Mishloach Monos
[1] (Halacha 491)
It is stated in Megillas Esther1: 'עַל־כֵּ֞ן הַיְּהוּדִ֣ים הַפְּרָזִ֗ים הַיֹּשְׁבִים֘ בְּעָרֵ֣י הַפְּרָזוֹת֒ עֹשִׂ֗ים אֵ֠ת י֣וֹם אַרְבָּעָ֤ה עָשָׂר֙ לְחֹ֣דֶשׁ אֲדָ֔ר שִׂמְחָ֥ה וּמִשְׁתֶּ֖ה וְי֣וֹם ט֑וֹב וּמִשְׁל֥וֹחַ מָנ֖וֹת אִ֥ישׁ לְרֵעֵֽהוּ .. לַעֲשׂ֣וֹת אוֹתָ֗ם יְמֵי֙ מִשְׁתֶּ֣ה וְשִׂמְחָ֔ה וּמִשְׁל֤וֹחַ מָנוֹת֙ אִ֣ישׁ לְרֵעֵ֔הוּ וּמַתָּנ֖וֹת לָֽאֶבְיוֹנִֽים' ("Therefore the Jews of the villages, who dwell in the unwalled towns, make the fourteenth day of the month of Adar a day of gladness and feasting, and a holiday, and of sending portions one to another .. to make them days of feasting and gladness, and of sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor").
Question: What is the reason the mitzvah of mishloach manos was instituted on Purim?
Answer: The Rambam wrote2: 'How is the obligation of this seudah [fulfilled]? That one eat meat and prepare a fine seudah according to what his means allow, and drink wine until he becomes intoxicated and falls asleep from the drunkenness. So too a person is obligated to send two portions of meat or two kinds of cooked dish or two kinds of food to his fellow, as it is said "and sending portions one to another" — two portions to one person, and whoever increases in sending to friends is praiseworthy. And if he has no [means], he exchanges with his fellow: this one sends his seudah to that one and that one sends his seudah to this one, in order to fulfill "and sending portions one to another" .. It is better for a person to increase in gifts to the poor than to increase in his seudah and in sending portions to his friends, for there is no greater and more glorious joy than to gladden the heart of the poor, the orphans, the widows, and the converts; for one who gladdens the heart of these unfortunate ones is likened to the Shechinah, as it is said "to revive the spirit of the humble and to revive the heart of the crushed".'
The Rebbe explains3 that from the Rambam's words it appears that the institution of the mitzvah of mishloach manos stems from the obligation of joy on this day, and therefore the Rambam included the mitzvah of mishloach manos in a single halacha together with the obligation of feasting and joy, for it is a continuation of a person's obligation of joy.
So too we find in several of the Rishonim, as the Ramban wrote4: 'That which we learned in a Mishnah, "the collection for Purim [is used] for Purim" .. and it is taught concerning it in the Tosefta, "and the collection of the town [is] for that town", and one is not exacting in the matter to say "this poor person is fitting and this poor person is not fitting", but rather one gives to all so that all rejoice with us, whether fitting or not fitting, for it is written "days of feasting and gladness", and "sending portions" is also written ..'.
And so wrote the Ritva5: 'For this day is not [only] a matter of tzedakah alone but a matter of joy and portions, for behold, even regarding the wealthy it is written "and sending portions one to another".'
And from their words it is implied6 that the mitzvos of the festival — gifts to the poor and mishloach manos — are part of the mitzvos [that flow] from the matter of joy on this day.
But as to the essence of how the obligation of joy relates to mishloach manos, we find two reasons — explanations:
Some wrote that it is (as stated, a continuation of one's own obligation of joy) to ensure that every Jew will have a Purim seudah, whose matter is feasting and joy, as the Terumas HaDeshen wrote7: 'Question: People who send to their friends on Purim shirts and sheets and the like — do they fulfill mishloach manos or not? Answer: It appears that they do not fulfill it with them, for it seems the reason for mishloach manos is so that each one will have enough and sufficient to fulfill the seudah properly. As is implied in the Gemara in the first chapter8, that Abaye bar Avin and Rav Chanina bar Avin would exchange their seudos with one another, and thereby fulfilled mishloach manos. This shows that the reason is on account of the seudah. And further it appears that we do not find anywhere that anything is called "portions" except something eaten or drunk. And so the Rambam was precise in his wording, writing "and he is obligated to send two portions of meat or two kinds of cooked dish or two kinds of food", and it appears that drink is included in eating. And regarding gifts to the poor he wrote "money or kinds of food". This shows that regarding mishloach manos he holds it must specifically be something eaten.'
And so wrote the Levush9: 'And further, the reason for the sending is only so that each person will have enough to eat to his satisfaction and things that delight and gladden a person so as to rejoice on Purim; therefore, whoever increases in sending to his fellow is praiseworthy.'
But in the sefer Manos HaLevi by Rav Sh. Alkabetz10 he wrote: 'And "sending portions" etc., for this alludes that they are in one bond and in love and brotherhood, the opposite of what [Haman] described, "scattered and dispersed".' And further on he wrote11: 'gladness and feasting and a holiday and sending portions one to another, as though their matter was like one man, each one being lenient with his fellow, the opposite of the adversary and enemy of deceitful speech who said "there is one people scattered".' And he further wrote12: 'And regarding the portions he agreed with them, for through friendship and brotherhood they gathered and were saved, not through division of hearts.'
And this reason too is an expression of the joy of this day: that a person not rejoice alone but with his friends, to express friendship, as the Bach wrote13 in explaining the mitzvah of mishloach manos: 'For the reason for mishloach manos is so that one will be glad and joyful with his loved ones and friends and to instill among them love and brotherhood and friendship; if so, if one dines with his fellow and friend, behold they are in joy and good-heartedness feasting together, and they are therefore exempt from the obligation of mishloach manos.'
Thus we have seen from the words of the Rishonim that the foundation of the mitzvah of mishloach manos is on account of the joy of this day, and as to the reason for the manner of fulfilling the mitzvah, some wrote that it is so that each one will have things for the seudah of feasting and joy, and some wrote that it is in order to increase love, brotherhood, and friendship. Upon these reasons various halachos depend, as we will learn with G-d's help in the coming days.
Notes:
1 Ch. 9 verses 19-22 ↩
2 Hilchos Megillah 2:15-17 ↩
3 See Likkutei Sichos 16 p. 367 onward ↩
4 Bava Metzia 78b ↩
5 Bava Metzia 78b, and see also Megillah 7a ↩
6 See Likkutei Sichos there, note 30 ↩
7 Siman 111 ↩
8 Megillah 7b ↩
9 OC siman 695 se'if 4 ↩
10 Ch. 9, verse 16 ↩
11 There, verse 19 ↩
12 There, verse 20 ↩
13 OC end of siman 695, and see also Ksav Sofer OC siman 141 ↩
[2] (Halacha 492)
In the previous halacha we saw the reasons the poskim gave for why the Sages instituted mishloach manos. And we find in the poskim that they elaborated and wrote many practical differences between the reasons, and below we will cite a few of them1:
Question: What is the law in a case where a person sent his fellow mishloach manos but his fellow did not agree to accept it, or where he sent to his fellow and informed him that he had sent, but it got stuck in the hands of the messenger and was not delivered?
Answer: The Rema wrote in Darkei Moshe2: 'Mahar"i Brin wrote .. that if one forgoes his portion [his portion] is forgone, for a person does not receive portions against his will.'
And based on this, the Shulchan Aruch wrote in the gloss3: 'And if one sends portions to his fellow and he does not wish to accept them, or he forgoes them for him, he has fulfilled [the obligation].'
But the Pri Chadash there wrote regarding the Rema: '[And if one sends portions to his fellow etc.] or he forgoes them for him, he has fulfilled. It is astonishing — where did he derive this?'
The Chida4 wrote to explain the words of the Pri Chadash: 'I have heard [people] ask: the Pri Chadash himself, in Yoreh Deah siman 61 s.k. 43, wrote that if the kohen forgoes the gifts [of the priesthood] for him, he has fulfilled [the obligation]. And it appears to me that here the reason is as the Terumas HaDeshen wrote (siman 111), that they should eat at the seudah. And accordingly, in a gift on condition of return, even though elsewhere it is [considered] a gift, here he has not fulfilled, as the Acharonim wrote. And therefore the Pri Chadash held that if one forgoes them for him he has not fulfilled; but regarding the gifts of the priesthood, where a gift on condition of return is called a gift and one has fulfilled, so too if one forgoes them one has fulfilled ..'.
