Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

All healthy adult men and women

lt appears that the Rambam considers these fasts to be obligatory in the present era. Based on his interpretation of Rosh HaShanah 18b in his Commentary on the Mishnah, Rosh HaShanah 1:3, the Rambam explains that in the era of the Second Temple, these fasts were of an optional nature. After the destruction of the Temple, however, every Jew is required to observe them. This obligation is also explicitly stated by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 549:1, 550:1).

Here, the Rambam employs the same principle he developed at the beginning of this text regarding fasts instituted because of difficulties of an immediate nature, with regard to these f asts which were instituted f or these national calamities.
Fasting in and of itself is not a purpose. Fasting can, however, serve

This is the intent of the fasts, and not merely refraining from eating. For this reason, the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 121:1 harshly reproves those who fast, but spend their days taking pleasure strolls and being involved in other forms of leisure activity.

Although these tragedies took place in previous generations, we share the responsibility for them. The Jerusalem Talmud (Yoma 1:1) states, “Every generation in which the Temple is not rebuilt should consider it as if it was destroyed in its days.”

The word נָשׁוּב, translated as “we will repent,” literally means, “We will return.” Teshuvah involves a return to one’s fundamental self, becoming aware of the fundamental Divine nature one possesses.
Such a process relates to these commemorative fasts, which on the surface are associated with undesirable elements, but possess a positive core, as reflected in the Rambam’s statements at the conclusion of this chapter that in the era of the Redemption, all these fast days will be transformed into days of rejoicing and celebration.

See Hilchot Teshuvah 1:1-2, 2:2, where the Rambam associates the mitzvah of teshuvah with conf ession.

The Rambam lists these fasts, not in the order in which the events which they commemorate transpired, nor according to the order in which they are mentioned in Zechariah 8:19 (see Halachah 4), but rather in the order of the year, beginning f rom the month of Tishrei.

The governor appointed by Nebuchadnezzar to supervise the land of Judah. The Jews who were not exiled rallied around him, and it appeared that there would be hope of maintaining a Jewish settlement in the land (Jeremiah, Chapters 40-41).

According to the Radak (Jeremiah 41:1), Gedaliah was slain on Rosh HaShanah. Because a fast could not be held on that sacred day, the commemoration of his murder was postponed until the first available weekday.

After Gedaliah’s murder, the Jews remaining in Eretz Yisrael feared the wrath of the Babylonians and fled to Egypt, leaving Eretz Yisrael devoid of Jewish leadership and possessing very few Jewish inhabitants. (See Jeremiah, Chapters 41-43.)

The Hebrew term ךמס, which the Rambam [and the prophet Ezekiel (24:2)] employ, usually has a positive connotation, meaning “support.” Perhaps this is also an allusion to the concept that ultimately these commemorative fasts have a positive intent, as mentioned at the conclusion of the chapter.

Our commemoration of this fast also marks two other undesirable events which occurred in the preceding days: the death of Ezra, the scribe, and the translation of the Torah into Greek at the demand of King Ptolemy (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 580).

Ta’anit 29a states: Undesirable events are gathered together on a day appropriate for them. The spiritual nature of the day is such, that the potential f or such tragedies to occur is greater.

When Moses descended with the Tablets of the Ten Commandments after being on Mount Sinai for forty days, he beheld the Golden Calf that the Jews had made. In wrath, or out of his concern for the Jewish people (see Rashi, Exodus 32:19), Moses broke the Tablets.

The korban tamid (Numbers 28:1-8)

Even during the siege of Jerusalem, the Jews would offer the daily sacrifices. Despite the famine in the city, they would off er two lambs each day as sacrifices. As the siege persisted, their supply of lambs dwindled, and on the Seventeenth of Tammuz, there no longer were any lambs to sacrifice (Rav Ovadiah of Bertinoro, Ta’anit 4:6).
Significantly, other commentaries (Rashi, Tiferet Yisrael) on the Mishnah identify the nullification of the sacrifices on the Seventeenth of Tammuz with different events in our history.

Jeremiah 39:2 states that in the destruction of the First Temple, Jerusalem’s walls fell to the Babylonian conquerors on the ninth of Tamrnuz. Nevertheless, it is the destruction of the city by the Romans that we commemorate by fasting, because the effects of that destruction are more severe (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 549:2). The Rabbis did not institute a fast for the Ninth of Tammuz as well, for it was felt that this would be an excessive burden for the people (Mishnah Berurah 549:4).
Furthermore, according to the Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anit 4:8, because of the many difficulties suffered by the Jewish people, they miscalculated the date, and, even during the destruction of the First Temple, it was on the Seventeenth of Tammuz that Jerusalem’s walls were breached.

A Greek official in the Second Temple era (Rav Ovadiah of Bartinoro).

The Meiri identifies this as the Torah scroll written by Ezra the Scribe. This scroll was kept in the Temple Courtyard and was used to check the precision of the other scrolls. ln this manner, he attempted to undermine the entire Torah tradition.

Apostmos

Others interpret this as a reference to the idol erected by King Menasheh in the First Temple. (See the Jerusalem Talmud, Ta’anit 4:6.)

Here, also, we see the reflection of the concept mentioned above, that undesirable events are gathered together on a day appropriate f or them.

The spies sent by Moses returned to him on the eighth of A v, bearing a malicious report about Eretz Yisrael. That night the Jewish people wept, fearful about their future. God told them, “Tonight, you have wept without reason. 1 will designate this night as a night of weeping for generations” (Ta’anit 29a).

Ta’anit 29a reconciles a seeming contradiction in chronology between 11 Kings 25:8-9 and Jeremiah 52:12-13, explaining that the Babylonians first entered the Temple on the seventh of Av. They reveled and wrought havoc there until the afternoon of the ninth of Av, when they set fire to the building. The fire continued burning throughout the tenth of Av.
The Sages (ibid) do not cite a specific source for the tradition that the Second Temple was also destroyed on that day. Nevertheless, the tradition is universally accepted.

This was Bar Kochba’s capital in his war against the Romans, 52 years after the destruction of the Temple.

See the Rambam’s comments concerning Bar Kochva, Hilchot Melachim 11:3.

The extent of the carnage that accompanied Betar’s fall was awesome. Gittin 57a states that rivers of blood flowed
nto the Mediterranean Sea, forty miles away.

A Roman officer.

According to Ta’anit 29a, this took place while Rabban Gamliel was living, shortly after the destruction of the Temple.

The citation of this prophecy communicates a fundamental point: that the destruction of Jerusalem was not an end in its own right. Just as a field is plowed to produce crops, Jerusalem was plowed to allow the city to blossom into its ultirnate fulfillment in the era of the Redemption.

In this verse and in the Rambam’s reference to it, the months are counted from Nisan onward.

Zechariah lived after the destruction of the First Temple and is referring to the fasts instituted because of its destruction. Accordingly, the fast of Tarnmuz in his tirne was the on ninth of the rnonth, as rnentioned above. The Rambarn mentions it as referring to the seventeenth, because this is when the fast of the breaching of the city’s walls is observed at present.

Note the positive references to this prophecy at the conclusion of the chapter.

The Maggid Mishneh interprets this phrase to mean that our obligation to fast on these days is a custom accepted by the Jewish people after the destruction of the Second Temple. As mentioned above, others interpret this obligation as stemming from the exegesis of the verse from Zechariah mentioned in the previous halachah, as found in Rosh HaShanah 18b.
Our translation follows the standard published texts of the Mishneh Torah. Many authoritative manuscripts make a small change in the wording, which would cause the lines to be rendered as: “And in these times, the entire Jewish people follow the custom of fasting on the Thirteenth of Adar.”

The Rabbis question precisely which fasts are being commemorated. Some maintain that since the Thirteenth of Adar was a day of battle on which the Jews waged war against their enemies, they fasted at that time to arouse Divine mercy (Maggid Mishneh). Others maintain that it is improper to fast in a time of war, lest this sap one’s strength, and instead the Jews merely vowed to fast, but conducted the actual fasts at a later time.
A third opinion maintains that this ref ers to the three-day fast that Esther called bef ore approaching Achashverosh. Although this fast was held in the month of Nisan, it is commemorated in connection with the Purim holiday.

