha we saw that the poskim wrote that even according to the views that hold that when the seudah extended into Motzaei Shabbos or Motzaei Purim one still mentions the insertions of Shabbos or of Purim, nevertheless, if he davened Maariv he does not mention [it], since it is [a case of] tartei d'sasrei (two contradictory things).
However, the Acharonim disagreed in a case where the seudah was begun at the time of one insertion, and at the time one recites Birkas Hamazon it is a time of a different insertion — whether one mentions both insertions, or whether this is considered tartei d'sasrei and therefore he says only one insertion, as follows:
The Shelah1 wrote: 'My teacher Mahar"sh z"l of Lublin told me that this is the ruling of the matters… And when Rosh Chodesh fell on Sunday and his seudah extended into Motzaei Shabbos, then he does not mention Retzei, but rather says Yaaleh V'yavo, since in truth it is now Rosh Chodesh, and Shabbos has already gone, except that he added of his own accord; it is not proper to make the primary secondary and the secondary primary. And one should not say [that] he should say both Retzei and Yaaleh V'yavo — it is impossible to do so, for these contradict one another, for if he says Retzei he makes it Shabbos, and by saying Yaaleh V'yavo he makes it Sunday, and understand this well.'
And so wrote the Magen Avraham2, that just as one who davened Maariv in the middle of his seudah does not mention the insertion of the beginning of his seudah, since it is a contradiction relative to the bracha, so too in the case at hand, in a case where there are two insertions of two different days, and this is his language: 'And so, if Rosh Chodesh fell on Motzaei Shabbos and he ate bread while it was still day and also at night, he must mention both; however, according to what is written in the responsum of the Maharil siman 56, that if one davened Maariv he no longer mentions Shabbos — the reason being because it is as [things] contradicting one another — if so, then here too they contradict one another if he mentions both; therefore it appears to me that if he ate bread also at night he mentions Rosh Chodesh and not Shabbos, but if he did not eat bread at night he mentions Shabbos and not Rosh Chodesh.'
But some wrote that he does mention both insertions in Birkas Hamazon, and there is no concern of tartei d'sasrei, as the Ateres Zekeinim3 wrote: 'And likewise, if it was Shabbos and on Sunday it was Rosh Chodesh, he must mention Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh, for immediately at nightfall Rosh Chodesh entered, even though he did not daven Maariv; so it appears to me.'
And so wrote the Taz4: 'And it appears in my humble opinion that all is settled, for surely we indeed follow the beginning with respect to this: not to detract from what pertains to the beginning, such as Retzei and Al HaNissim; [but] if an additional sanctity comes upon him at the time of the conclusion of the seudah, he surely also says [the insertion] corresponding to that sanctity, and this is not a nullification of following the beginning; therefore he indeed mentions Shabbos when a seudah that he began on a weekday extended [into Shabbos], and at Mincha on Shabbos and Yom Tov [when the seudah began] on Sunday and the seudah extended until night, we follow the beginning; and he is obligated to say Retzei and afterward he also says Yaaleh V'yavo, and one should not say in this that this contradicts that, for there is here no contradiction, since first he says [the insertion] of Shabbos and afterward [that] of Yom Tov, just as with Yaknehaz, where one first says the Kiddush that pertains to Yom Tov and afterward the Havdalah that pertains to after Shabbos before Yom Tov took effect, for ultimately he then has two sanctities upon him; so too in Birkas Hamazon, where he mentions the Shabbos that passed and the Yom Tov that is now coming. And the same applies to Rosh Chodesh that fell on Motzaei Shabbos, that he says Retzei and Yaaleh V'yavo… And in the sefer Emek Bracha I saw that he wrote in the name of the chassid Mahar"sh of Lublin, [that] on Rosh Chodesh on Motzaei Shabbos one says Yaaleh V'yavo and not Retzei, and it is difficult, for how does it differ from Al HaNissim, which we say at night, and Retzei, which we say on the night of Motzaei Shabbos — for surely the sanctity of Rosh Chodesh does not avail here to remove from him the obligation that arrives on account of Shabbos; therefore I say, neither like this one's words nor like that one's words, but in this [case] he says both, as I wrote. And the rule in this is that if one extends a weekday seudah into Rosh Chodesh or into Shabbos, according to the one who holds that one must recite Birkas Hamazon, as [stated] in siman 271:6, he mentions Shabbos in Birkas Hamazon, as the Shulchan Aruch wrote there; and even though the Rema wrote there that the essential [ruling] is that he does not mention [it], for we follow the beginning — behold, we see that the Tosefta is a refutation of him, except that one can say that its explanation is as [explained] above, be"H, for there [regarding Shabbos] it is forbidden to eat, but regarding Rosh Chodesh it appears that the Rema concedes; and if Rosh Chodesh or Yom Tov fell on Motzaei Shabbos he mentions both, and all the more so if it was Rosh Chodesh or Yom Tov on Shabbos and he extended into the night, that he mentions both; and with this everything is settled, be"H, so it appears to me.'