And so wrote the Chasam Sofer5: '.. and if so, the Pri Chadash wrote well: from where did the Rema know that the intent of those who instituted mishloach manos — namely Mordechai and his beis din — was whether it was for the need of the sender or for the need of the one to whom it is sent6. Now, I have seen two reasons in this: the Terumas HaDeshen wrote [it is] so that there be relief for those celebrating — perhaps his seudah will not suffice for him, so his fellow assists him, see there; and one could say that even if he has much, nevertheless they instituted it thus so as not to embarrass one who has nothing, as at the end of Maseches Taanis [26b], and if so, just as if he truly does not have enough for himself the forgoing accomplishes nothing, so too even if he has [enough], nevertheless he should not forgo, so as not to cause embarrassment. But in the Manos HaLevi it is written [that the reason is] to increase peace and friendship, the opposite of the way of the adversary who said "scattered and dispersed" — meaning, in a place where it is fitting to be one people, they are scattered and dispersed in strife; therefore they instituted mishloach manos; and if so, one could say that since he sent and showed his affection, even though the other forgoes it for him, he has already fulfilled his obligation. And the Pri Chadash wrote well: from where did Mahar"i Brin, and the Rema who wrote in his name, [derive the ruling] to decide this?'
And there are among the Acharonim7 who wrote that even in a case where one sent mishloach manos to his fellow and informed him that he had sent, but the sending was not delivered to him, it is like the above case where according to the Rema he has fulfilled the obligation and those who disagree hold he has not fulfilled the obligation; and he explained that this depends, as above, on the dispute between the Terumas HaDeshen and the Manos HaLevi.
However, Rav Eliezer Arlozorov wrote8 that it is difficult to say that the reason for the Rema's ruling is like the explanation of the Manos HaLevi, that the main thing is that he sent and showed friendship and affection9: 'But this is not at all decisive in my view — for do we [ordinarily] expound the reason of a verse? And even if we do expound [it], from where [do we know] that there are only these reasons — and "the words of Torah are like a hammer that shatters" and one verse divides into several reasons — and shall we from this rule leniently against the plain implication of the verse? And indeed, if we go after the reason, and forgoing helps because in any case there is affection and friendship in it, that he wished to benefit him — then even if he did not send him portions at all but only informed him that he wishes to send to him, and [the fellow] answered that he forgoes it or does not want it, as in the language of the Rema above, he would also have fulfilled. And indeed I saw in the Responsa Chesed L'Avraham siman 29 s.v. "u'v'guf" that he wrote that according to this, if forgoing suffices, then the entire matter of mishloach manos is not a practical mitzvah at all but depends only on thought — that if he wishes to send he has fulfilled — and that is why they did not institute a bracha over mishloach manos, as over all mitzvos that depend on thought, see there at the end of the siman. And it is truly astonishing to say so — to go after a reason that the Acharonim innovated and, on account of it, to strip the verse of its practical mitzvah and clothe it in matters of will and thought alone; this should not be done, and the matter is clear that one does not fulfill with thought alone, but rather an act is required. Only that if he sent and it reached his fellow, even though his fellow has not yet acquired it, nevertheless if it came within the range of his ability to receive it through the sending and to benefit from it, that suffices, and the plain sense of the verse "sending to his fellow" is fulfilled, even though he did not wish to accept it — and this helps for both reasons and for the plain sense of the verse, as we explained above. If so, one cannot, in my opinion, decide from the reasons and say that since forgoing suffices, therefore one who does not know who sent it to him has not fulfilled, as the Ksav Sofer wrote above; and the question still stands in its place.'
Thus we have seen that some explained that the dispute regarding one who sends to his fellow and his fellow did not accept (or refused, or it was not delivered to him but he knows they sent it to him) is connected to the dispute between the Terumas HaDeshen and the Manos HaLevi regarding the reason for mishloach manos. And some wrote that even according to the Rema's view it must at least reach the recipient.
Therefore, in practice, a person who sent his fellow mishloach manos but the sending did not reach its destination — even if he informed his fellow that he sent — since in fact it did not reach him, it is fitting that he give an additional mishloach manos on the day of Purim.
--------------
Notes:
1 To note that according to what was explained in Halacha 491, that the reason of the Manos HaLevi too is based on the mitzvah of joy (and as the Bach wrote), some of the practical differences that the poskim wrote do not apply ↩
2 OC siman 695 os 7 ↩
3 OC siman 695 se'if 4 ↩
4 Birkei Yosef OC siman 695 s.k. 5 ↩
5 Responsa OC siman 196 ↩
6 But see the Purim sicha of 5720 (Toras Menachem vol. 27 p. 461 onward), where the Rebbe defines the dispute differently, and the implication regarding the obligation of the giver or the recipient ↩
7 See Beirurei Chaim vol. 1 siman 32 ↩
8 A responsum from responsa in manuscript, printed in Yagdil Torah Jerusalem issue 13 ↩
9 And see also the aforementioned sicha. And the words of the Korban Nesanel Megillah ch. 1 siman 7 os 9, who wrote: 'And if he sent to his fellow and he does not wish to accept or forgoes it for him, he has fulfilled. So wrote the Rema in the gloss at the end of siman 695 .. And the Rashba wrote [regarding vows] the reason, that in the fulfillment of the act one can say "behold I am as if I received", for even if he had received it from him he could have returned it to him. If so, now he can say to him "behold I am as if I received and returned it to you", for why bother with the back-and-forth. And this reasoning applies to mishloach manos as well. And see Responsa Beis Yaakov siman 164'. (And on the explanation of the Rema's words see also what is cited in Chazon Ovadia Purim p. 148 note 39) ↩
[3] (Halacha 493)
Question: Are women obligated in mishloach manos? (1)
Answer: In Leket Yosher it is written1: 'And even women sent to the rabbanit, and so she to them. And if women had no messengers on Purim [to carry the portions, they sent them] even on Shushan Purim, and the matter was known to the Gaon zt"l and he said nothing to them.'
And the Rema wrote in Darkei Moshe2: 'Mahar"i Brin wrote .. that a woman is obligated in sending portions and gifts to the poor just as she is obligated in the reading of the Megillah ..'.
And so wrote the Shulchan Aruch in the gloss3: 'And a woman is obligated in gifts to the poor and mishloach manos, like a man.'
And so ruled the Levush4: 'And women too are obligated in mishloach manos and gifts to the poor like a man, for "to his fellow" is written and the same applies to "her fellow", for the whole reason is only for joy, and if so, what difference is there between a man and a woman, for they too were part of the miracle.'
But there are among the Acharonim who disagreed with this, as the Maharikash wrote in Erech Lechem: 'There is one who wrote that a woman must send portions to a woman like herself, but this does not appear correct to me from the words of the Talmud and all the well-known poskim, and they also did not practice thus.' And the Pri Chadash there too wondered at the Rema: 'This law is not clear, for "man" is written [Esther 9:22] and not "woman", and from where did he [derive] this? And the Rikash wrote that no posek wrote so.'
And the Acharonim elaborated in discussing the obligation of women, for on one hand one could say they are exempt since it is a positive mitzvah bound to time, and so it is stated in the Megillah: 'and sending portions man to another'5. But on the other hand6 one could say they are obligated just as they are obligated in the reading of the Megillah, since they too were part of the miracle, and it is also stated "they accepted upon themselves", which includes women as well.
And some wrote that one must be especially careful about a woman who has no husband to send also on her behalf, as the Magen Avraham wrote on the words of the Rema there7: 'And a woman is obligated. I have not seen [people] careful about this, and perhaps it is specifically regarding a widow; but a woman who has a husband — her husband sends on her behalf to several people; nevertheless one should be stringent.'
And in practice the poskim ruled like the words of the Rema, that women are obligated, as the Yaavetz wrote8: '.. in any case the matter is obvious to us and clearer that they are obligated even in sending portions, as the words of the gloss, which are words of tradition, and do not stray from them.'
And so ruled the poskim of Sefarad in accordance with the ruling of the Rema, as the Ben Ish Chai wrote9: 'A woman is also obligated in mishloach manos and gifts to the poor.'
And in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch it is written10: 'Women too are obligated in mishloach manos .. Some women rely on their husbands, that they send also on their behalf, and this is not correct — rather one should be stringent.
And so wrote the Aruch HaShulchan11, that the minhag today is that women are careful about this and send themselves, and this is his wording: 'And all women are obligated in sending portions and in gifts to the poor .. And even if she has a husband she is not exempt through her husband's [sending], for this is a mitzvah that rests upon her [see Magen Avraham s.k. 14 and our women are careful and send portions].'