The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 141:2 writes that the commemoration of this fast makes us conscious of how God “hears each person’s prayer in his time of distress when he fasts and repents ... as He did on behalf of our ancestors in those days.”
The fast of the Thirteenth of Adar is also referred to as Ta’anit Esther, “the fast of Esther.”
When the fast of Esther became a formal part of Jewish observance is a matter of question. It is not mentioned in the Talmud. Furthermore, Megillat Ta’anit, a text which mentions all the fasts and festivals observed in the Talmudic era, does not mention this fast and speaks of the thirteenth of Adar, the day on which the fasi of Esther is observed, as a day of celebration, the Day of Nicanor, marking the defeat of the Greek general of that name in the Hasmonean wars. It was not until after the destruction of the Temple that the observance of the dates mentioned in Megillat Ta’anit was nullified. This would appear to indicate that the observance of the Fast of Esther was of later origin.
In contrast, there is evidence pointing to the establishment of the Fast of Esther early in the Talmudic period. The Sheiltot of Rav Achai Gaon, Parshat Vayakhel 67, speak of the observance of the Fast of Esther in the time of the Mishnah. Even if this teaching is not accepted as historical fact, we can glean from it that in Rav Achai’s time, shortly after the conclusion of the Talmud, the fast was already a long-standing custom.
Significantly, because of the difference in status between it and the other commemorative fasts, the Ramah ( Orach Chayim 686:2) rules far more leniently in regard to this fast than in regard to the others.

lt is not postponed until after the Sabbath, because Purim is Sunday and the celebration of Purim cannot be postponed. Nor is it appropriate to hold this fast after Purim.

As the Rambam mentions, if the date of a commemorative fast falls on Friday, the fast is held on that day. Nevertheless, it is improper for a fast that is not scheduled for such a day to be held then, since this is not proper reverence for the Sabbath (Maggid Mishneh).

Megillah 5a states that the rationale is “we do not bring close [the recollection of] Divine retribution.”

According to the fixed calendar we follow at present, this is a rare occurrence. Only the Tenth of Tevet (in the northern hernisphere a relatively short fast) can fall on Friday. Even this does not happen frequently.

These rneasures are taken only in tirnes of current distress.

Beginning Exodus 32:11.

See Hilchot Tefillah 13:18. As rnentioned there, on Tish’ah B’Av a different passage (beginning Deuteronorny 4:25) is read in the rnorning. Significantly, the Rarnbarn does not rnention the custorn of reciting the haftarah in the afternoon service.

Similarly, on these days, work, wearing shoes, washing, anointing oneself, and sexual relations are permitted (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 550:2).

Significantly, the Rarnbam does not mention any restrictions frorn the period beginning the Seventeenth of Tammuz. During this period, it is the Askenazic custom (see Ramah, Orach Chayim 551 :2,4; Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 122:1-3) to observe certain restrictions—e.g., prohibitions against rnarrying, against reciting the blessing Shehecheyanu, and against cutting one’s hair. From the beginning of Av, however, other restrictions are also added.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 551:1-2) state that the restrictions mentioned by the Rambam in Chapter 3, Halachah 8, are applicable during this period.

from the Sabbath before the fast onward. According to Ashkenazic custom, all the activities mentioned by the Rambam are f orbidden from Rosh Chodesh Av onward.

or to shave, even in a mannet permitted by halachic authorities (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 122:3)

it is customary to observe this prohibition even if one does not intend to wear the garment until after the fast (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 551 :3).

We have used a modern translation f or the Hebrew term נחוץ. In Talmudic times, it ref erred to smoothing out the creases of a garment with a flat stone (Aruch ).
The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 551 :3) also prohibits wearing clothes that are merely laundered, even if they have not been pressed. There are halachic authorities who will grant leniencies in this context with regard to underwear and the like.

Linen garments will not appear as distinguished after washing as those of other fabrics (Beit Yosef, Orach Chayim 551 ).

As mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 558:1) and commentaries, these and the f ollowing restrictions should be f ollowed f or a certain amount of time on the Tenth of Av, as well, to commemorate the fact that the Temple continued burning on that day as well.
According to the Ashkenazic custom, in which these practices are observed from Rosh Chodesh onward, there are certain leniencies, depending on one’s community, with regard to wearing laundered and pressed clothes on the Sabbath before Tish’ah B’Av.

or fowl. Bava Batra 60b states that it would have been proper for the Jews to refrain from eating meat and drinking wine at all times in mourning over the loss of the opportunity to partake of the sacrificial meat and the loss of the wine libations. The Sages felt, however, that such a decree would be too stringent f or the people to observe and hence, did not institute it.

The prohibition applies only to washing for pleasure. Needless to say, washing associated with a mitzvah—e.g., a woman in preparation for her ritual immersion or washing necessary for hygienic purposes—is permitted.

This custom has not been accepted throughout the Jewish community. Today, animals are slaughtered so that those who do not observe the restriction against eating meat will at least eat kosher meat, and so that meat will be available for others after the fast.
In contrast to the other commemorative fasts, because of the seriousness of our loss on that day and the repetition of this loss

mentioned in Halachot 10 and 11

Similarly, if one resolved to accept the fast beforehand, one may no longer eat (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Ta’anit 4:6). The Ramah ( Orach Chayim 553: 1) states that only when one makes a verbal statement to this effect is the resolution binding.

Shabbat 34b explains that the Sages were undecided whether this period of time, known as beyn hash’mashot, should be considered to be part of the night or the day. Hence, it is necessary to be stringent both at the entry and the departure of a day associated with halachic restrictions.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit., the Rambam writes that, as on Yom Kippur, we are obligated to include a certain portion of the previous day in all the restrictions observed on that day.
Significantly, some of the foremost commentators on the Mishneh Torah (the Maggid Mishneh and the Radbaz) either were not aware of this statement or maintained that the Rambam changed his mind on this issue, for they ruled that no such obligation applies in connection with Tish’ah B’Av. Their opinion is accepted as halachah at present (Mishnah Berurah 553:3).

the seudah hamafseket. Even a perspp. who does not observe the custom of refraining from these foods during the week of Tish’ah B’Av (or the Nine Days according to Ashkenazic custom), should refrain from partaking of them in this meal. This meal should be characterized by mourning and sadness, and these foods bring happiness.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 554:25) associates Ezekiel 32:27: “And their sins will be upon their bones” with eating meat and drinking wine at this meal.

For it has no alcoholic content, and will not lead to happiness.

The prohibition against eating meat was derived from the fact that with the Temple’s destruction, the sacrifices were nullified. Since no sacrificial meat could be eaten on the third day and afterwards, this restriction does not apply to such meat (Mishnah Berurah 552:5).
It must be emphasized that the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 552:2) and the later authorities explain that, at present, it is customary to refrain from partaking of even these f oods at this meal.

This restriction was instituted because when two or more dishes are served, a meal is considered important, and partaking of such a meal is inappropriate at this time (Rabbenu Asher).

need to observe the restrictions mentioned

The governing principle for this and the previous and following halachot is that unlike the meal before the fast on Yom Kippur, the meal before the fast of Tish’ah B’Av is somber in nature. The atmosphere of mourning that prevails throughout the fast has already begun, and theref ore, eating a normal meal should be out of the question.

For then, one is still far removed from the f ast itself.

the obligation to honor the Sabbath surpasses the need to commemorate the destruction of the Temple. Therefore,

There are some authorities (Hagahot Maimoniot) who recommend observing certain practices associated with mourning at the third Sabbath meal. Their opinions are not, however,. accepted as halachah.
There is, however, one aspect in which this third Sabbath meal differs from the way this meal is eaten throughout the year. Generally, we are allowed to continue this meal into the night. When the fast of Tish’ah B’Av begins on Sunday, however, we must cease eating at sunset. (See Ramah, Orach Chayim 552:10.)

since the observance of the fast is postponed, there is no need to minimize one’s Sabbath joy, and

Significantly, the Rambam does not mention any mourning rites in connection with such a day. In contrast, the decisions of the Ramah ( Orach Chayim 554: 19) reflect the f ollowing principles. All expressions of mourning that would be noticed by the public should be forbidden. Those practices of mourning which are private in nature—e.g., the prohibition of sexual relations—should be observed.

Ta’anit 30a,b describes Rabbi Yehudah bar Ilai as eating this meal in this fashion.

At present, our custom is to eat a filling meal in the late afternoon. Afterwards, shortly bef ore the fast, one eats a slight meal with bread and eggs dipped in ashes. Nevertheless, anyone who feels able to endure the fast when eating less is encouraged to do so. Three people should not sit together, so as not to become obligated in a zimun. (See Ramah, Orach Chayim 552:9; Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 123:3.)

although absolved from fasting on the other commemorative fasts

Needless to say, they or any other person who feels that fasting will threaten their health may eat and drink. (See Ramah, Orach Chayim 554:6.)

for the sake of pleasure. One may, however, wash one’s hands to remove filth or for ritual purposes. (See the Shulchan Aruch and.commentaries, Orach Chayim 544:9-10.)