And in practice the Alter Rebbe5 ruled like the words of the Taz, and this is his language: '(Nevertheless, if he did not daven Maariv and Motzaei Shabbos is Rosh Chodesh, he mentions Shabbos and also Rosh Chodesh, if he ate a kezayis after it grew dark, and there is here no contradiction, since he mentions Shabbos first and afterward Rosh Chodesh. And even though it is impossible to say that he accepts Rosh Chodesh upon himself now when he mentions it after he has already mentioned Shabbos — for it is already established from when the sun set, and even if he were to accept it now, the obligation of mentioning it would not take effect upon him now but only [it takes effect] when he already ate before he mentioned Shabbos — there is no concern for all of this, for even though Rosh Chodesh already took effect upon him, he mentions Shabbos, just as one mentions [the insertion] corresponding to the occasion on every Motzaei Shabbos and Motzaei Rosh Chodesh, even several hours into the night, when the day one mentions has already passed and gone, since the beginning of the seudah was on it; and even though it appears to everyone that it is night, this is no contradiction, as long as he has not already done something that contradicts this6; and the same applies on Motzaei Shabbos [that leads] into Rosh Chodesh, that when he mentions Shabbos he has not yet done something that contradicts this, and afterward when he mentions Rosh Chodesh the truth is that he is mentioning [it]). And there are those who say that even so this is a contradiction, and therefore he mentions Rosh Chodesh, which is an obligation according to all opinions, and not Shabbos, which is a dispute; but on Motzaei Shabbos of Chanukah and Purim he mentions Shabbos and not Chanukah and Purim, since any day on which there is no korban musaf, its mention is not an obligation in Birkas Hamazon, as [stated] in siman 682… and the essential [ruling] is like the first view.'
Thus we have seen that a seudah shlishis that extended into Motzaei Shabbos, which is Rosh Chodesh, he mentions both, and there is here no contradiction, since he mentions Shabbos first and afterward Rosh Chodesh. And so too on a Purim that began on the night of Shabbos, one who spreads a cloth and recites Kiddush must say both V'al HaNissim and Retzei7.
Footnotes:
1 שער האותיות אות ק - קדושת האכילה הג"ה א ↩
2 או"ח סי' תיט ס"ק א ↩
3 או"ח סי' קפח ס"ק ג ↩
4 או"ח סי' קפח ס"י. בדברי הט"ז לא התבאר אם כוונתו בגלל שהזכרת שבת קודמת לר"ח, או שר"ל שאין בעיה בכך שאומר רצה לפני יעלה ויבוא כי הוי כמו יקנה"ז, אך מדברי הפמ"ג על הט"ז רואים שלמד שהכל תלוי בסדר האמירה וכן נראה מדברי אדמו"ר הזקן דלקמן ↩
5 שו"ע או"ח סי' קפח סי"ז ↩
6 אלא שגם לדעת אדה"ז אין הקידוש של הפורס מפה סתירה ליום העבר כדמוכח גם מיקנה"ז שהקידוש קודם להבדלה, וי"ל כי ניתן לקדש מבעו"י ועוד ↩
7 אמנם בקצות השלחן סי' מז בדה"ש אות כב כתב לגבי ועל הניסים שמכיוון שאין הזכרתו חובה, יש לחשוש לדברי המג"א ואין לאומרו כשאומר רצה בברכה זו. אך פשטות דברי אדמו"ר הזקן הנ"ל שלא חשש לזה, וכך גם דברי הרבי הריי"צ והרבי (אג"ק חי"ד עמ' מג) שיובאו בהלכה הבאה ↩
[ח] (Halacha 770)
In the previous halacha we saw the words of the Taz and the Alter Rebbe that a person who began his seudah on Shabbos and it extended into Motzaei Shabbos, on which Rosh Chodesh fell, mentions in Birkas Hamazon both Retzei V'hachalitzeinu and Yaaleh V'yavo, and there is here no contradiction, since within Birkas Hamazon he mentions first the insertion of Shabbos — Retzei V'hachalitzeinu — and only afterward the Yaaleh V'yavo of Rosh Chodesh.