Thus in practice a woman is obligated in mishloach manos, and it is fitting that every woman send herself and not fulfill her obligation through the mishloach manos that her husband sends12.
And in Halacha 491 we learned about the various reasons for the mitzvah of mishloach manos and the practical difference between them, and also regarding our subject — the obligation of women in mishloach manos — the Chasam Sofer wrote13: '..and it appears to me that this depends on the above: if the reason is to make up the deficiency of one's fellow's seudah, then since he himself is dependent on the table of others he is exempt from this; and if the reason is on account of love of friends, then even one dependent on another's table is obligated14'.
Notes:
1 Vol. 1 (OC) p. 158 matter 5 ↩
2 OC siman 695 os 7 ↩
3 OC siman 695 se'if 4 ↩
4 OC siman 695 se'if 4 ↩
5 See Responsa Shevus Yaakov vol. 1 siman 41, Erech Lechem (Taib) cited in Sdei Chemed system of alef os 352 (vol. 1 folio 47). Responsa Sheilas Yaavetz vol. 1 siman 120 ↩
6 Responsa Shevus Yaakov there. But see Birkei Yosef OC there s.k. 8 ↩
7 S.k. 14. And so wrote the Korban Nesanel Megillah ch. 1 siman 7: '.. but it appears that when she has a husband, her husband does everything on her behalf, as we say regarding the joy of the festival that her husband gladdens her. But a widow is certainly obligated, and so wrote the Magen Avraham'. And in the Pri Megadim Eshel Avraham there he wrote: 'And one could say, throughout the entire Torah [where it says] "man" the same applies to a woman, and they were also part of the miracle as with the Megillah [Megillah 4a], and when she has a husband, her husband's authority is over her, *and a widow and an unmarried girl are obligated'*. And see also Responsa Chasam Sofer vol. 1 OC siman 196 ↩
8 Responsa Sheilas Yaavetz vol. 1 siman 120 ↩
9 Year 1, Parashas Tetzaveh, Hilchos Purim siman 17. And see also Kaf HaChaim OC siman 695 os 53. Chazon Ovadia Purim, laws of mishloach manos os 14 ↩
10 Siman 142 se'if 4 ↩
11 OC siman 695 se'if 18 ↩
12 See the aforementioned sources. And the Halichos Shlomo wrote ch. 19 din 17: '..And her husband also need not confer upon her the money and the portions through another, for regarding them it is not written 'lachem'; rather one should be stringent that the husband send also on her behalf and inform his wife of the matter, and likewise those receiving the portions, that they should know the sending is also from her; and likewise when sending in the name of the whole family, one should inform the senders and the recipients in whose name they are being sent'. And in Responsa Shevet HaLevi vol. 9 siman 147 he wrote: 'And it appears more [correct] that the minhag today, that the woman prepares the various portions sent from the home — kinds of foods etc. — and if afterward the messenger takes from the home what she designated to send, they thereby fulfill also the stringency that the sending is on behalf of the whole household; and if she also intends this, all the better' ↩
13 Responsa vol. 1 OC siman 196 ↩
14 And he continues there: 'But according to this the Rema contradicts himself, for that which he obligates a woman must be because he holds that one dependent on the table of others is exempt, since the reason is to make up the deficiency of one's fellow's seudah; and if so, how did he rule that if one forgoes it for him he is exempt, for according to this reason forgoing does not help, and it turns out that he is granting a document to two [contradictory parties]' ↩
[4] (Halacha 494)
The obligation of women in mishloach manos (2)
Question: May a man send to a woman, and a woman to a man?
Answer: The Rema wrote in Darkei Moshe1: 'Mahar"i Brin wrote .. and a woman should send to a woman and a man to a man, but not the reverse, on account of a decree lest a man send to a widow and they come to a doubt of kiddushin; but gifts to the poor, even a man to a woman, is [permitted, as it is] in the manner of tzedakah, end of quote.'
And so wrote the Shulchan Aruch2 in the gloss: 'And a woman should send to a woman, and a man to a man; but not the reverse, so that a man not come to send to a widow and they come to a doubt of kiddushin.'
And the Magen Avraham3 explained the reason for the concern: 'A doubt of kiddushin. Meaning that they will say this is "sivlonos" [betrothal gifts] and we are concerned for kiddushin.' And the Levushei Srad explained: 'And we are concerned for kiddushin. For it is explained in Even HaEzer [siman 45 se'if 1] that there is an opinion that if he sent her sivlonos we are concerned for kiddushin, for although one who betroths without witnesses [effects] no concern of kiddushin, nevertheless since it is not customary to send sivlonos except after kiddushin, we are concerned lest he already betrothed her before witnesses who are not before us.'
[And indeed the plain meaning of the language appears to be that only on account of the concern of a doubt of kiddushin regarding a man sending to a widow did they institute that a man should not send to a woman at all, and likewise a woman to a man4. But some explained that even in the very sending of a woman to a man there may be a concern of kiddushin, as the Responsa Beis Shearim wrote5: 'Also if a woman sends to a man there is reason to be concerned for a doubt of kiddushin, such as with a distinguished man, whom she is betrothed to by his accepting [the gift], as we say in Kiddushin folio 7a, see there'.]
The Pri Chadash there wrote a further reason for what the concern of the doubt of kiddushin is: 'And it is also possible that mishloach manos, which is in the manner of affection, we are concerned lest he say it in the manner of love and affection, and she will say she received them for the purpose of kiddushin, and they would be a doubt of kiddushin, as it is in Even HaEzer siman 27 se'if 3 [in the gloss].'
But some wrote that even without the concern of the doubt of kiddushin it is not fitting for a man to send to a woman, as the Shevus Yaakov wrote6: 'And were it not for the words of Mahar"i Brin I would say the reason is as it plainly is, that the sending of a woman to a man or a man to a woman shows closeness and affection and habituation of the matter7'.
We have seen that a man should not send portions to a woman, and likewise a woman should not send portions to a man.
Question: What is the law after the fact, when a man sent to a woman?
Answer: We learned in Halacha 491 about the dispute regarding the reason for the mitzvah of mishloach manos, and some wished to make the question of whether one has fulfilled the obligation depend on this dispute, as the Responsa Beis Shearim wrote there: 'Now, regarding that which you were in doubt: according to the view of the Rema siman 695, that a woman is obligated in mishloach manos, only that a man should not send to a woman on account of a doubt of kiddushin — what is the law regarding a woman who sent to a man, whether she has fulfilled or not. And you wrote that this depends on the two reasons in mishloach manos: according to the reason of the Terumas HaDeshen, that it is so that one's fellow will have relief, she has fulfilled; but according to the reason of the Manos HaLevi, on account of affection and friendship, she has not fulfilled. Now, this doubt arose for you because you were not precise in your words and wrote that we exclude only a man to a woman on account of a doubt of kiddushin. And this is not so, for if it is on account of a doubt of kiddushin that we come to this, we do not exclude a woman at all from "man" that is written, and also a man who sent to a woman has fulfilled, only that he must be careful ideally to fulfill this mitzvah with a man and not with a woman. And it follows that it does not depend on the two aforementioned reasons, which pertain to the essential fulfillment of the mitzvah of sending portions, which apply both to a man to a woman and to a woman to a man'.
Thus after the fact, a man who sent to a woman, or the reverse, has fulfilled the obligation.
Question: A man who is in a situation where his only possibility to send mishloach manos is to a woman — what should he do?
Answer: The Mishneh Halachos8 wrote that one could say this depends on the aforementioned dispute regarding the reasons for the mitzvah of mishloach manos: 'For one could say that it too depends on the reason for mishloach manos: according to the reason of the Terumas HaDeshen, that those celebrating should have relief — perhaps his seudah will not suffice, and even if he has much, nevertheless they instituted [it] so as not to embarrass one who has nothing, as at the end of Taanis — and since women are obligated in the seudah, one could say that even according to the view that women are exempt from mishloach manos, nevertheless one who sends to them fulfills the mitzvah with them, since they too need relief in the seudah and the reason applies to them. But according to the reason of the Manos HaLevi, who wrote in the name of a Rishon that it is to increase peace, then it is possible that specifically a man to a man and a woman to a woman [is required], for what has Boaz to do with gazing at women, and behold it is forbidden to inquire after the welfare of a woman, and all the more so not to send to her ..'.
And some wrote9 that according to the aforementioned reason that the Rema brought — on account of the concern of a doubt of kiddushin — it is forbidden even when he has no other to whom to send. But some wrote10 that in a case of need one may be lenient.
Thus it appears that in a case of great need, when he has no possibility to send to a man and the mitzvah would be nullified, he may send to a woman.