Without any valid reason.

in contrast to anointment for hygienic or medicinal reasons

leather

is forbidden. One may, however, wear shoes made from other materials. Even leather shoes are permitted in certain instances. (See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 554:17.)

See Mishnah Berurah 554:37, where the question is raised whether one may touch one’s wife or not.

With this phrase, the Rambam refers the reader to his discussion of these prohibitions and the leniencies that may be granted in Hilchot Sh’vitat Asor.

The word “work” in this context does not refer to the thirty-nine labors prohibited on the Sabbath, but rather to concentrated activity that would distract one’s attention from mourning (Mishnah Berurah 554:43).

If, however, a person desires to refrain from working because of the unique nature of the day, he may.

The Mishnah Berurah 554:45 states that this is the custom in the Ashkenazic community at present.

For they should set examples to the people at large. Note the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Ta’anit 4:6, where he writes that “Performing work on this day is very disgraceful.”

Ta’anit 30b.

Rashi and Tosafot interpret this as referring to the work performed on Tish’ah B’Av itself. This interpretation is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 554:24).

Indeed, this applies also the people as a whole. Torah scholars are mentioned because they are expected to be more sensitive to the tragedy of our loss on Tish’ah B’Av.
The Rambam’s choice of wording is based on his interpretation of the Tosefta, Ta’anit 3:11, “Chaverim should not exchange greetings on Tish’ah B’Av,” for the term chaverim is often used as a reference to Torah scholars. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 554:20), however, interprets chaverim in its literal sense, that it means “friends.”

Nor should gifts or other social amenities be exchanged (Mishnah Berurah 554:41).

Nothing should be done to distract one’s attention from the loss.
With the above expression, the Rambam also explains the rationale for these laws. When the Sages ordained the commemoration of Tish’ah B’Av, they structured its observance to resemble Yom Kippur in certain contexts, and to resemble the laws of mourning in others.

lest he become upset, but this should be done

So that he also appreciates the nature of the day. See also Chapter 3, Halachah 8.

Because “the precepts of God ... make the heart glad” (Psalms 19:9). Even this joy is inappropriate on Tish’ah B’Av (Ta’anit 30a).

Torah works that are somber in nature—e.g.,

Which recounts his grief and suffering over the tribulations which beset him.

the Book of Lamentations for the Temple’s destruction. This text is read communally on Tish’ah B’Av and may be studied by individuals as well.

In addition, one may study the Talmudic passages describing the Temple’s destruction (from the chapter Hanezikin, Gittin, Chapter 5, in the Babylonian Talmud, and the last chapter of Ta’anit in the Jerusalem Talmud), the Midrashim on Eichah, the laws of Tish’ah B’Av, the laws of mourning, and other similar texts.
One should, however, recite all the passages from the Bible and the Talmud that are included in the daily prayer service.

for they also derive happiness from their study (Ta’anit, ibid. ).

A mourner does not wear tefillin on the first day of mourning (Hilchot Eivel 4:9). In particular, support for this custom is derived from Eichah 2: 1, which states, “He cast down the glory of Israel from the heaven to the earth.” “The glory of Israel” is a ref erence to tefillin.
The Rambam’s choice of wording appears to indicate that the arm tefillin may be worn. Similarly, he does not mention any change in practice regarding the tallit gadol. The custom at present in most communities (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 555:1) is not to wear tefillin—neither the head tefillin nor the arm tefillin—nor to wear the tallit gadol in the morning service. A tallit k’tan is worn, but a blessing is not recited over it.
For the afternoon service, the tallit gadol and both the head and arm tefillin are worn.

From Bava Batra 60b, one may inf er that this ref ers to the destruction of the Second Temple.

The Be’ur Halachah 560 cites texts which maintain that this prohibition applies only to a person’s private home, but not to synagogues or houses of study. These may be built ornately.

So that it will be noticed upon entry.

From the Rambam’s expression (which is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 560), it appears that even after leaving the square cubit space unpainted, one should not have ornate walls. The Tur ( Orach Chayim 560) differs, maintaining that if one leaves this space unpainted, one may decorate one’s walls as one desires. The Mishnah Berurah 560: 1 states that the Tur’s opinion may be f ollowed.
The latter text (560:2, as does the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 126:1) questions why the observance of this practice is not more widespread.

Note the Mishnah Berurah 560:5, which states that this applies even with regard to feasts served in association with a mitzvah—e.g., wedding feasts, bar-mitzvahs, and the like.

The Rabbis have also cited other reasons for women to be modest in their wearing of jewelry. (See Mishnah Berurah 560:8.)

Compare to Chapter 4, Halachah 1.

Although this custom is not observed in many places at present, it is customary for these reasons to break a glass under the wedding canopy (Ramah, Orach Chayim 560:2).

Thus, according to this opinion (which is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 560:3), listening to any music is forbidden. The Ramah, however, quotes several more lenient views. He concludes that “for the sake of a mitzvah—e.g., at a wedding feast—everything is permitted.” The meaning of “for the sake of a mitzvah” has been extended by contemporary authorities to include many different situations.

Significantly, Sotah 48a mentions this measure as having been ordained for the nullification of the Sanhedrin (lsrael’s High Court), and not for the destruction of the Temple.

In his responsa and in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Avot 1: 17), the Rambam criticizes most singing and music, without mentioning the obligation to mourn f or Jerusalem, because it caters to ma:n’s lust and material desires, rather than to his spiritual impulses.

The Maggid Mishneh emphasizes that this prohibition applies to brides and grooms, who must be reminded to minimize their rejoicing at this time of celebration, but not to other individuals at ordinary times.

According to Sotah 49b, this includes even a crown of flowers.

Note the Mishnah Berurah 460:18, which states that if the crown is made from fabric, it may have gold, silver, and jewels attached to it.

One of the most sensitive differences of opinion in the religious community in Eretz Yisrael at present revolves around this law. The Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 561) states that the obligation to rend one’s garments applies only when Eretz Yisrael is under gentile rule. The question is whether the establishment of a secular Jewish state is sufficient to have this obligation nullified or not.

In Hilchot Eivel 9:10, the Rambam mentions this obligation, and as a proof-text cites Jeremiah 41:5, “And eighty men from Shechem, Shiloh, and Shomron came with their beards shaven and their garments rent.” The commentaries on this verse explain that these measures were taken in mourning over the Temple.

Even if a person sees the cities of Judah, Jerusalem, and the site of the Temple on the same journey, he is obligated to rend his clothes three times. The Maggid Mishneh emphasizes, however, that the converse is not true. If one sees Jerusalem bef ore any other city and rends one’s garments on its behalf, there is no need to rend one’s garments for the other cities (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 561:3).

The Bayit Chadash (Orach Chayim 561) emphasizes how one should prostrate oneself in mourning, overcome with grief at the sight of this holy place in ruins.
The Mishnah Berurah 561:5 emphasizes that this refers to seeing the Temple from afar. It is forbidden to enter the Temple Mount itself, because we are all ritually impure, and the sanctity of that holy place is still intact. (See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:16.)

This refers to a point from which one could see the Jerusalem of the Biblical and Talmudic eras. The location of the present city is slightly different. Tzofim is not identical with present-day Mount Scopus.

A parallel exists in the laws of mourning. If one parent dies after one has rent one’s garment over the passing of another relativ, it is not sufficient merely to add slightly to the tear; one must rend the garment a second time (Hilchot Eivel 8:10). Here also we see a parallel in the laws of mourning. lf one hears of the death of a relative other than a parent after one has rent a garment over the passing of another relative, all that is necessary is to add slightly to the tear (ibid ). If one encountered the Temple first, because one came from the desert, one should rend one’s garments because of the Temple, and add to the tear because of Jerusalem.Here also we see a parallel in the laws of mourning. lf one hears of the death of a relative other than a parent after one has rent a garment over the passing of another relative, all that is necessary is to add slightly to the tear (ibid ).

As mentioned in Hilchot Eivel 9:2, the Rambam equates the obligation to rend one’s garments over the cities of Judah, Jerusalem, and the Temple with the obligation to rend one’s garments over one’s parent’s death. In mourning over others, one may cut one’s garments with a utensil (loc. cit. 8:2). For one’s parents and in these situations, the tear must be made with one’s hands (loc. cit .. 8:3).
Significantly, the Ra’avad objects to a complete equation between seeing these sites in destruction and one’s parent’s death, and therefore maintains that there is no obligation to rend one’s garments with one’s hands and reveal one’s heart. The later halachic authorities, however, do not accept his ruling.