Question: What is the law in the opposite case, where the place of the insertion of the new day in Birkas Hamazon comes before the insertion of the day that has passed, such as a Yom Tov that fell before Shabbos, and a person began his seudah on Yom Tov and at the onset of Shabbos spread a cloth and recited Kiddush — that then, if he needs to mention both insertions in Birkas Hamazon, he would say first Retzei V'hachalitzeinu and afterward say Yaaleh V'yavo, which pertains to the previous day. [And likewise in a case where Purim or Chanukah fell on Motzaei Shabbos and the seudah shlishis of Shabbos extended into the night of Purim or Chanukah and he ate after it grew dark — that the insertion of V'al HaNissim in Birkas Hamazon comes before the insertion of Retzei — does he nonetheless say both]?
Answer: The Gr"ch Naeh1 wrote: 'And if Rosh Chodesh or Yom Tov fell on Erev Shabbos and his seudah extended into Shabbos and he ate a kezayis after it grew dark, since it is impossible for him to say Retzei and Yaaleh V'yavo, for it is tartei d'sasrei, since by law he must place Retzei before Yaaleh V'yavo, for Shabbos is more frequent and more sanctified, it appears that he says Retzei alone and not Yaaleh V'yavo2, since Retzei is obligatory according to all, and Yaaleh V'yavo — there are those who say it is not obligatory at all, for they hold that we follow the conclusion of the seudah; and in a like case the Magen Avraham wrote regarding Motzaei Shabbos that fell on Rosh Chodesh, that the obligation of Rosh Chodesh is according to all, since it is the conclusion of the seudah.'
Thus, according to his approach, Rosh Chodesh or Yom Tov that fell on Erev Shabbos and his seudah extended into Shabbos — he must say only Retzei, without Yaaleh V'yavo.
However, in the year 5704 Simchas Torah fell before Shabbos, and at the Simchas Torah farbrengen of 5704, which extended into Shabbos, and the assembled spread a cloth and recited Kiddush and continued into the Shabbos seudah, the Rebbe and Rav Shmuel Levitin3 asked the Rebbe Rayatz4: 'How should one conduct oneself in Birkas Hamazon with regard to Retzei and Yaaleh V'yavo, and what should one say first — for seemingly one should say first Yaaleh V'yavo and afterward Retzei, so that there be no contradiction. And the Rebbe answered on this: "One must say it as it is written in the siddur — first Retzei and afterward Yaaleh V'yavo — and the angels will sort out which comes first [i.e., one must say it as it is written in the siddur, first Retzei and afterward Yaaleh V'yavo, and the angels will sort out what comes first]." Before Birkas Hamazon the Rebbe reminded [everyone] to also say Retzei, and not to look at him [as a guide], since he does not say Retzei, for he did not make Kiddush'5.
This directive was brought by the Rebbe6: 'And as for what you wrote about the saying of Retzei and Yaaleh V'yavo — since the Simchas Torah seudah extended into Shabbos, and what was spoken about this at the time of the farbrengen. It is based on what is explained in Shulchan Aruch OC end of siman 188, see there in the Shulchan Aruch of Rabbeinu HaZaken. And the conclusion, the directive of my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe zt"l, in practice, some years ago after his arrival here, when the calendar was as it is now — that those who ate a kezayis both during the day and after it grew dark (understandably by spreading a cloth and Kiddush) should say Retzei and afterward Yaaleh V'yavo, according to the order.'
[However, the Chabad rabbanim disagreed7 in understanding this directive and whether one can also learn from it regarding Purim or Chanukah when they fall on Motzaei Shabbos Kodesh. Whether the intent of the matter is that in practice we are not concerned at all with the order of saying in Birkas Hamazon, and therefore in a case where Birkas Hamazon is over eating that took place at two times that obligate an insertion he must say both (even if in the order of saying they appear to contradict one another), since he has upon him two sanctities, of the past day and the coming day8. And there are those who wrote that perhaps one can explain that only with regard to Retzei and Yaaleh V'yavo, both of which are obligatory, are we not concerned that it appears as tartei d'sasrei, but on Motzaei Shabbos [that leads into] the night of Purim or Chanukah one should say only Retzei, since V'al HaNissim is not obligatory and it is tartei d'sasrei. And there are those who wrote that they should say [it] in the Harachaman9.]