--------------
Notes:
1 OC siman 695 os 7 ↩
2 OC siman 695 se'if 4 ↩
3 S.k. 15 ↩
4 And the Shevus Yaakov there wrote on this: 'And we must say that we decree this on account of that, and it is a remote and strange concern'. And in the second edition he explained that one could say, since: 'in sending portions, where they exchange with one another, there is reason to be concerned for kiddushin' — meaning, in mishloach manos, one who receives usually sends back, and therefore the concern always exists. [And seemingly according to the above explanation of the Levushei Srad that the concern is lest he already betrothed her earlier, then according to the Beis Shmuel in Even HaEzer there s.k. 1, even when the bride sent to the groom we are concerned that he already betrothed] ↩
5 Choshen OC siman 380 ↩
6 Responsa vol. 1 siman 41 ↩
7 And see also Aruch HaShulchan OC siman 695 se'if 18. And in His'orerus Teshuva vol. 1 siman 126. But see what the Beis Shearim Choshen OC siman 380 wrote: 'I later reconsidered, that one could say, since mishloach manos is done through others, and see Darkei Moshe siman 695, there is no habituation to transgression, and it is settled'. And see also His'orerus Teshuva vol. 3 p. 279, who wrote: 'In this, where there is no closeness but he is compelled to fulfill the mitzvah of sending and has no other [recipient], even so it is forbidden on account of a doubt of kiddushin'. And regarding the essential words of the Beis Shearim that mishloach manos must specifically be through a messenger, this is not agreed upon by all the poskim. And the details of the matter will be seen in the next halacha ↩
8 Vol. 4 siman 88 ↩
9 His'orerus Teshuva there, and in the gloss there it is written: *that according to this reason of a doubt of kiddushin it would be permitted for a man to send to his sister, where there is no applicable doubt of kiddushin* ↩
10 See Chazon Ovadia Purim, laws of mishloach manos note 29, who decided that in a case of need one should be lenient ↩
[5] (Halacha 495)
Question: Must the mishloach manos specifically be sent via a messenger?
Answer: The Mahar"i Bacharach wrote in Mekor Chaim1: 'In sending portions, the mitzvah [is better fulfilled] through his messenger more than by himself, and even regarding gifts, [that which is done through a messenger] is preferable, on account of publicizing the miracle. It appears to me that it is permitted to send portions through a minor, even though he is not subject to agency — that is [only] regarding laws of acquisition and monetary matters, whereas [here] even through a monkey the mitzvah is fulfilled'.
And so wrote the Chasam Sofer2: 'Know and understand: all that Chazal said, "so-and-so is subject to agency" or "is not subject to agency", means, that is, [he can be] an agent equivalent to himself, or is not an agent equivalent to himself; but as for an agent [in general], even a monkey can be an agent, only that he is not equivalent to him. The practical difference is where the Torah was exacting that the principal party himself do [the act], only that we say his agent is like himself — for this we require the law of agency, for otherwise he is not like him; but where the Torah said that he should send an agent, such as mishloach manos, this suffices even through a monkey and all those who are unfit, and understand this, for already great and better men than I have erred in it3'.
And so wrote Rav Eliezer Arlozorov4: 'And the matters are clear and simple, for that which was not stated is fit to be stated, and therefore there is no doubt in this at all that it is permitted to send portions through a minor, a gentile, an elephant, a monkey, and the like'.
On the other hand, the Responsa Binyan Tzion5 was in doubt about this, and at the end of his words it appears that agency is not required, only that perhaps ideally it is good to be stringent, for he wrote: 'I was in doubt: one who himself brings portions and gives them to his fellow — whether he has fulfilled mishloach manos, for we say "a person's agent is like himself", but the reverse we do not find, that he himself is like his agent; and since here it is written "and sending portions", let us say that specifically it is required to be through agency, but through [personal] giving, no. And I was astonished that I have not seen the poskim comment on this. But according to what I wrote, one could say, since the two reasons for mishloach manos that I wrote above apply also when he himself gives into his fellow's hand, therefore he fulfills also through giving, and that which is written in the language of agency is to teach that through sending alone he has fulfilled even if his fellow does not wish to accept; and therefore the poskim did not mention a prohibition of giving. And nevertheless, perhaps ideally it is better to send the portions through another.'
And in the sefer Yefeh LaLev6, after bringing the words of the Binyan Tzion, adds remarks and writes as follows: 'It appears to me that the law is with him, for in the verse and the pesukim regarding the law of portions they mentioned only the language of "sending", and thus, that which I heard about a certain rav who acted piously with his Maker and took it upon himself to bring [the portions] himself and give them to his fellow so as to fulfill the mitzvah personally — it turns out his stringency is a leniency, for in this matter, as it appears from the pesukim and from the words of the poskim, it must be through a messenger and not by himself who fulfills it; and further, when it is through a messenger, one mitzvah leads to another, for his fellow fulfills two — mishloach manos, and gifts to the poor, in that he gives a gift to the messenger, for most of the messengers through whom portions are sent are needy and look forward to being given a gift by the recipients of the portions, and they do their sending on their return.'
Thus we have seen that there are poskim who inclined to say that there is merit in sending through a messenger — some wrote only [that it is preferable] ideally, and some inclined to say that this is the essence of the mitzvah.
But on the other hand we found poskim who wrote that there is no merit at all in sending through a messenger, and the novelty in "sending" portions is that although generally it is said "a mitzvah [is better performed] by oneself than by one's agent", here one may send also through a messenger. As the Eshel Avraham wrote7: 'It seems that elsewhere I wrote regarding mishloach manos that it need not specifically be through a messenger, only that when one gives from hand to hand it is preferable .. Even so, it appears that one fulfills the obligation also by oneself according to all opinions, and the agency is for leniency, so that one need not extend [the portions] himself, on account of "a mitzvah [is better] by oneself than by one's agent", since we do not find that his agent is preferable to himself, and similar to the aforementioned principle that in a matter that he cannot do etc. And were the mitzvah of mishloach manos specifically through a messenger and not by oneself, this principle would be nullified, for we find explicitly a case where he himself cannot do [it] and an agent can do [it]; and although regarding gifts to the poor .. even so, regarding mishloach manos to one's fellow, where there is no aspect of embarrassment at all, there is no reasoning at all that through a messenger is preferable .. And likewise the language of "they would exchange their seudos with one another" [Megillah 7b] implies not through a messenger8, and nevertheless they would fulfill the obligation of mishloach manos thereby, and it requires further study.'
And see also the Responsa Yehuda Yaaleh9: 'And the verse used the language of "sending" as an emphasis, that although everywhere "a mitzvah [is better] by oneself than by one's agent", the verse teaches us that in this there is no objection, [and] his agent is exactly equivalent to [doing it] by oneself; or alternatively, [doing it] through his agent is even more of a mitzvah, since the ultimate intent in this mitzvah is drawing hearts close to love of friends, therefore it is a greater manner of honor through his agent10, and the verse spoke in the common case, in the way of the world; but certainly the law of agency is not required here, for behold we see daily deeds that they send through minors. And also through non-Jews one may do [it], as above, and this is correct'11.
Thus we have seen that there are poskim who wrote that mishloach manos should specifically be sent through a messenger, and therefore it is fitting to do so ideally. But one may certainly send through a minor and the like.