Whenever one is required to rend one’s garments, one must stand (loc. cit. 8: 1).

In mourning over others, one need not rend one’s garments more than a handbreadth (loc. cit. 8:2). For one’s parents and in these situations, one must continue tearing until one’s heart is revealed (loc. cit. 8:3, 9:3).

This refers to a usual pattern of stitching, which does not make it obvious that the garment had been rent. If one rends a garment using a less perfect method of sewing, it is permitted, as explained below.
The prohibition against mending one’s garments in this manner applies in these instances and for one’s parents. When mourning the passing of others, one may mend the garment afterwards (loc. cit. 9: 1 ).

At present, rather than rend one’s garments every time one comes to Jerusalem, it is customary to sell one’s garments to another person, so that it would be forbidden to tear them (see loc. cit. 8:7).

There is no possibility for the existence of an entity that is genuinely negative in nature. All those factors that appear negative represent hidden good, and furthermore, a good so powerful that the only way it can be revealed in this world is through qualities that outwardly appear negative. Their inner nature, however, is good, and in the era of the redemption when the world will be refined to the extent that it can accept this great good, this nature will be revealed.

Note the interpretation of this verse in the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, and the introduction to the tractate of Avot (Shemonah Perakim), Chapter 4. There the Rambam elaborates on how, instead of asceticism and fasting, God desires intellectual development (“truth”) and emotional harmony (“peace”).
From a different perspective, it can be understood that by quoting the conclusion of the verse, the prophet was also alluding to the means by which the Messianic redemption—and thus the transformation of these fasts—could be brought closer.
Yoma 9b relates that the Temple was destroyed because of unwarranted hatred among the Jewish people. By spreading peace and truth, we will nullify the cause for the exile, and this will cause the effect, the exile itself, also to cease (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 15, pp. 415ff.).

In his introduction to Sefer HaMitzvot (General Principle 1), the Rambam explains that any mitzvah that was ordained after the giving of the Torah to Moses is considered to be Rabbinic in origin. Even though the reading of the Megillah is alluded to in one of the books of the Bible, it is still included in this category. (See also Kessef Mishneh, Chapter 3, Halachah 6.)

See Halachot 4-9.

Megillah 2a states that the Anshei K’nesset HaGedolah (the Men of the Great Assembly), the court convened by Ezra which established all the norms of Jewish practice after the return to Zion, were the ones who ordained the teading of the Megillah. That body included several prophets: Chaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (see also the Rambam’s introduction to the Mishneh Torah ).
The Jerusalem Talmud (Megillah 1:5) states that 85 sages, including more than 30 prophets, ratified Esther’s request that the reading of the Megillah be accepted as an annual obligation. Commenting on Esther 9:27, “they confirmed and they accepted upon themselves,” Megillah 7a comments, ‘”they’ (the Heavenly Court) confirmed what ‘they’ (the sages and the prophets) accepted upon themselves.

Although a person can fulfill his obligation by listening to a reading from another person, the obligation is to read the Megillah. This is reflected in the blessing, which mentions “the reading of the Megillah. ‘’ Note the contrast to the mitzvah of hearing the blowing of the shofar.

Although women are generally free from the obligation to observe positive mitzvot that are associated with a specific time, an exception is made with regard to this mitzvah, because “they were also included in this miracle” (Arachin 3a); i.e., Haman’s decree also included the women, and the salvation of the Jewish people was brought about by Esther, a woman.
lt must be noted that there is extensive discussion of the nature of a woman’s obligation. The Halachot Gedolot writes that women are obligated to hear the Megillah, but not to read it. In def erence to this opinion, the later authorities suggest that a woman should endeavor to fulfill her obligation by listening to the Megillah read by another person instead of reading the Megillah herself.

The Tzafnat Paneach explains that it is necessary to mention converts, because—in contrast to native-born Jews—the miracle did not involve their ancestors. . As a proof-text, he cites Esther 9:27, which mentions the acceptance of Purim by “all those who gather to [the Jews].”

There are authorities who seek to amend the text and render the latter term as “slaves,” explaining that mentioning both converts and freed slaves is redundant, because their status is the same. The accepted view, however, is to read the text as it stands. (See Radbaz, Vol. V, Responsa 1417 and 1497.) The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 689:1) quotes the Rambam’s text as it is cited here. The Magen Avraham 689:2 cites the other view.

both males and females (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 689:6). The commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch emphasize the importance of each parent’s disciplining his children and helping to maintain order in the synagogue. (See Mishnah Berurah 689:17-18.)

Here, the intent is only that they should delay their service to hear the Megillah reading. Listening to this reading should not prevent them from offering the daily sacrifices.

whether by a single individual or a group of people

This law teaches us an interesting concept. Reading the Megillah is also considered Torah study, for it is one of the 24 books of the Bible. Nevertheless, for a person who is capable of deeper and more intensive study, such reading is considered to be the neglect of Torah study.
The reading of the Megillah is given priority over Torah study, and similarly, over the observance of the other mitzvot, because it is associated with pirsumei nisa, spreading awareness of God’s miracles (Megillah 3b ).

for Torah study takes precedence over the observance of all the mitzvot of the Torah (Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:3).

The Ramah (Orach Chayim 687:2) states that the observance of mitzvot that are commanded by the Torah itself should be postponed in deference to the mitzvah of reading the Megillah, but should not be nullified entirely. lf reading the Megillah will prevent one from fulfilling a mitzvah that one is commanded to observe by the Torah itself, the mitzvah frqm the Torah takes priority. Note the Mishnah Berurah 687:11, which quotes opinions that differ with the Ramah.

In Hilchot Eivel 3:8, the Rambam describes a meit mitzvah as a corpse abandoned on a road with no one to care for it.

For it is a disgrace to the deceased’s humanity to leave his corpse untended to. The Rambam’s choice of wording appears to indicate that in an ordinary situation, when a deceased person will be buried by his family and/ or the local burial society, the burial should be postponed until after the reading of the Megillah. The Ramah ( Orach Chayim 687:2, 696:7) differs, and maintains that even in ordinary situations, a burial should be given precedence over the reading of the Megillah.
The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 141:21 states that the burial should not be scheduled until after the completion of the prayers in the synagogue, but the mourners should not listen to tp.e Megillah until after the burial.
The Ramah (loc. cit.) also states that the burial of a meit mitzvah takes precedence over the reading of the Megillah only when one will be able to hear the Megillah afterwards. If, however, burying the corpse will prevent one from hearing the reading entirely, the burial should be postponed until afterwards. This ruling is not accepted, however, by all authorities (Mishnah Berurah 687:12).

Although the mitzvah is to read the Megillah as stated above, one may fulfill the mitzvah by listening to another person’s reading; there is no need to read oneself.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 690:14) states that when a person fulfills his obligation to read the Megillah by hearing another person’s reading, both the reader and the listener must have that intent in mind. Nevertheless, the reader need not have in mind each of his listeners individually. It is sufficient that he have the intention that anyone who hears his reading fulfills his obligation.

From the Rambam’s wording, it appears that a woman may read the Megillah for others. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 689:2), however, quotes opinions that differ as explained in the commentary to Halachah 1, and these latter views are generally accepted at present.

The source for this law, Megillah 2:4, also mentions a חרש, a deaf person. The Rambam’s omission of this factor is interpreted by the commentaries not to mean that a deaf person’s reading is acceptable, but as a practical point, because it is highly unlikely that such a person would serve as a reader. Indeed, this term is generally used to refer to a person who is both deaf and dumb.

The Mishnah Berurah 689:6 mentions certain opinions that maintain that since a child is obligated to read the Megillah in order to be trained in the observance of the mitzvot, and since the obligation to read the Megillah is only Rabbinic in origin, a child’s reading is acceptable.

Although the Mishnah (Megillah 2:3) mentions several opinions on the extent of the obligation to read the Megillah, the discussion of this issue in the Talmud (Megillah 19a) concludes with the ruling that the entire scroll must be read.

Megillah 4a states that this obligation was instituted because it is fitting at all times, day and night, to praise God for the miraculous salvation He wrought.
As mentioned in the discussion below of whether or not to recite the blessing Shehecheyanu during the day, there is a debate among the Rabbis as to whether these two obligations are of the same magnitude. Be’urei HaGra 692: 1 explains that, as obvious from the fact that it is not mentioned in the Mishnah (Megillah 2:6), the obligation to read the Megillah at night was a later institution.

From the appearance of the stars until dawn.

In his commentary on Megillah 2:4, the Rambam writes that although the day begins at dawn, all the mitzvot that must be performed during the daytime should, at the outset, be performed after sunrise. (Compare to Hilchot Milah 1:8.) This ruling is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 687:1).