Thus we have seen the directive of the Rebbe Rayatz and the Rebbe: on a Shabbos that follows Yom Tov, and he ate a kezayis both during the day and after it grew dark (understandably by spreading a cloth and Kiddush), he says according to the order — Retzei and afterward Yaaleh V'yavo — [and there are among the Chabad rabbanim who learned from this also regarding a Purim that follows Shabbos, when the Shabbos seudah extended into Purim].
Footnotes:
1 קצות השלחן סי' מז בדה"ש אות כב ↩
2 להעיר שמנוסח השאלה (יובא לקמן) ששאלו הרבי והרש"ל את הרבי הריי"צ, נראה שגם לחוששים שאינו לפי הסדר אין הכוונה לדלג את היעלה ויבוא (כדי לחשוש לשיטת המג"א) אלא רק לשנות את הסדר ולהקדים היעלה ויבוא לרצה ↩
3 ראה ימי מלך ח"ג ע' 1045 הערה 109 ↩
4 סה"ש תש"ד ע' 40 (מהדורת לה"ק ע' לז) ↩
5 וראה אשל אברהם (מבוטשאטש) סי' קפח ס"י שביאר שאין בזה משום לא תתגודדו ↩
6 אג"ק חי"ד עמ' מג ↩
7 ראה שוע"ר עם ביאורי הרא"א סי' קפח אות רז, ובנתיבים בשדה השליחות ח"ב סי' ג (ע' 202 ואילך) ↩
8 וראה דברי הט"ז ומש"כ בהלכה הקודמת (מספר 769) הע' 4 ↩
9 וראה עד"ז במקרה של ספק אחר באשל אברהם שם ↩
[ט] (Halacha 771)
Question: One who did not say V'al HaNissim in Birkas Hamazon, what is his ruling?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Shabbos1 says: 'They raised the question: what is [the law] regarding mentioning Chanukah in Birkas Hamazon? Since it is Rabbinic, we do not mention [it], or perhaps, because of pirsumei nisa, we do mention [it]? Rava said in the name of Rav Sechora in the name of Rav Huna: He does not mention [it], but if he comes to mention [it] he mentions [it] in [the bracha of] Hoda'ah. Rav Huna bar Yehudah happened to be at the house of Rava; he intended to mention [it] in Boneh Yerushalayim. Rav Sheshes said to them: It is like the tefillah — just as in the tefillah [one mentions it] in Hoda'ah, so too in Birkas Hamazon [one mentions it] in Hoda'ah.'
And the Ran2 wrote: 'And in Maseches Shabbos we raised the question, what is [the law] regarding mentioning Chanukah in Birkas Hamazon, and we concluded, Rav Sechora said: he does not mention [it]. And if he comes to mention [it] he mentions [it] in Hoda'ah. And the same applies to Purim.'3.
Thus, from the words of the Gemara we learned that the mention of V'al HaNissim [in the bracha of Hoda'ah] on Chanukah [and Purim] is voluntary.
And the Rambam4 wrote: 'And likewise on Chol HaMoed, and on Chanukah, and on Purim, [if] one forgot and did not mention the matter in Birkas Hamazon, he does not repeat.'
And the Kesef Mishneh explained: 'And the reason is that they said in the Gemara Shabbos regarding Chanukah, he does not mention [it] in Birkas Hamazon, and if he comes to mention [it] he mentions [it] in Hoda'ah; and even though we do mention [it], "let no more be added to it."' That is, since it is voluntary, therefore when he forgot he does not repeat.
However, the Rishonim wrote that the Raavyah disagreed with the approach of the Rambam and held that one who did not mention V'al HaNissim repeats and recites again, as the Hagahos Maimoniyos wrote5, [and so wrote the Mordechai6]: 'But the Raavyah ruled that since the world is accustomed to mention [it], and he also recited the bracha with the intent to mention [it], he made it upon himself as an obligation, and similarly the Behag ruled regarding the Maariv tefillah — even though it is voluntary, since he began to daven he made it upon himself as an obligation, and if he erred and did not mention Rosh Chodesh he repeats, etc. And a further proof, from that which we learn in the Yerushalmi [in] the chapter "Sheloshah She'achlu": if one erred and did not mention Rosh Chodesh in Birkas Hamazon we do not make him repeat — in what case is this said? Regarding Rosh Chodesh, but on Shabbosos and Yamim Tovim, on Chanukah and Purim, when it is impossible for him without eating, he repeats and mentions [it], etc.'