--------------
Notes:
1 Siman 694 se'if 3 ↩
2 Gittin 22b. And see the explanation of the Chasam Sofer's words in Middos LeCheker HaHalacha vol. 1 middah 10 note 896 ↩
3 And see Likutei Chaver Ben Chaim vol. 1, who wrote: 'I heard from my teacher the Gaon Chasam Sofer that his father-in-law the Gaon R. Akiva Eiger was in doubt about this, since all the terminology of agency and mishloach manos — whether it requires the law of agency and whether it is fulfilled through a non-Jew — and our master the Chasam Sofer answered him ..'. And see also the sefer Mikneh (Sofer) vol. 2 klal 23 detail 7 ↩
4 In a responsum printed in the collection Yagdil Torah Jerusalem issue 13 ↩
5 OC siman 695 s.k. 19 ↩
6 Buchach siman 695, and so wrote the Rashak in HaElef Lecha Shlomo OC siman 383. And in the sefer HaChaim on OC siman 695 ↩
7 But some brought from the words of the Ran, who wrote 'they would each send their seudah to one another', and learned that his intent was to indicate that one must specifically send. But see Responsa Dvar Avraham vol. 1 siman 13, who wrote: 'Now, in truth, he built a tower in the air, for the essential words of that sefer are, in my humble opinion, flimsy, for there is no such fine inference in the words of the Ran to serve as proof for such a great novelty. And see also the responsum of Rav Eliezer Arlozorov there, who discussed the words of the Darkei Moshe siman 695 os 7. And this is not the place to elaborate ↩
8 From Mahar"i Assad vol. 1 OC siman 207 ↩
9 And see an additional reason in Responsa Salmas Chaim OC siman 378: 'Here, ideally they instituted that one may do it through his agent, so that he himself not be neglected from the mitzvah of the joy of Purim; but if he wishes to do it himself there is no objection, and he performs the mitzvah himself, and if he knows that it will give greater pleasure to his fellow, all the better' ↩
10 And see Kaf HaChaim siman 695 os 41, that we find the language of agency that is not through a messenger ↩
11 And regarding whether we say here 'a presumption that an agent performs his agency', see Achiezer vol. 3 siman 73, and see Teshuvos VeHanhagos vol. 1 siman 407,2, who wrote that this is the source for the people's minhag to give whoever brings mishloach manos something to taste, for a paid agent is preferable ↩
[6] (Halacha 496)
Question: Must the mishloach manos specifically be food items?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Megillah1 says: 'Rav Yosef taught: "and sending portions one to another" — two portions to one person .. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia sent to Rabbi Oshaya the thigh of a third-born calf and a jug of wine ..'.
And the Rambam wrote2: 'A person is obligated to send two portions of meat or two kinds of cooked dish or two kinds of food to his fellow, as it is said "and sending portions one to another" — two portions to one person, and whoever increases in sending to friends is praiseworthy.'
It is written in the Maharil3: 'Mahar"i Segal said that it is good to send Purim portions specifically of kinds of food or drink, and specifically cooked meat or fish, for so it is implied in the first chapter of Beitzah, that according to Beis Shammai [something] is not called "portions" in any other manner'4.
And in the Terumas HaDeshen5 he wrote: 'Question: People who send to their friends on Purim shirts and sheets and the like6 — do they fulfill mishloach manos or not? Answer: It appears that they do not fulfill it with them, for it seems the reason for mishloach manos is so that each one will have enough and sufficient to fulfill the seudah properly. As is implied in the Gemara in the first chapter (Megillah 7b), that Abaye bar Avin and Rav Chanina bar Avin would exchange their seudos with one another, and thereby fulfilled mishloach manos. This shows that the reason is on account of the seudah. And further it appears that we do not find anywhere that anything is called "portions" except something eaten or drunk. And so the Rambam was precise in his wording, writing "and he is obligated to send two portions of meat or two kinds of cooked dish or two kinds of food", and it appears that drink is included in eating. And regarding gifts to the poor he wrote "money or kinds of food". This shows that regarding mishloach manos he holds it must specifically be something eaten.'
And so wrote the Rema in Darkei Moshe7: 'The Maharil wrote that it is good to send kinds of food and drink, for other things are not called "portions", and so wrote the Terumas HaDeshen siman 111, and he further wrote that if one sent other things he has not fulfilled'.
The Mechaber too, in the Shulchan Aruch8, brought the words of the Rambam as halacha: 'One is obligated to send his fellow two portions of meat or of kinds of food, as it is said: "and sending portions one to another" — two portions to one person. And whoever increases in sending to friends is praiseworthy.'
And the Olas Shabbos wrote on the words of the Mechaber9: 'Meat or of kinds of food etc. Meaning specifically kinds of eating and drinking, but shirts and sheets — one does not fulfill with them the obligation of mishloach manos etc. And see Terumas HaDeshen siman 111.'
And so wrote the Turei Even10: 'And further, even without this one could say .. that the mitzvah of mishloach manos exists only with something eaten or drunk specifically, as the commentators wrote, and as with "and send portions to those for whom nothing is prepared" in the sefer Ezra, which we expound in the second chapter of Beitzah (folio 21) [as referring] to one who did not set up an eruv tavshilin, and it is said to him that they should send him something eaten so that he will have something to eat on the festival; and as with "Beis Shammai says one does not send on the festival except portions", which means things that are prepared and ready for eating on the festival.'
However, the Responsa Halachos Ketanos11 wrote: 'Question: One who sends money, garments, and vessels for portions — does he fulfill [the obligation]? Answer: If he can sell them immediately and buy for the need of the seudah, it helps, for we learned (Nedarim 32b) "there is no difference between one forbidden by vow to derive benefit from his fellow and one forbidden by him [to derive] food etc.", and Rav Mari sent Rabbah ginger and pepper (Megillah 7b), for a benefit that brings to food is like food.'
[And some wrote12 that this matter depends on the dispute regarding the reasons for the mitzvah of mishloach manos brought in Halacha 491: according to the Terumas HaDeshen above, the reason for mishloach manos is for the need of the seudah, therefore he required specifically kinds of food13, but if we say the reason is in order to increase friendship, then one could say that specifically kinds of food are not required.]
But as stated, the plain meaning of the words of most of the poskim14 is that one must send specifically kinds of food or drink.
Thus in practice mishloach manos must be food or drink items and not other things.
--------------
Notes:
1 7, 3 ↩
2 Hilchos Megillah 2:15 ↩
3 Minhagim, Hilchos Purim ↩
4 But the Shiyurei Knesses HaGedolah in the glosses to the Tur OC siman 695 os 10 commented on this: *'And the minhag of the world is to send kinds of sweets'* ↩
5 Siman 111 ↩
6 To note from what his student wrote in Leket Yosher vol. 1 (OC) p. 158 matter 3: '.. it was the minhag in that city that the householders sent the rav fine and honorable portions on Purim, such as linen to make sheets' ↩
7 OC siman 695 os 7 ↩
8 OC siman 695 se'if 4 ↩
9 S.k. 3. And so wrote the Taz there s.k. 4: 'Kinds of food. And not garments or other things, and drink is included in eating; so wrote the Terumas HaDeshen siman 111. And it is an explicit Gemara in Megillah folio 4 regarding a jug of wine, see there' ↩
10 Megillah 7a ↩
11 Vol. 2 siman 163, cited by the Nahar Shalom siman 695 s.k. 2. And so wrote in Responsa Mi Yehuda siman 86. Also the Be'er Heitev siman 695 s.k. 7 cited him, but noted that from the words of the author of the Terumas HaDeshen *it is somewhat implied* that he has not fulfilled, see there. And to note also from the Mateh Moshe, Amud HaAvodah, Purim, Megillah siman 1017, who wrote: 'In the derashos of the Maharil, Mahar"sh said that Mahar"r Shlomiel was a mourner on Purim, and Mahar"sh went to him and told him that Mahar"r Yonah .. but one must fulfill "sending portions one to another", for a mourner is obligated in mitzvos. *And specifically meat or money he should send*, and not delicacies made to rejoice on Purim ..'. We see in his words that money too is possible. [But to note that this minhag, which is in the Maharak, is also brought in the Maharil Hilchos Purim, but there it is stated regarding giving to the poor, and so too in the Magen Avraham siman 696 s.k. 11, and in the Machon Yerushalayim edition note 32 they wrote that it is by the law of gifts to the poor. And this still requires study] ↩
12 See what is cited in Piskei Teshuvos siman 695 os 17. But see Responsa Mishneh Halachos vol. 4 siman 91, who wrote that even according to the words of the Manos HaLevi, that the reason is to increase friendship, one could say that specifically kinds of food are required. And see the next note ↩
13 But to note that this is not necessarily [derived] from the words of the Halachos Ketanos, for as above, in his words the reason that he permits garments and vessels is (only in a manner where one can) sell them to buy a seudah, and this reason can fit also with the words of the Terumas HaDeshen, that mishloach manos is for the need of the seudah ↩
14 Ben Ish Chai year 1 Purim din 16. Mishnah Berurah siman 695 s.k. 20. And see also what is cited in Chazon Ovadia Purim, laws of mishloach manos din 3. However, when one is unable to give kinds of food, he should at least give money for buying things for the seudah, for as stated, according to many poskim one fulfills the obligation with this ↩
[7] (Halacha 497)
In the previous halacha we learned that mishloach manos must be food or drink items.
Question: Must the food specifically be food fit for eating as it is?
Answer: It is written in the sefer Minhagei HaMaharil: 'Mahar"i Segal said that it is good to send Purim portions specifically of kinds of food or drink, and specifically cooked meat or fish, for so it is implied in the first chapter of Beitzah, that according to Beis Shammai [something] is not called "portions" in any other manner.'
And so ruled the Magen Avraham1: 'Two portions of meat. Cooked, fit for eating2 (Maharil), and the same applies to drink (Shlah).'