In this context, the Mishnah (loc. cit.) mentions the general principle, “Any practice that is required to be observed during the day may be performed throughout the day; any practice that is required to be observed at night may be performed throughout the night.”

See the Introduction to Sefer HaMitzvot (General Principle 1) and Hilchot Berachot 11:3, where the question is raised: How can we say that God has commanded us to perform these mitzvot, which are of Rabbinic origin? Seemingly, they were instituted by men.
The Rambam answers that since God commanded us to obey the decrees of the Sages, observing the mitzvot which they ordained is fulfilling His command.

This blessing is recited on Chanukah and Purim to acknowledge the miracles that God wrought f or us at these times.
Significantly, some manuscript copies of the Mishneh Torah mention the text of this blessing as: בימים ההם ובזמן הזה. This would mean “ln those days and at the present time.”

This blessing is recited before fulfilling any mitzvah that is performed only from time to time (Hilchot Berachot 11 :9). When reciting this blessing in connection with the reading of the Megillah, one should. also have in mind that it include the mitzvot of giving presents of food to one’s friends, giving gifts to the poor, and participating in the Purim feast (Mishnah Berurah 692: 1 ).

This opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 692:1). The Ramah, however, quotes the ruling of Tosafot, Megillah 4a, which states that the morning reading is of primary importance, and the blessing Shehecheyanu is theref ore recited then as well. Be’urei HaGra explains that even were the Rambam to accept this conception of priority, he would not require a blessing to be recited during the day, based on his ruling in Hilchot Berachot (ibid). There, the Rambam writes that if a person recited the blessing Shehecheyanu when constructing a sukkah, there is no need to recite the blessing again when actually fulfilling the mitzvah.

The Rambam’s wording is quoted from the Mishnah (Megillah 4:1). The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.) considers it as accepted custom to recite this blessing . The Ramah, however, states that this blessing is recited only at a communal Megillah reading.

Rabbenu Nissim explains that this is a general expression of praise, thanking God for His constant assistance, of which the Purim miracle is only one example.

The brackets are added because this word is lacking in some texts of the Mishneh Torah, although present in others. lt is our custom not to add this term (Mishnah Berurah 692:5).

Here also the brackets are added because of a difference in the versions of the text. In this case, however, it is our custom to make the addition.

These laws are discussed in the opening mishnayot of the tractate of Megillah. Megillah 2a emphasizes that the observance of these different dates was not a later development, but part of the original ordinance to have the Megillah read.

The use of the plural in this verse—in contrast to 9:27—implies not only that there are two days, the fourteenth and the fifteenth of Adar, on which the celebrations of Purim should be observed, but that there are many “appointed times” on which the Megillah should be read.

The listing of the possible dates continues until Halachah 11.

This ruling conflicts with a decision of Rav Sa’adiah Gaon. Rabbenu Nissim, however, cites opinions which support the Rambam’s ruling, noting that Megillah 5b describes the celebration of Purim on the fifteenth of Adar in a city called Hotzal, which was located in the diaspora, as evident from Ketubot 11 la.

Although Megillah 2b explains the connection to Joshua through techniques of Biblical exegesis, the Jerusalem Talmud mentions another reason: Joshua was the first to engage Amalek, Haman’s progenitors, in battle.

The rationale for this ruling is discussed in the following halachah. The laws regarding reading the Megillah in a city when we are unsure of whether it was surrounded by a wall at the time of Joshua or not are mentioned in Halachah 11.
ignificantly, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 688:1) mentions another requirement. The wall must have been built around the city bef ore it was settled. If first the city was settled and then a wall was built, its inhabitants should read the Megillah on the f ourteenth.

As explained in the f ollowing halachah, this entire ruling was instituted as an expression of respect f or the cities of Eretz Yisrael that were unwalled at that time.

When the Purim festival is commemorated for the victories that took place outside the city of Shushan.

This ruling applies even today, when Shushan is no longer a capital.

Mordechai and Esther desired that the unique victory achieved by the Jews of Shushan be commemorated, and hence appealed to the Sages to have both the f ourteenth and the fifteenth of the month set aside as holidays. While the Sages were willing to grant this request as well, they wanted to insure that proper deference was paid to Eretz Yisrael. Hence, they extended the observance of the fifteenth beyond the city of Shushan itself.

This is the Rambam’s definition of the term (Megillah 1:1) יום הכנימה. Rashi, by contrast, defines this as meaning the day on which the local courts are in session. Rav Sa’adiah Gaon defines it as referring to the market day.

Since there is an emphasis on hearing the Megillah read with a minyan, the Sages did not require the inhabitants of the outlying villages to trouble themselves to make an additional journey to the place of communal prayer. Instead, they ordained that it be read on one of the days when they would be gathering in the synagogue regardless.

The Rambam (as the Mishnah, Megillah 1:2, before him—albeit with different wording) is illustrating how the Megillah can be read on the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth of the month. Similarly, if the fourteenth of Adar falls on Friday, the Megillah is read earlier, on Thursday, the thirteenth.

Note the Ramah (Orach Chayim 690:18), who questions whether women can be included in this quorum.

Even when the Megillah is read on the f ourteenth, at the outset, one should endeavor to hear the reading together with a minyan (Ra’avad, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 690:18). Preferably, this reading should be held in a synagogue (Mishnah Berurah 690:62).

In this instance, we have deviated from the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah. We chose to use the text found in the manuscripts and earlier printings, for it is far more comprehensible within the context of the subject matter.

Since the people do not gather together for the Torah readings regularly and they will be making a special gathering to hear the Megillah, it is appropriate for that gathering to be made on Purim itself.

Note the Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 688:1), which state that this does not apply to people living in walled cities. They are to read on the fifteenth of the month even when they do not have this many people tending to the synagogue’s needs.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Megillah 1:3), the Rambam explains that this refers to “ten men who have no occupation except communal affairs, Torah study, and [ caring] diligently for the synagogue.” In one of his responsa, he tempers that definition slightly, explaining that it is possible that these people may have some other occupation, but that they have made a commitment to leave their other concerns and to devote themselves to communal affairs whenever necessary.
The Rambam’s definition of this term thus differs from that of Rashi, who interprets it as ref erring to individuals who are always in the synagogue to make sure that a minyan will be present for prayer.

Unless there are ten men with these responsibilities in the community, gathering a minyan to hear the Megillah may be difficult. Therefore, leniency is granted and the Megillah is read on a day when people are f ound in the synagogue regardless.

Our translation is based on the Kessef Mishneh, who explains that the difficulty ref ers to the lack of ten people and the solution is that the city is required to read on the day of Purim itself.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that this interpretation does not fit the literal meaning of the phrase תקנתו קלקלתו, which is “its solution is its difficulty.” This would mean “its solution,” that a city can be considered like a village and given the leniency of reading earlier, creates a “difficulty” when there are not ten men living in a city and the reading must be held on Purim itself.
The Kessef Mishneh, however, notes other places in the Talmud, Sanhedrin 22b and Ta’nit 17a, where the first interpretation given above is the only possible explanation of the phrase in question.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah, Megillah 1:1, the Rambam writes:
The [Megillah] is read at diff erent times only when our hand is strong and there is the potential to enforce the complete observance of the mitzvot. ln the present age—i.e., from the time in which the Talmud was composed until the coming of the Mashiach, may he come speedily—[the Megillah] is read only at its appropriate times, the f ourteenth [ of Adar] and the fifteenth.
The Rambam ‘s words are based on—and allow f or a unique interpretation of—the following passage from Megillah 2a:
When does the above [that the Megillah can be read at different times] hold true? In a proper time, when the Jewish people live in their land. In contrast, in the present era, since [the people] calculate from it, it should be read only at its appropriate time.
This is the way this passage appears in our texts of the Talmud. Rashi explains that this means that in the time when Israel enjoyed independence, the calendar was established by the court, and the people in the outlying lands were f orced to rely on the messengers sent out by the court in Jerusalem. ln the present era, however, when there is a fixed calendar, people calculate when Pesach is to be observed by counting a month from the reading of the Megillah. Hence, reading the Megillah early could cause an error in the observance of Pesach. An unlearned person might not realize that there are several dates on which the Megillah could be read and would observe Pesach a month after the Megillah reading at all times.
Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi’s text of this passage is, however, slightly different. He renders the final sentence, “In the present era, since there is a danger involved, it should be read only in its appropriate time.” The Rambam (who was the student of Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi’s disciple, Rav Yosef ibn Migash) followed this version of the text, and he explains what the danger mentioned by our Sages was: that the Rabbis could not enf orce the complete observance of the mitzvot. Therefore, one group might decide to hold the Megillah reading on a previous day and one on the appropriate day, without any responsibility to a higher authority. This would lead to the violation of the commandment לא תתגודדו, “Do not break into separate groups of observance” (see Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 12: 14). In contrast, when the Sanhedrin was in power, Jewish observance was controlled by this central body.