The Tur7 ruled like the words of the Rambam: 'And on Chanukah and Purim one says in it Al HaNissim when he reaches the place of "for You are gracious and provide for us at every day and every time and every hour"; and if he forgot and did not say it he need not repeat.'
And the Terumas Hadeshen8 wrote: 'Question: One forgot Al HaNissim in Birkas Hamazon, and did not remember until he concluded the bracha of Hoda'ah. But he has not yet concluded Boneh Yerushalayim — does he repeat on account of Al HaNissim or not? Answer: It appears that he does not repeat, even in such a case, and all the more so if he has already concluded Boneh Yerushalayim as well, and even though it is written in the Mordechai [in the] chapter "Bameh Madlikin," and likewise in the gloss on the Maimoni in the name of the Raavyah… that since the world is accustomed to mention [it], and he also recited the bracha with the intent of its mention, he made it upon himself as an obligation and he repeats… nevertheless it seems to me that many did not hold the words of this Raavyah as essential, but rather as the Rambam wrote explicitly, that we do not make [him] repeat. And so wrote the Or Zarua, and so [it is] in the Tur OC.'
And the Kolbo9 wrote: 'And on Chanukah and Purim one adds in it Al HaNissim when he reaches "at every time and at every hour"; [if] one forgot and did not say it here we do not make him repeat, and there are those who say [this applies] when he has concluded [the bracha]; but if he has not concluded, when he reaches the Harachaman he says: "Harachaman, may He perform for us miracles and wonders just as He did for our fathers in those days at this time, in the days of Matisyahu," etc., and afterward he completes [Birkas Hamazon]; and so too one should do on Purim.'
Thus we have seen that the Rishonim disagreed whether one who forgot to say V'al HaNissim in Birkas Hamazon repeats — that according to the Rambam he does not repeat, and according to the Raavyah he repeats. And the Terumas Hadeshen wrote that we are accustomed like the Rambam, and even in a case where he remembered before he concluded the bracha of Boneh Yerushalayim he does not repeat. However, we saw that the Kolbo wrote to say V'al HaNissim afterward in the Harachaman.
In the next halacha we will see how the Acharonim ruled in practice.
Footnotes:
1 כד, א ↩
2 מגילה כא, ב ↩
3 וביאר החשק שלמה שבת שם: 'מה דלא מבעיא ליה נמי בפורים נ"ל די"ל ע"פ דברי התוס' כאן בד"ה מהו דלהכי מבעי ליה בבהמ"ז משום דליכא פרסומי ניסא כולי האי וא"כ י"ל דזהו לא שייך רק בחנוכה אבל בפורים משפחה ומשפחה כתיב ופירש"י בפי' המגילה מתאספין יחד ואוכלין ושותין יחד עכ"ל וא"כ י"ל דבפורים פשיטא ליה דצריך להזכיר משום דבפורים גם בבית איכא פרסומי ניסא כמו בבהכ"נ' ↩
4 הל' ברכות פ"ב הי"ג ↩
5 הל' ברכות פ"ב אות ח ↩
6 שבת רמז רעט ↩
7 או"ח סי' קפז ↩
8 סי' לח ↩
9 סי' כה ↩
[י] (Halacha 772)
Question: In the previous halacha we saw that the Rishonim disagreed regarding one who forgot to say V'al HaNissim in Birkas Hamazon, whether he repeats and recites again; how did the Acharonim rule?
Answer: The Rema1 wrote: 'And one says Al HaNissim on Chanukah and on Purim, before "V'al hakol," etc.; and if he did not say it, we do not make him repeat. And see above siman 682. And nevertheless he can say it within the other Harachaman [phrases], and he says: "Harachaman, may He perform for us miracles just as He performed in those days," etc.; and so is the custom.' That is, the Rema ruled like the words of the Rambam and the Tur, and the Kolbo.