And so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah3: 'The Maharil wrote that [something] is not called "portions" except cooked [foods] fit for eating, and according to this, in Megillah folio [7a], "Rabbi Yehuda Nesia sent the thigh of a third-born calf and a jug of wine", we must say that the thigh was cooked.' And so wrote several of the Acharonim4.
But on the other hand the Pri Chadash5 wrote: 'One is obligated to send his fellow two portions [of meat or of kinds of food] etc. This implies that it must be something prepared, that is, meat and slaughtered chickens, for such is the meaning of "portions", a term of preparation, but if he sent his fellow live chickens it appears he has not fulfilled the mitzvah, as is implied at the end of the first chapter of Beitzah [14b], where we learned "Beis Shammai says one does not send on the festival except portions", and Beis Hillel says etc., see there.'
And also on the words of the Taz6, who wrote: 'Kinds of food. And not garments or other things, and drink is included in eating; so wrote the Terumas HaDeshen siman 111. And it is an explicit Gemara in Megillah folio 4 regarding a jug of wine, see there.' The Pri Megadim commented in the Mishbetzos Zahav: 'And it seemingly implies7 that raw meat is permitted. And see Pri Chadash, [that something] alive one should not send, but slaughtered [meat, even] raw, one may send; so it seemingly implies.' And so wrote in the Eshel Avraham: 'And from the Taz it is implied that it need not be cooked, and see Pri Chadash, [from whom] it implies so, that alive — no; and in any case one should send that which is fit for eating immediately.'
The Mahar"i Bacharach in Mekor Chaim8 commented on the words of the Maharil: 'In the Maharil, specifically cooked; and yet we find [that] the breast in the "milu'im" [inauguration offerings] [Shmos 29:26. Vayikra 8:29], and the shelamim [Vayikra 7:33], are called a "portion".' But in practice he wrote: 'It is the choicest form of the mitzvah to send cooked meat and fish, and so my master my father, and my father-in-law the Gaon z"l, practiced with a certain neighbor of theirs.'
Also in the Nahar Shalom on the Mechaber there he wrote: 'And from the Gemara this is not proven, for we read in folio 7 that Rabbah sent Mari bar Mar a sack of dates and flour dried in an oven, and flour is not a prepared thing.'
And Rav Eliezer Arlozorov9 commented that from the words of the Gemara, that they sent a whole calf: 'And certainly it is not the way to cook a whole calf, so it appears that one fulfills even with raw [meat]. And yet one could say that this requirement of cooked depends on the requirement that it be fit to be presented [with honor], and according to many poskim a raw piece is not called fit to be presented, and therefore the Maharil was stringent to require cooked. But a whole calf is significant in itself, either being entirely alive and having the significance of a living creature, or slaughtered and being an item [normally sold] by count. But regarding a [mere] piece, cooked is required. I later saw in the Haamek She'eilah, Vayakhel (107, 2) s.k. 9-10, that he too makes it depend on the variant readings, and according to one reading he proves that one does not fulfill with raw [meat]. But this is not necessary according to the explanation of the Rishonim to the reading he brought, as above. In any case, ideally cooked is certainly required. And all this is regarding something not eaten as it is raw; but things eaten raw that are significant, such as ginger and long pepper (Pesachim 42b), certainly one fulfills.'
The Mishnah Berurah10 wrote: 'And it must be a kind of cooked food and not raw meat, for mishloach manos implies that which is fit for eating immediately; and some say that since it is slaughtered and fit to be cooked immediately, it is permitted.'
Thus we have seen that some wrote that one should not give food that is not fit for eating as it is (and some explained that since one needs a piece fit to be presented [with honor]11 and they hold that food requiring cooking, before its cooking, is not fit to be presented). Therefore, ideally12, when one gives things requiring cooking, such as meat or fish and the like, he should give them cooked [but in a time of need, he should at least give meat that is already ready for cooking13].
Notes:
1 OC siman 695 s.k. 11 ↩
2 And the Rosh Yosef Megillah 7a wrote: *'(and the same applies to fruits that are good raw)'* ↩
3 Siman 695 s.k. 8 ↩
4 Chayei Adam klal 155 se'if 31. Aruch HaShulchan OC siman 695 se'if 15 ↩
5 OC siman 695 se'if 4 ↩
6 There s.k. 4 ↩
7 And the Rosh Yosef there explained: 'And from the Taz there os 4 it is implied [that] garments no, but food even raw, [as long as it is] fit to cook' ↩
8 Siman 695 se'if 4 ↩
9 Collection Yagdil Torah Jerusalem issue 13 ↩
10 Siman 695 s.k. 20. * ↩
11 On this question, whether one indeed needs specifically [something] fit to be presented, the details of the opinions on this will be seen, G-d willing, tomorrow* ↩
12 Nitei Gavriel Purim ch. 57 os 5 ↩
13 See Chazon Ovadia Purim, laws of mishloach manos din 2 and note 3 and what is cited there ↩
[8] (Halacha 498)
Question: Is there a minimum measure for the food or drink in mishloach manos?
Answer: The Ritva wrote1: 'Rabbi Yehuda Nesia sent Rav Hoshaya the thigh of a third-born calf and a jug of wine .. In all the versions we read "You have fulfilled with us, Rabbi, [the mitzvah of] gifts to the poor." Meaning that the gift was not precious in his eyes, and he said that it is not a gift [fitting] for a person like him, and he had not fulfilled the obligation of "sending portions one to another"; [Rabbi Yehuda Nesia] then sent him — that is, Rabbi Yehuda Nesia himself — a third-born calf and three jugs of wine, [and] he sent him "You have fulfilled with us, Rabbi, [the mitzvah of] sending portions one to another", meaning that this is the gift fitting for you'.
It appears from his words2 that one must give a fitting gift that is considered honorable from the sender's side, [and see the note3 that some wrote one needs a gift that is considered honorable from the recipient's side].
And we find that some wrote that perhaps with a small gift one fulfills the obligation, as it is written in Leket Yosher4: 'And he said that a person fulfills [the obligation] if he sent his fellow on Purim one fig and one date, even though the two of them are not worth one perutah5 .. and this is revealed only to the modest'.
The Maharsha too6 wrote: 'Because "portion" implies any amount whatsoever, and therefore two are required for one person, but a "gift" requires a [minimum] measure of giving.'
And see also in the sefer Meorei Ohr7, who wrote: 'And this is to say, to warn against a lack of knowledge, that only married people fulfill sending portions and gifts to the poor — but behold, every person is obligated from age 13 and up, and words of tradition are like Torah law, and one needs only two portions to a person in a measure of a k'zayis for each portion'.
However, the Acharonim wrote that one needs an honorable gift, as the Pri Megadim wrote in his sefer Rosh Yosef8: 'And it appears that the measure of mishloach manos is according to the measure fitting to honor one's fellow in that city, [that is] enough'. And he referenced this in OC Mishbetzos Zahav9: 'It implies that it be fit to be presented [with honor] according to the place and the time, and in our novellae we wrote about this'10.
And so too the Chida brought11: 'Two portions etc. The essence of the mitzvah is that the portions be of precious value and pleasant. Sdeh Yehoshua Megillah folio "tuv", in the name of the Maharanach.'
The Aruch HaShulchan too12 wrote: 'It further appears to me that in this a k'zayis or a revi'is does not suffice, for a fine portion is required, for this is the meaning of "portions", like the matter of "a piece fit to be presented [with honor]", that it be a significant thing; and those who send small pieces have not fulfilled their obligation.'
But in the Eshel Avraham13 he was in doubt about this and wrote: 'Regarding the measure of mishloach manos, I am in doubt whether its measure is, in food, a k'zayis, and in drink, a revi'is; or its measure is worth a perutah; or its measure is what is fit to be presented before a guest, according to the manner of the minhag of each place. And if the measure is a k'zayis, there is room to consider whether one fulfills his obligation with a whole [small] creature, since there is an aspect [that] it is considered [significant] for an after-bracha, with a k'zayis. Also I need to study whether that which one sends to several people, to each one less than the [required] measure, combines. And it seemingly inclines that regarding gifts to the poor the measure is a perutah, and regarding portions the measure is [what is] fit to be presented, or a k'zayis. And perhaps this is what Chazal said [Megillah 7b] "You have fulfilled with us, Rabbi, [the mitzvah of] sending portions and gifts etc.", which was because it was fit to be presented, and [was] more than a k'zayis and worth a perutah.'