I.e., implicit in the Sages’ original institution of the obligation to read the Megillah was that it should always be read on these two dates, to commemorate the victory over the gentile forces in the world at large, and to commemorate the victory in Shushan.

who would normally read the Megillah on the f ourteenth of Adar

where it is read on the fifteenth

conversely,

who would normally read the Megillah on the fifteenth

where it is read on the fourteenth:

As of the evening of the fourteenth of Adar.

i.e., the fourteenth of Adar, the day when the Megillah is read in the world at large (Rambam ‘s Commentary on the Mishnah, Megillah 2:3)

rather than read the Megillah together with the people in the place where he is visiting

Alone.

Although he is celebrating the holiday elsewhere.

With regard to the celebration of the festivals, the prevailing opinion of the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 496:3) is that, generally, a person from the diaspora who visits Eretz Yisrael should observe the holidays for two days rather than one. In this instance, however, our Sages (Megillah 19a) interpret a reference from the Megillah as indicating that everything depends on one’s location on the fourteenth of Adar. If at that time, one is located in an unwalled city, one must observe the holiday on the fourteenth. If one is located in a walled city, one should observe it on the fifteenth.
As mentioned above, there is, however, an exception: If on the night ofthe fourteenth, one expected to return home, either to an unwalled city or to a walled city, but was prevented from doing so, one should observe the holiday on the day it is observed in one’s home.
Our commentary follows the interpretation of the Turei Zahav 688:5,6. Note the Mishnah Berurah 688: 12, which off ers a slightly different interpretation. These laws are applicable today in Eretz Yisrael when it is very frequent for people from Jerusalem to visit relatives in other parts of the country for Purim, and conversely, for people from other cities to come to Jerusalem.

i.e., when looking from afar one sees these homes together with the walled city.

i.e., if they are both within two thousand cubits of the walled city and are seen together with it, they read on the fifteenth. lf they are within two thousand cubits of the city but are not seen together with it, or are seen together with it but are more than two thousand cubits removed, they read on the fourteenth.
The above represents Rav Kapach’s interpretation of the Rambam’s words, based on Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi’s quotation of Megillah 2b. Most commentaries, however, interpret this passage differently, and indeed their interpretation leads them to question the wording chosen by the Rambam. They understand סמוך (“adjacent”) and נראה (literally “seen with,” but according to this interpretation “seen from”) as two separate qualifications, and explain that the inhabitants of any home adjacent to a walled city or from which a walled city can be seen should read the Megillah on the fifteenth.
Because of this interpretation, the Maggid Mishneh questions the wording of the halachah in the Mishneh Torah, noting that from the text, it appears that the requirement that the homes be within 2000 cubits of the city applies to both the categories סמוך and נראה. If so, he asks why it is necessary for there to be two categories at all? He therefore suggests amending the text so that “within 2000 cubits” reads as a definition of “adjacent,” and that “seen from” is considered to be a separate category. [See Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 688:2) and its commentaries for the practical applications of this law.]
lt is significant to note that this is one of the issues on which there has been significant discussion and debate in Eretz Yisrael today with regard to the new city of Jerusalem. Although in the present age, all contemporary authorities have
agreed to read the Megillah in the older residential areas of the new city on the fifteenth, there are many outlying neighborhoods included in metropolitan Jerusalem that are not directly connected to the city, nor can the Old City be seen from them. In these neighborhoods, there are questions whether the Megillah should be read on the fifteenth or on the f ourteenth.

According to many authorities, a similar ruling applies if one is unsure whether the city in which one is living is built on the site of a city that was surrounded by a wall at the time of Joshua. This situation is very common in Eretz Yisrael; in many cities—including Safed, Haifa, Ashdod, and Ashkelon—the Megillah is read on both days.

Similarly, they should give presents to the poor, portions of food to their friends, and celebrate on both these days (Mishnah Berurah 688:10.)

The Maggid Mishneh mentions opinions that state that one should follow this ruling only in Eretz Yisrael, but not in the diaspora. Although this opinion is not accepted, the Mishnah Berurah 688:9 writes that all the walled cities of northern Europe were built after the time of Joshua. Hence, there is no need for concern on this account. Surely, this applies in the United States. Where it might be necessary to show concern in this regard are countries in the Mediterranean area and in the Far East, for there are many cities in these regions which possess walls dating back to very ancient times.

The blessing should be recited on the f ourteenth, because even when a person who lives in a walled city reads the Megillah on the f ourteenth, he fulfills his obligation after the fact. (See the Jerusalem Talmud, Megillah 1:1, 1:3, and 2:3.) Thus, the blessing cannot be considered to have been recited in vain (Mishnah Berurah 688: 11 ).

In one of his responsa, the Rambam explains that this is an expression of a greater principle. Whenever one has a doubt whether or not one must fulfill an · obligation -both one stemming from the Torah and one which is Rabbinic in origin—one should perf orm the act. One should not recite a blessing, f or there is the possibility that by doing so, one will be mentioning God’s name in vain.
In this responsum, the Rambam mentions that there were many communities in which a blessing would be recited on both days. He strongly criticizes this custom and urges his readers to be careful to recite blessings only when necessary.

There is a slight lack of clarity in the Rambam’s choice of wording (which is quoted from the Mishnah, Megillah 1:6). The intent appears to be that the Megillah was read in the month of Adar. Afterwards, the court decided to proclaim a leap year, causing that month to be considered as the first month of Adar. Significantly, the word “first” is not included in the authoritative Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah.

In a leap year a second month of Adar is added. Although generally the calculation of whether it is necessary to add a month or not was made well before the month of Adar, there were certain situations which could call for the leap year to be proclaimed at such a late date.

and similarly, one is required to give gifts to the poor and fulfill the other Purim mitzvot (Lechem Mishneh ).

Because the holiday of Purim is observed in the Adar which is closest to Nisan, joining the redemption of Purim to the redemption of Pesach (Megillah 6b ).

In Hilchot Shofar 2:6 and in Hilchot Lulav 7:13, the Rambam relates how the Sages forbade the observance of these mitzvot on the Sabbath for fear that an unlearned person might carry the religious article in the public domain. If these mitzvot which stem from the Torah were nullified because of such a concern, it is surely in place to change the day of the observance of a mitzvah which is Rabbinic in origin.

The Rambam does not mention whether it is only the Megillah reading that is pushed f orward, or all the observances of the Purim festival. With regard to the observance of Purim by the residents of Jerusalem when the fifteenth of Adar falls on the Sabbath, Rav Levi ibn Chaviv maintains that aside from the Megillah reading, all the Purim mitzvot should be observed on the Sabbath. The Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 688:6) states that the gifts to the poor should be made on Friday and the Purim feast held on Sunday.

The commentaries draw attention to Hilchot Tefillah 13:8, which states that on every holiday the laws of the holiday should be discussed. lf so, they asked what is meant by the Rambam’s statement: Can we infer that Purim is an exception, and normally its laws need not be studied on that day? 1s the implication, as reflected in the decision of the Shulchan Aruch, that no other Purim mitzvot are to be observed on that Sabbath, and hence the need for a reminder? (See also the Lechem Mishneh, the Binyan Shlomo, and the Nimukei Maharai.)

According to the fixed calendar we f ollow at present, it is impossible for the fourteenth of Adar to fall on the Sabbath. The Rambam, however, composed the Mishneh Torah to deal with all possible Torah laws, and he therefore included this ruling, which will be applicable in the era of the redemption when the day on which the months begin will again be established according to the testimony of witnesses.