But the Maharshal2 disagreed and wrote that in the Birkas Hamazon of the seudah he makes for the Purim seudah he must repeat, and this is his language: 'Question: if one forgot Al HaNissim in the Purim seudah, must he repeat or not? Answer: It appears that he must repeat. And so it is found in a Mordechai in manuscript, that a great man of his generation, Mahar"r Yaakov Pollak z"l, glossed [it]: for at first he wrote regarding Chanukah and Purim we do not make him repeat for Al HaNissim, and at the end he wrote that on Shabbos and Yom Tov and Purim, when it is impossible without eating, we make him repeat; and since the Gaon glossed thus, it is evident that it is not an error, but rather both are [valid] establishments, and one must distinguish between them: that on Purim, [at] Maariv and Shacharis, we do not make him repeat, for it is no better than the tefillah; but the Purim seudah, which the prophets and the Sages imposed upon all of Israel and made a reinforcement of their words stronger than [that of] the Torah, to be "ימי משתה ושמחה" ("days of feasting and joy"), and Chazal were stringent regarding it, to sit in a fast [for it] more than on Shabbosos and Yamim Tovim, on which a "fast for a [bad] dream" is permitted… And if so, it is logical that it is no less than the Shabbos seudos, in which it is not sufficient without bread, as the Rosh wrote in the third chapter [of those] who ate at a Yom Tov seudah, that one is obligated to eat bread because of joy… and the primary eating is bread; and for this reason we make [one] repeat on Yom Tov for Yaaleh V'yavo in Birkas Hamazon, all the more so at the Purim seudah, which was fixed for feasting and joy, that we require a fixed seudah with bread, and we make [one] repeat for it; the Sages also supported it with a verse at the end of the first chapter of Megillah3, that it is like a real Yom Tov, and they derived from the verse "ליהודים היתה אורה" ("The Jews had light and joy"), etc., that this "joy" is Yom Tov, as it is written "ושמחת בחגיך" ("and you shall rejoice on your festival"); and do not say that we make [one] repeat on Yom Tov because we make [one] repeat in the tefillah — the days of Chol HaMoed prove [otherwise], that we make [one] repeat in the tefillah but do not make [one] repeat in Birkas Hamazon; rather, [it is] on Yom Tov because of the seudos of joy, and all the more so at the Purim seudos, which were fixed for the generations, and Chazal received [the tradition] that even if all the festivals will be nullified, etc.'
And his student the Mateh Moshe4 wrote: 'And if one forgot Al HaNissim — even though in the tefillah we do not make him repeat, at the Purim seudah we make him repeat. So ruled my teacher the Gaon in a responsum in the name of a great man of his generation, Mahar"r Yaakov Pollak.'
Thus, according to the words of the Maharshal and his group, since on Purim there is an obligation of a seudah with bread, therefore one who forgot to say V'al HaNissim in the seudah he makes for Purim must repeat and recite the bracha again.
But the Taz5 distinguished between the Shacharis seudah and the other seudos, and this is his language: 'But it appears to me that [this applies] not specifically to the seudah that one holds after Mincha, but rather to the first seudah that one eats on Purim, for the essential reason is that there is an obligation of a seudah on that day, as it is written "days of feasting and joy," and it is not sufficient without eating; and if so, the first seudah that one eats on that day — with it he has fulfilled the Purim seudah, and we should not make the law depend on our calling the seudah that is after Mincha "the Purim seudah," for that is for additional joy, and to it does not apply "it is not sufficient without eating"; so it appears to me, as [ruling] for practical halacha.'
And the Pri Megadim wrote: 'And the conclusion of the Taz is thus: that at the first seudah, the Shacharis [seudah] of the fourteenth, we make [one] repeat in Birkas Hamazon, but [at] the night of the fourteenth after the Megillah, or a second seudah on the fourteenth day, we do not make him repeat.'
And similarly6 the Magen Avraham7 wrote: 'And if one forgot Al HaNissim in Birkas Hamazon we make him repeat, for it is not sufficient without eating (Shelah, Rash"l in the name of R. Yaakov Pollak, Mat"m); but nevertheless his words require examination, for is it then better than the tefillah, which is an obligation, and even so we do not make him repeat, and all the more so in Birkas Hamazon? Therefore it appears to me that if he already ate one seudah during the day we no longer make him repeat, for if he wished he would not eat more, as the Beis Yosef wrote in siman 188 in the name of the Tosafos, see there; and even though the Rash"l did not write so, it appears to me that what I wrote is essential according to halacha, for by law it appears to me that we never make him repeat, since we do not find that one is obligated to eat bread on Purim, and he can exempt himself with other kinds of delicacies; and therefore in this case, where he has already eaten, it is obvious that we do not make him repeat and be concerned for a doubtful bracha in vain.'8
But the Eliyah Rabbah9 rejected their words and wrote that one who forgot does not repeat, and wrote that so ruled the Mahar"l of Prague, and this is his language: 'And I say that the words of the Terumas Hadeshen siman 38 escaped all of the aforementioned great ones, for it is explained there that the proof of the Rash"l from the Mordechai is rejected, and so I found in the name of the Gaon Mahar"r Liva of Prague [in Ner Mitzvah…] who ruled unlike the Rash"l, that even at this seudah one need not repeat, and even though one is obligated in feasting, nevertheless there is no obligation of bread.' And so ruled in the glosses of Mahar"a Azulai10.