So too the Rogatchover wrote, in his special style, that a significant portion is required, for such is the meaning of the word "portion", and this is his wording14: 'And there is also a practical difference, for behold an ordinary "gift" is a perutah, see... but a "portion" must be a thing more significant than this15 and see..'.
The Rebbe, in the sicha of 7 Adar Sheini 573616, mentioned regarding mishloach manos that they had already packed the packages for sending and had prepared extremely small portions, and the Rebbe brought the aforementioned words of the Rogatchover, who proved from several places in Shas and the commentators on the Gemara that the portions must be a significant thing; and the Rebbe added that although in significance there are several levels according to the giver and the recipient, since it is difficult to limit a community that they would need to begin measuring significance, therefore most of the Acharonim wrote that it should be at least a k'zayis, and since there are two portions, if possible each of the portions should be a k'zayis, and likewise if possible they should be in a measure worth two perutos, and in a case of pressing need one may make do with the two of them together being a perutah17, but that in any case the portions must be significant. And the Rebbe added that in the case there, since they had already packed the packages, they should at least add more to the packages so that there be at least, in a pressed manner, a k'zayis in each portion18.
Thus we have seen that the poskim wrote that the portions must be significant, and some wrote19 that they be a portion fit to be presented; and regarding the measure, ideally one needs there to be at least a k'zayis in each portion, and at the very least a k'zayis in the two portions together. And likewise one should endeavor that each portion be worth a perutah, and at the very least that the two of them together be worth a perutah (and therefore one can enable Jews to fulfill the mitzvah even with a small thing).
--------------
Notes:
1 Megillah 7a ↩
2 See the discussion of his words, and of the subject in general, in Chazon Ovadia Purim, laws of mishloach manos note 16 ↩
3 The Chayei Adam klal 155 se'if 31 wrote: 'This implies that if one sends an inferior thing to a wealthy person he does not fulfill mishloach manos thereby'. And it appears from his words that one needs something significant to the recipient. His words are cited in Biur Halacha siman 695 s.v. 'chayav', and he concludes: 'Indeed, the other poskim did not mention this matter, and it is proper to be careful about it ideally'. But see Tzitz Eliezer vol. 8 siman 14, who wondered at their words. And he further wrote there: 'And it arises in my mind to say that whether we look at this according to the wealth of the giver or the wealth of the recipient depends on the two reasons that exist in the mitzvah of mishloach manos .. for if we say like the reason of the Terumas HaDeshen, that it is for the relief of the recipient, then the matter depends primarily on the status of the recipient, and if the recipient is wealthy he has no real benefit from such an inferior gift; but if he is poor, then even though the giver is wealthy, nevertheless the recipient, according to his status, has benefit even from such a gift, and therefore the giver properly fulfills mishloach manos thereby even though he is wealthy. But if we say like the reason of the author of Manos HaLevi, that it is in order to increase peace and friendship, the opposite of the way of the adversary who said 'scattered and dispersed', that is, so that the giver show his affection to the recipient thereby, then the matter depends primarily on the status of the giver, and if he is wealthy, then when he gives a small gift there is not enough in it to show real brotherhood and friendship and affection; and according to this the words of the Chayei Adam, as they are before us, would be upheld by reasoning, and likewise the words of the Mishnah Berurah, according to the reason of the author of Manos HaLevi'. However, in Chazon Ovadia there he wrote that even according to the view of the Terumas HaDeshen one could say that everything depends on the giver ↩
4 Vol. 1 OC p. 158 matter 4 ↩
5 But see Mekor Chaim (Bacharach), who wrote: 'In the Kitzur Shlah folio 77c [there s.v. 'ul'inyan'] that the mishloach manos should be worth a perutah, and I do not know from where he [derived] it, for it is more fitting to say so regarding gifts to the poor'. And see regarding the perutah in the words of the Eshel Avraham below, and in the sicha of 7 Adar 5736 below ↩
6 Vol. 1 Megillah 7a ↩
7 By Rabbi Aharon Wormser - Od LaMoed folio 129a ↩
8 Megillah 7a ↩
9 Siman 695 s.k. 4 ↩
10 And see Tzitz Eliezer, who brought that so it is implied from the sefer Korban Mincha by Mahar"i Chagiz z"l os 385, who wrote: 'If so, the thigh is considered as two, since it is fit to be divided into two and to be presented with each one before the guests, and a jug of wine has enough to be divided into two' ↩
11 Birkei Yosef OC siman 695 s.k. 4 ↩
12 OC siman 695 se'if 15 ↩
13 (Buchach) siman 695 ↩
14 Tzafnas Paneach Hilchos Megillah 2:15 ↩
15 To note from the words of the Maharsha above ↩
16 Sichos Kodesh vol. 1 p. 565 ↩
17 In the sicha the Rebbe said that certainly together they should be worth at least a perutah, only that on account of the drop in prices it is possible [that they be] even less than the worth of a perutah. And see Leket Yosher above ↩
18 And see also the letter from the Rebbe's secretariat, printed in Igros Kodesh vol. 20 p. 177, regarding boys and girls, in which it is written that they should be explained *that one can easily fulfill the mitzvah of mishloach manos with an apple and a candy, or a cake and a drink* ↩
19 And see Tzitz Eliezer vol. 14 siman 65: 'It appears to me that the fixed measure for a portion is that there be in each of them a measure of three eggs' worth of bread, which is the measure of a seudah' ↩
[9] (Halacha 505)
Question: Is there value in increasing mishloach manos, or is it enough that a person gives to one friend?
Answer: We saw that a person fulfills the obligation even when he gives a sending to one person that includes two portions, but nevertheless we find in the words of the poskim that it is fitting to increase, as the Rambam wrote1: 'A person is obligated to send two portions of meat or two kinds of cooked dish or two kinds of food to his fellow, as it is said "and sending portions one to another" — two portions to one person, and whoever increases in sending to friends is praiseworthy'.
And so wrote Piskei Riaz2: 'To send portions one to another, written in the Megillah — one is obligated to send two portions to one person; and gifts to the poor — one is obligated to give two gifts to two poor people, and whoever increases in these matters, each according to his ability, is praiseworthy'.
The Mechaber3 brought the words of the Rambam as halacha: 'One is obligated to send his fellow two portions of meat or of kinds of food, as it is said: "and sending portions one to another" — two portions to one person. And whoever increases in sending to friends is praiseworthy'.
However, we do not find explicitly in the poskim what the measure of the "increasing" is, but some wrote4 that perhaps one can learn this from the law of the obligation of mishloach manos that we find regarding a mourner, mentioned above [lit. as follows], and as [explained] below:
The Rishonim disagreed as to whether a mourner is obligated in mishloach manos. The Riaz5 wrote: 'And so it appears to me that a mourner is obligated in gifts to the poor and exempt from mishloach manos, and after the [first] seven [days] he sends discreetly to one of his close ones or to one of the poor, as it is written "and send portions to those for whom nothing is prepared".'
But the Tur6 wrote: 'And the R"m of Rothenburg wrote that one does not nullify mourning, and nevertheless mourning does not apply to them [the mourners] on the 14th or the 15th except for matters that are discreet, and after he prays in the house of the mourner on the night of Purim, he goes to the shul to hear the reading of the Megillah, and he is obligated to send portions'.
And so ruled the Mechaber in Shulchan Aruch OC7: 'There is one who says that a mourner is obligated to send portions.' And in Shulchan Aruch YD8: 'And he is obligated to send portions.'
However, the poskim wrote9 that a mourner may not send more than the measure of the obligation, and therefore some wrote that a mourner may send only to one person, as the Ben Ish Chai wrote10: 'But within the 12 months [of mourning] for a father or a mother, one should fulfill mishloach manos, but should not send to many people, rather one should fulfill this mitzvah with one person specifically, and to him others should not send at all.'
But we find an additional opinion among the Rishonim, who cited the R"m of Rothenburg that is in the Tur with an addition, that he should send to two or three people, as it is written in the Hagahos Maimoniyos11, and Sefer HaParnes12 in the name of the R"m of Rothenburg: 'And regarding sending portions it appears that it is permitted, and on the contrary, he is obligated to send portions to two or three of his friends, for a mourner is obligated in all the mitzvos stated in the Torah.'
And so wrote the Maharil13: 'And the Maharam instituted in Rothenburg for a mourner .. but he is obligated to send portions to two or three people, for he is obligated in all the mitzvos.' And so wrote in Leket Yosher14: 'And he must send portions to two or three people, and so I found in the Alfasi [at the end of Moed Katan], and on the contrary, he is obligated to send to three or two, for a mourner is obligated in all the mitzvos'.