There is a slight difficulty with this ruling, for it runs in contradiction to an explicit Mishnah, Megillah 1:2, which states that when the fourteenth falls on the Sabbath, the reading in the unwalled cities should be pushed forward to the day when the people gather to hear the reading of the Torah—i.e., Thursday. (The rationale for this decision is that since the Megillah is being read earlier than its appropriate date, its reading might as well be pushed forward to a more convenient time, Thursday, rather than Friday.)
The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam did not f ollow the ruling of this Mishnah, because he favored the opinion of a baraita mentioned in Megillah 4b,5a; he adds that, regardless, the practice of reading the Megillah earlier, on the day of the Torah reading, is no longer followed in the present era (see Halachah 9).
Of the two points mentioned by the Maggid Mishneh, the first is more significant. Although in the present era, the practice of reading the Megillah earlier, on the day of the Torah reading, is no longer followed, there is also no possibility in the present era f or the f ourteenth to fall on the Sabbath. Thus, we must assume that this ruling is intended to apply even in the era of the redemption, when both practices—the establishment of the calendar according to the testimony of witnesses and reading the Megillah on the day when the people gather to hear the Torah reading—will be reinstated. Hence, the Rambam’s rationale must be to follow the baraita rather than the Mishnah.
(Note, however, Rav Kapach’s commentary, which mentions that in his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam explains the rationale for the Mishnah’s ruling and does not state that it is not f ollowed according to the halachah. This seemingly implies that he accepts it.)

According to our fixed calendar, this is an infrequent, but not totally rare phenomenon.

Even the Mishnah (Megillah 1 :2) states that, in these circumstances, the unwalled cities should read on this day, and not on Thursday. Thus in such a year, Purim will be celebrated for one day instead of two.

It does not matter whether the reader skips a word, a verse, or an entire passage and then reads it. As long as any portion, no matter how great or how small, is read out of sequence, the reading is unacceptable.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah, Megillah 2:1, the Rambam explains this ruling as follows:
[Esther 9:28] states: “These days are remembered and commemorated” (literally, “done”). Just as it isimpossible
for a person who is involved in work—“doing”—to do anything that affects the past, so too, in reading [the
Megillah],one should not read a passage at the end which should have been read previously.
he Rambam’s explanation is based on Megillah 17a. Our rendition of the passage from the Commentary on the Mishnah was based on Rav Kapach’s translation. Significantly, the commonly published translation appears to be slightly out of context with this Talmudic passage. Note the gloss of the Kovetz.

The Rambam’s question is: when a reader becomes aware that he has omitted a verse or a word, what should he do? Must he read the entire Megillah again?

Although this ruling (a quote from Megillah 18b) is seemingly self-understood, there is reason to mention it, because reading the Megillah as part of a congregation is more desirable than reading it alone. Therefore, the Rambam emphasizes that participating in such a public reading does not override the obligation to hear the Megillah in proper sequence (Rav Kapach).

This ruling is the subject of a difference of opinion between the Sages in Megillah 18b. There appears to be a lack of consistency in the Rambam’s decisions in situations of this kind. Regarding the recitation of the Shema, the Rambam follows the principle stated in this halachah and rules that despite such an extended pause, one fulfills one’s obligation (Hilchot Kri’at Shema 2: 14). Regarding the recitation of the Shemoneh Esreh, however, he does not accept this principle and requires that the prayer be repeated (Hilchot Tefillah 4:13). (See also Hilchot Shofar 3:5.)
The Shulchan Aruch has followed the Rambam’s decisions in all three instances. The Mishnah Berurah (65:6, 690:18) differentiates between a person who pauses voluntarily (the situation described here and in Hilchot Kri’at Shema) and one who is forced to pause (the situation described in Hilchot Tefillah), and rules that, with regard to all three obligations, if one is f orced to pause f or such an extended period by factors beyond one’s control, one does not fulfill one’s obligation.

Based on Megillah 18a, the Rambam writes in his Commentary on the Mishnah (2:1):
It is forbidden to read the Megillah by heart, for [Esther 9:28] requires that the narrative be “remembered.”Based
on [Exodus 17:14], “Write this down as a remembrance in a scroll,” we can conclude that just as the
remembrance in that instance required a scroll, so too, the remembrance referred to in this context requires
a scroll.
Significantly, the Rambam (Halachah 10) and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 690:3) state that reading the Megillah by heart is unacceptable only when one reads the greater portion of the Megillah in this manner. After the fact, one is considered to have fulfilled one’s obligation as long as one hears the majority of the text read from a scroll. Note the Ramah and commentaries.

i.e., the Assyrian script used for Torah scrolls. (See Hilchot Tefillin 1:19 and the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Yadayim 4:5.)
With this statement, the Rambam is excluding other forms of Hebrew letters—e.g., Rashi script—and also the transliteration of Hebrew into other languages.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah, Megillah 2:1, the Rambam explains that although such a person does not understand every word that is being read, he does have a general conception of the content. Hence, his listening to the reading fulfills the purpose of pirsumei nisa, publicizing the Purim miracle.

As the Rambam explains in his commentary on the Mishnah, Classical Greek was considered equivalent to Hebrew because the of the Septuagint, the translation of the Torah into Greek, which had spread among the people.

is not required to hear the Megillah read in Hebrew and

by hearing the Greek reading

Note Hilchot Tefillin, ibid., where the Rambam states that this Classical Greek tongue has already become corrupted and confused, and can therefore no longer be used for a Torah scroll. The commentaries maintain that the same decision applies in this instance.

To fulfill the requirements of this halachah, the Megillah must be written in that f oreign language, but need not use the characters of that language. A transliteration is acceptable (Kessef Mishneh). Rav Kapach relates that he is in possession of an Arabic translation of the Megillah written in Hebrew characters by Rav Sa’adiah Gaon.

The Maggid Mishneh notes that from the Rambam ‘s wording, it appears that he allows a person to fulfill his obligation to hear the Megillah read in a f oreign tongue even when he understands Hebrew. Nevertheless, the Maggid Mishneh cites a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud (Megillah 2:1) that appears to indicate that a person who understands Hebrew cannot fulfill his obligation in a foreign tongue.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo cites a responsum of Rav Yitzchak ben Sheshet (390), which offers a different interpretation of that passage from the Jerusalem Talmud. Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 690:10), he appears to favor the opinion that such a person cannot fulfill his obligation by hearing the Megillah read in any language other than Hebrew.
Significantly, there is an explicit responsum on this question from the Rambam. He writes that, after the f act, a person who understands Hebrew is considered to have fulfilled his obligation by hearing the reading of such a translation. At the outset, however, he should hear the reading in Hebrew.

The commentaries mention that translating the Megillah into other languages is difficult, f or there are some words—e.g., ha’achasht’ranim b’nei haramachim (Esther 8:10)- whose meaning was considered unclear even by the Sages of the Talmud (Megillah 18a). For this reason, the Mishnah Berurah 690:34 recommends that even when writing a Megillah in a foreign language, one should transliterate these words, keeping their original pronunciation even when they are written in the characters of the f oreign language.

i.e., sight-translating

the reader

despite the fact that a scroll is open before him

i.e., the words he is reciting are not written before him.

A person who hears the Megillah being read by another person fulfills his obligation only when the reader could fulfill his obligation with this reading. It is, nevertheless, not mandatory for a reader actually to fulfill his obligation when reading for others. Although he has heard the Megillah before and has thereby fulfilled his obligation, he may read for others.

The Maggid Mishneh focuses attention on the question what is “[the desired] intent” to which the Rambam (and his source, Megillah 2:2) are referring.
rom the continuation of the halachah, it appears that the Rambam is referring to the intent to fulfill one’s obligation. This relates to a concept of greater scope. There is a diff erence of opinion among the Sages (Rosh HaShanah 28b) whether or not one must have the intent of fulfilling a mitzvah. For example, is listening to the blowing of the shofar itself sufficient, or must one listen to it with the intent of fulfilling the mitzvah?
In Hilchot Shofar 2:4, the Rambam states that one must have the intent of fulfilling the mitzvah and, despite a somewhat controversial ruling in Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 6:3, this appears to be the position he accepts. [This position is also accepted in the Shulchan Aruch in other contexts (Orach Chayim 60:4, 475:4, 589:8) and seemingly, by quoting this halachah almost verbatim (Orach Chayim 690:13), with regard to the reading of the Megillah.]
The Radbaz (Vol. V, Responsum 1498) explains that even the authorities who would normally maintain that no intention is necessary to fulfill a mitzvah require a person hearing the Megillah to have the required intent. In this instance, the entire mitzvah revolves around the concept of pirsumei nisa, publicizing the Purim miracle. If one listens to the Megillah without serious intent, that purpose will not be achieved. Alternatively, he explains, because the reading of the Megillah is only a Rabbinic principle, its observance was reinforced more than that of a Torah command.

See the following halachah

Giving interpretation of the verses.

Note the Mishnah Berurah 690:45, which mentions that one must be careful when reading the words which, according to the oral tradition, are to be read diff erently from the way they are written in the text.

See the Mishnah Berurah 690:42, which emphasizes that one must have this intent throughout the entire reading of the Megillah.