And the Maamar Mordechai11 wrote that such is the opinion of Maran: 'And from what we wrote above [in] siman 682:2 it will be clarified to you that the essential [ruling] is that we never make him repeat, and so is the opinion of Maran z"l without doubt, see there at length, and from it do not budge.'
And in practice the Alter Rebbe12 wrote: 'On Chanukah and Purim one says in Birkas Ha'aretz Al HaNissim, and if he did not say it we do not make him repeat, as will be explained in siman 683 and 695; and nevertheless he can say [it] within the Harachaman, that he says: "Harachaman, may He perform for us miracles and wonders just as He performed for our fathers in those days at the time," etc., and so one should conduct oneself.'
And so it is written in the siddur: 'On Chanukah and Purim one says here [before "V'al hakol"] V'al HaNissim; and if he forgot, then when he reaches the Harachaman he says: "Harachaman, may He perform for us miracles just as He performed for our fathers in those days at this time, in the days of," etc.'13
And the Rebbe wrote14 that from the ruling of the Alter Rebbe it is proven that there is no obligation to eat bread on Purim: 'Whether there is an obligation to eat bread on Purim — see the opinions on this in the Magen Avraham siman 695:9 and in the Ba'er Heitev there. In the Mor U'Ketziah he obligates bread, and so wrote in the Nimukei OC (by the author of the Minchas Elazar), and he cites the Tosafos Berachos 38a, 42a. But in the Birkei Yosef siman 695 he wrote that one fulfills [the obligation] without bread. And so is proven the opinion of Rabbeinu HaZaken in his Shulchan Aruch siman 187:8 and in his siddur, that one does not repeat in Birkas Hamazon if he forgot V'al HaNissim. But there is a slight difficulty from what he wrote there siman 188:10: "and you shall rejoice… and there is no… joy without the eating of bread," etc., see there.'
Footnotes:
1 שו"ע או"ח סי' קפז ס"ד בהגה ↩
2 שו"ת סי' מח ↩
3 טז, ב ↩
4 סי' תתריא ↩
5 או"ח סי' תרצג ס"ק ב ↩
6 ראה פמ"ג בא"א ↩
7 שו"ע או"ח סי' תרצה ס"ק ט ↩
8 אמנם לגבי מי שהתחיל סעודתו ביום הפורים והמשיכה בלילה שלאחריו כתב המג"א שם ס"ק י: 'ונ"ל דבזה אם לא אמרו אין מחזירין אותו' ↩
9 סי' תרצה ס"ק ז ↩
10 על הלבוש סי' תרצה אות ג ↩
11 או"ח סי' תרצה ס"ג ס"ק ג ↩
12 שו"ע או"ח סי' קפז ס"ח ↩
13 כ"פ חכמי ספרד ראה שלחן גבוה או"ח סי' תרצג ס"ק א*. וראה שו"ת יחוה דעת ח"א סי' פט, חזון עובדיה הל' פורים מדיני מצות שמחת יום פורים ה"ג ↩
14 אג"ק ח"ה ע' רנו הערה 5 ↩
From the project 'Shoneh Halacha' - a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the group (silent): 'Shoneh Halacha - Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp groupA Seudah on the Night of Purim
[1] (Halacha 506)
Question: Should one hold a seudah on the night of Purim?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Megillah1 says: 'Rava said: A Purim seudah that one ate at night — he has not fulfilled his obligation. What is the reason? "ימי משתה ושמחה" ("days of feasting and joy") is written. Rav Ashi was sitting before Rav Kahana [Ameimar]; it grew late and the Rabbanan did not come. He said to him: Why have the Rabbanan not come? Perhaps they are busy with the Purim seudah. He said to him: Was it not possible to eat it at night? He said to him: Has the master not heard that which Rava said: A Purim seudah that one ate at night — he has not fulfilled his obligation? He said to him: Did Rava say so? [He said to him: Yes.] He learned it from him forty times, and it became to him as though it were placed in his pocket.'
We learn from these words that one should eat the Purim seudah on the day of Purim and not at night. And it also appears from the words of the Gemara that 'one seudah suffices'2.