And based on this we find among several of the great ones of Israel who were careful to send mishloach manos to three people, as is brought in Darkei Chaim VeShalom15 regarding the conduct of the holy Rebbe the Minchas Elazar of Munkatch: 'The mitzvah of mishloach manos he would fulfill even before the shacharis tefillah, sending at least to three significant people.'
And likewise in the Siddur HaGeonim VeHaMekubalim16 it is brought in the minhogim of the holy Rebbe Mahar"a of Belz: 'He would send to three poor people two kinds of food — a whole fowl and a large piece of fish.'
And so the Rebbe related17 regarding the mishloach manos of the Rebbe Rayatz: 'He gave the three of us mishloach manos', (and the editors noted that perhaps the intent is to the Rebbe and his brothers-in-law the Rashag and R. M.M. Horenstein).
And so too it is brought in Sefer HaMinhagim18 in the minhogim of the Rebbe19: 'Mishloach manos to three people (food and drink)'. And so in practice the Rebbe sent to three (a kohen, a levi, and a yisrael)20.
Notes:
1 Hilchos Megillah 2:15 ↩
2 Megillah ch. 1 halacha 2, 3 ↩
3 Shulchan Aruch OC siman 695 se'if 4 ↩
4 See Nitei Gavriel Purim ch. 78 note 19. Orchos Menachem Adar - Purim p. 128 note 58 ↩
5 Cited in Shiltei HaGiborim Moed Katan 17b of the Rif pagination ↩
6 OC siman 696. And in YD siman 401 ↩
7 Siman 696 se'if 6 ↩
8 Siman 401 se'if 7 ↩
9 Pri Megadim in Responsa Megidos siman 58 ↩
10 Year 1 Purim din 18 ↩
11 Responsa at the end of Sefer Shoftim ↩
12 Siman 269 ↩
13 Minhagim, Hilchos Purim ↩
14 OC p. 156 ↩
15 Os 849 ↩
16 Vol. 17 Purim siman 17 os 7 p. 334 ↩
17 Toras Menachem - Reshimos HaYoman p. 395 ↩
18 P. 74 ↩
19 In note 15 it is written regarding all these minhogim: 'It is understood that this is not a directive for the public', however see Sefer Minhagei HaRebbeim in the introduction siman 5 os 5, and this is not the place to elaborate ↩
20 Maaseh Melech p. 322 and note 20. Orchos Menachem there ↩
[10] (Halacha 507)
Question: It is brought in Sefer HaMinhagim Sefer HaMinhagim¹: 'Mishloach manos to three people (food and drink)', and so too it is brought regarding the mishloach manos of the Rebbe the Tzemach Tzedek², and of the Rebbe³ that the sending included food and drink — what is the source for this?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Megillah1 says: 'Rabbi Yehuda Nesia sent to Rabbi Oshaya the thigh of a third-born calf and a jug of wine, [and] he sent him "You have fulfilled with us, Rabbi, [the mitzvah of] sending portions one to another and gifts to the poor".'
And some learned from the words of the Gemara that one can fulfill mishloach manos with a drink, as the Shlah wrote2: 'And to me it seems that this needs no [further] explanation, for it is an explicit Gemara in the first chapter of Megillah, where we read there .. Rabbi Yehuda sent Rabbi Oshaya the thigh of a third-born calf and three jugs of wine, [and] he sent him "You have fulfilled with us, Rabbi, [the mitzvah of] sending portions" etc., end of the Gemara there. (End of the Emek Bracha.)'
And so wrote the Taz3: 'And drink is included in eating; so wrote the Terumas HaDeshen siman 111. And it is an explicit Gemara in Megillah folio 4 regarding a jug of wine, see there.' And so it appears from the words of several Rishonim on the words of the Gemara4.
And the Terumas HaDeshen wrote5: 'And further it appears that we do not find anywhere that anything is called "portions" except something eaten or drunk. And so the Rambam was precise in his wording, writing "and he is obligated to send two portions of meat or two kinds of cooked dish or two kinds of food", and it appears that drink is included in eating'.
And so it is brought in Minhagei Maharil, Hilchos Purim: 'Mahar"i Segal said that it is good to send Purim portions specifically of kinds of food or drink ..'.
And so wrote in Leket Yosher6: 'And I recall that there was a minhag in Austria that each one sends the whole community a piece of fish and wine in a vessel. [And sometimes one would vary and send wine and sugar, or spices, or small live fish in a glass full of water] .. and the whole community sent them a piece of fish and wine in a vessel.'
And so ruled the Magen Avraham7. And so wrote the Mishnah Berurah8: 'And the same applies to drink, which is proper, for drink is included in eating; and likewise it suffices with one food and one drink'.
And the Eshel Avraham (of Buchach) wrote9: 'And likewise with drink, the measure of drink is [that] when one honors another with a drink, it is [considered] a portion.'
And to note from what Rav Eliezer Arlozorov wrote there: 'And perhaps one could say that a sealed vessel of drink is [considered] fit to be presented on account of its significance, similar to that of sealed barrels, which are not nullified on account of their significance. And one may explain thus the Yerushalmi, that at first he sent him a flask of wine — that is, an open vessel — and said that it is [only] gifts to the poor and not portions, and then he sent a jug, that is, a sealed barrel, and it is a [proper] portion. And so I saw that the Rebbe, the author of the Tzemach Tzedek zy"a, wrote to the holy Gaon Mahar"r Nechemia zy"a, the author of Divrei Nechemia, that the second portion he was sending him was a bottle of grape-wine, and one could say that the intent is that a bottle of grape-wine is like a sealed barrel.'
Thus in practice the decision of the poskim is that a drink is considered a portion in mishloach manos, and so too is the established practice of our Rebbeim, our leaders.
★ ★ ★
Question: Does a fruit count as a portion for mishloach manos?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Megillah10 says: 'Rabbah sent Mari bar Mar, by the hand of Abaye, a basket full of "kashva" [a sack full of dates. Rashi] and a cup full of roasted flour.' From the words of the Gemara we see that Rabbah sent, in mishloach manos, as one portion — dates.
And in Leket Yosher11 it is brought: 'And he said that a person fulfills [the obligation] if he sent his fellow on Purim one fig and one date, even though the two of them are not worth one perutah'. That is, from his words we see that one can fulfill with two portions of fruits.
And the Pri Megadim wrote in Rosh Yosef12: 'Now, in the Rambam z"l ch. 2 of Megillah 2:15, "one is obligated to send two portions of meat or kinds of food", there is no proof to say that if one sent two fruits of one kind he has not fulfilled; and in siman 695 in the Magen Avraham and Taz it is explained that drink is included in eating, and from here [we learn] that he sent him a jug of wine; and the Magen Avraham there wrote in os 11 [that it must be] specifically cooked [foods] fit for eating (and the same applies to fruits that are good raw)'.
And in the Eshel Avraham there he wrote: 'And perhaps a fruit of any [small] amount has significance, similar to a whole creature, which is not nullified on account of significance.'
And so we find in the letter from the Rebbe's secretariat13 regarding boys and girls, that they should be explained that one can easily fulfill the mitzvah of mishloach manos with an apple and a candy, or a cake and a drink.
Thus a raw fruit too is considered a portion in mishloach manos.
--------------
Notes:
1 P. 74 ↩
2 Otzar Minhagei Chabad p. 273. From the responsum of Rav Eliezer Arlozorov printed in Yagdil Torah Jerusalem issue 13 os 16 ↩
3 Maaseh Melech p. 322. Orchos Menachem Purim p. 130 ↩
4 7a ↩
5 Maseches Megillah ↩
6 OC siman 695 s.k. 4. And so wrote the Pri Chadash and the Mekor Chaim there ↩
7 See Ran and Nimukei Yosef. And although some wrote that from the reading of the Rabbeinu Chananel there in the Gemara it appears that one does not fulfill the obligation with wine, see the responsum of Rav Eliezer Arlozorov there, Responsa Afarkasta D'Anya siman 25, and Responsa Beis Avi siman 103 os 2. But see what is written to answer this in Tzitz Eliezer vol. 8 siman 14 os 6. Chazon Ovadia Purim, laws of mishloach manos note 9. And Gilyon HaTmim Adar 5761 p. 25 onward ↩
8 Siman 111 ↩
9 Vol. 1 OC p. 158 matter 5 ↩
10 OC siman 695 s.k. 11 ↩
11 There s.k. 20 ↩
12 Siman 695 ↩
13 7b ↩
From the project 'Shoneh Halacha' - A Daily Halacha with Reasons and Sources
Link to the (quiet) group: 'Shoneh Halacha - Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp Group