But the Mordechai3 brought the words of the Raavyah, who wrote: 'The Raavyah explained that one must conduct oneself like the nights of Shabbos and its day, similar to the reading [of the Megillah], as it is written "והימים האלה נזכרים ונעשים" ("and these days are remembered and observed"); and there is no partial analogy.' But he brings: 'And my teacher Ha-R. Mordechai wrote that he does not understand [this],' for from the words of the Gemara 'it is implied that one seudah suffices, and understand [this].'4
The Rema, in the Darkei Moshe5, wrote: 'And in the responsum of Mahar"i Brin it is implied that also at night one is obligated to rejoice.'
And the Bach6 wrote: 'And so is the custom, to hold a seudah at night, even when the fourteenth falls on Sunday and one has already eaten seudah shlishis at Mincha on Shabbos with an important seudah — even so, they return and hold a seudah after leaving shul at night, for they set a table and hold a seudah and increase this seudah somewhat for the sake of Purim; and the next day, on the fourteenth, they hold an important seudah with an abundance of delicacies.'
As halacha the Mechaber wrote7: 'A Purim seudah that one held at night — he has not fulfilled his obligation.' And he did not mention anything regarding a seudah on the night of Purim.
But the Rema wrote in his gloss: 'And one fulfills [the obligation] with one seudah… and nevertheless also at night one should rejoice and increase the seudah somewhat.'
The Magen Avraham8 brought the words of the Bach and wrote: 'And the Bach wrote that nevertheless one should eat at night, even when it falls on Motzaei Shabbos, as [stated] above in the gloss.'
And so it is written in the Yosef Ometz9: 'And [with] a glad heart, a continual feast, to increase the seudah somewhat on the night of the entry of Purim, between one [Megillah] reading and the other.'
And so the Seder Hayom10 wrote regarding the night of Purim: 'And let him find in his house lit candles, a set table, and a made bed, out of honor for the day, and let him eat and drink with joy and gladness of heart and gladden the members of his household, and remove from them all quarrel and all strife, and inform them of the miracles and wonders that Hashem Yisbarach performed with us in those days at this time, for Hashem redeemed Yaakov — men, women, and children — and returned to our enemies sevenfold into their bosom; and it is fitting for us to mention the kindnesses of Hashem, praises upon all that Hashem has bestowed upon us and the abundant good.'
Thus we have seen that the Purim seudah must be held specifically on the day of Purim and not on the night of Purim, but nevertheless one should increase the seudah somewhat also on the night of Purim. [And one who ate seudah shlishis and is sated should eat something on Motzaei Shabbos — this is for the honor of Purim, apart from the obligation that there is on account of the seudah of Melaveh Malkah.]
★ ★ ★
We find in the poskim additional minhogim for this night, as the Orchos Chaim11 wrote: 'It is customary to eat legumes on the night of Purim after the fast, as a remembrance of the legumes that they ate in the house of the king, as it is written "ויתן להם מן הזרעונים" ("and he gave them of the legumes") regarding Daniel.'
He further wrote there: 'And Ha-R. Asher z"l wrote that some are accustomed not to eat meat on that night, so that they not err and think that it is the Purim seudah; and after their eating they recite Birkas Hamazon and mention Al HaNissim as we wrote.' But the Darkei Moshe12 wrote about this: 'And it is not the custom to do so.'
And in the Yosef Ometz there he wrote that one of the reasons to eat legumes is: 'so that it not appear that it is the primary seudah; it is also a remembrance of Daniel's legumes.'
Footnotes:
1 ז, ב ↩
2 לשון המדרכי מגילה רמז תשפז ↩
3 מרדכי שם, והובא בב"י סי' תרצה ↩
4 וראה בב"ח סי' תרצ"ה סק"ג ביאור הגמ' לדעת הראבי"ה ↩
5 סי' תרצה סק"ב ↩
6 סי' תרצ"ה סק"ג ↩
7 סי' תרצה סעיף א ↩
8 סי' תרצה סק"א. וראה גם עטרת זקנים סק"א ↩
9 ח"א דיני סעודת פורים סי' תתרצט ↩
10 סדר פורים, הובא באליה זוטא סי' תרצה סק"ג ↩
11 ח"א הלכות מגלה ופורים אות לה. הובא בב"י שם. וכ"כ בכלבו סי' מה ↩
12 שם סק"ג. וראה גם עטרת זקנים שם ↩