The Rambam is quoting Megillah 2:2. In his Commentary on the Mishnah, he explains that this ref ers to a state when one is beginning to drift into sleep, but is not sleeping soundly. He then refers to his commentary on Pesachim 10:8, where he defines such a state as a person who is falling asleep, but still hears what is being said and responds when spoken to.

Although his full attention is not directed to the Megillah, he is considered to have concentrated sufficiently to have fulfilled his obligation. Significantly, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 690:12) states that only a person who reads while dozing off is considered to have fulfilled his obligation. In contrast, a person who listens while dozing off is not considered to have fulfilled his obligation. We may assume that he surely failed to concentrate on certain portions (Mishnah Berurah 690:41 ).

From the Rambam’s words, one might infer that, as is required with regard to a Torah scroll (Hilchot Tefillin 1:12), one must write a Megillah by copying from an existing scroll. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 691 :2) maintains that this is a binding obligation. Rabbenu Nissim, however, cites a Talmudic narrative (Megillah 18b) that relates that when Rabbi Meir went to Assia to declare a leap year, there was no Megillah there, and he wrote one put by heart. On this basis, Rabbenu Nissim explains that such a Megillah is acceptable if there is no other alternative. (See also Be’ur Halachah 691.)

The words “completely written” are not to be understood in a strictly literal manner, for Halacha 10 states that a Megillah may be used despite the fact that the scribe left out certain verses. The verses that were omitted should be read by heart.

The Rambam appears to be condoning even gross errors that change the meaning of the words, and this appears to be the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 690:14). Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) also quotes the opinion of the Rashba and Rabbenu Nissim, who (based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Megillah 2:2) maintain that this refers only to errors like reading yehudim as yehudi’yim. For in this instance, the meaning of the phrase does not change. If, however, one makes an error which changes the meaning of a word—or even its tense—one does not fulfill his obligation. The Be’ur Halachah 690 states that the latter ruling should be f ollowed.

In contrast, the Torah should always be read standing. (See Bayit Chadash, Urach Chayim 141.) Note the Mishnah Berurah 690: 1, which states that the blessings bef ore and after the Megillah reading must be recited while standing.

Generally, when two people read the Torah or sound the shofar at the same . time, one cannot pay adequate attention to either of them to be considered to have fulfilled one’s obligation. (See Hilchot Shofar 3:6.) The Megillah reading, however, is an exception. Because it is cherished, one f ocuses one’s concentration and can listen carefully even in these difficult circumstances (Megillah 21b).

There is reason to suppose that this would be forbidden, lest one pay attention to the child’s reading and thus not be able to fulfill one’s obligation. Hence, it is necessary for the Rambam to mention this law (Lechem Mishneh).
The B’nei Binyamin comments that this law emphasizes how parents must involve their children in the reading of the Megillah on Purim night, and not merely bring them to the synagogue to celebrate the holiday as they see fit.

The commentaries explain that the reading of the Megillah was instituted for the purpose of pirsumei nisa, publicizing the Purim miracles. Hence, were one to read from a scroll containing many of the Scriptures, the uniqueness of the Purim reading would not be emphasized.
The Turei Even qualifies this ruling, explaining that it applies only when the Megillah is being read before the actual day of the Purim holiday (see Chapter 1, Halachot 6-7). In contrast, when the Megillah is read on the f ourteenth, the nature of the setting generates enough attention that the reading will be considered important regardless of the appearance of the scroll.

The difference in the size of the parchment will attract the congregation’s notice and cause them to regard the reading as unique.

In this instance, there is no congregation to impress with the uniqueness of the scroll and thus emphasize the holiday’s importance (Mishnah Berurah 692:23).

Most commentaries infer that the Rambam considers such a reading acceptable at the outset, not only after the fact. Although the Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Chayim 691:8) quotes the Rambam’s choice of wording, the later authorities note that Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi and Rabbenu Asher accept such a scroll only after the fact. (See Be’ur Halachah 691.)

These are both types of parchment (see Hilchot Teffilin 1:6-9).

Tints of colors other than black.

These rules, based on Megillah 18b, are very lenient when compared to the laws governing a Torah scroll, which must contain every letter, and each of those letters must be intact.

The Ramah (Orach Chayim 690:3) qualifies this statement, explaining that the scroll must contain the beginning of the Megillah, its conclusion, and at least portions of every major passage. lf any significant concept is omitted entirely, the scroll is unacceptable.

Megillah 19a notes that the Megillah refers to itself as a ספר, “scroll” [Esther 9:32] and as an אגרת, “epistle.” Because it is a “scroll,” it must be sewn with animal sinews, as Torah scrolls are. Since, however, it is also called an “epistle,” leniency is granted, and unlike a Torah scroll, it need be sewn in only three places.

See Hilchot Sefer Torah 9:13-14.

This represents the Rambam’s interpretation of the continuation of the Talmudic passage cited above. Rashi, Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, and others off er different interpretations. (See also Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 691:6.)

The same Talmudic passage (Megillah 16b) that requires all ten names to be read in a single breath also requires that they be written in a unique manner in the Megillah. The commentaries question why the Rambam omits this requirement.

lt is Ashkenazic custom also to include the preceding four words, et chamesh me’ ot ish, “five hundred men” in this same breath (Maharil; Ramah, Orach Chayim 690:15).

Although there are other opinions, Tosafot (Megillah, ibid.) and the Ramah (ibid.) maintain that, after the fact, if the reader was not able to manage this f eat, the reading is still acceptable.

This choice of wording implies that this practice is not mentioned in the Talmud, but was adopted by the Rabbis afterwards. The Rambam was apparently speaking about the situation in his generation. The Hagahot Maimoniot quotes early sources that mention that the Megillah should be read like a Torah scroll. Rav Hai Gaon, however, writes that the Megillah should be read as prescribed by the Rambam.

One might infer that this obligation lies on the reader alone, but not on a private individual who f ollows along with the reader in his own Megillah (Mishnah Berurah 690:55). Nevertheless, as pointed out in Sha’ar HaTziyun 690:50, it is the custom for everyone to unroll and fold their Megillot before reading.

From the Rambam›s wording, one might inf er that the reader should spread the Megillah out—and f old it—as he is reading. The Tur (Orach Chayim 690:17) states that one should “spread [the Megillah] · out and read.” This is the Ashkenazic custom today. The Megillah is unrolled, folded over, and then the blessings are recited (Mishnah Berurah 690:56).

This phrase is included in parentheses, because although it appears in most later printings of the Mishneh Torah, it is not found in many of the authoritative manuscripts and early printings; nor is it f ound in the ref erences to this halachah in other texts. Significantly, however, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 690: 17) quotes this halachah verbatim and includes this phrase.

The Mishnah Berurah 690:57 emphasizes that one should roll the Megillah closed bef ore the blessing because it is disrespectful to leave the Megillah open in this manner. (Compare also to Hilchot Tefillah 12:5.)

Note Chapter 1, Halachah 3, which mentions that there are varying customs whether this blessing should be recited or not. At present, it is a virtually universal custom to recite it.

Unlike the case regarding the holidays mentioned in the Torah, the laws of mourning must be heeded on Purim. (See Hilchot Eivel 11:3, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 696.)

On all Jewish holidays, it is forbidden to fast and it is forbidden to eulogize the dead. During the era of the Second Temple, these prohibitions also applied to many minor holidays that commemorated miracles in our national history, as recorded in a unique text, Megillat Ta’anit. After the destruction of the Temple, our Sages nullified the prohibitions against fasting and reciting eulogies f or all these holidays, with the exception of Chanukah and Purim (Rosh HaShanah 19b ).
(Note the Maggid Mishneh, Hilchot Chanukah 3:1, which states that according to the Rambam [Hilchot Eivel, loc. cit.] the prohibition mentioned in Megillat Ta’anit was maintained only with regard to fasting and reciting eulogies on Chanukah and Purim themselves. These activities are permitted on the days following and preceding those holidays.)
Furthermore, with regard to Purim, Megillah 5b derives a prohibition against these activities from the Book of Esther itself. Esther 9: 19 states that the days of Purim were established as “a day of feasting, gladness, and a festival.” “Gladness” refers to the prohibition against reciting eulogies; “f easting” to the prohibition against fasting.

I.e., although these cities celebrate Purim on only one of these two days, they observe the prohibitions against fasting and reciting eulogies on both.

I.e., although Purim is observed in the second Adar and not in the first, these prohibitions should be observed in the first Adar as well. This opinion is not accepted by all authorities. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 697:1) states that fasting and eulogies are permitted. Nevertheless, even according to the Ramah, the tachanun prayers should not be recited, and celebrant gatherings should be held on these .dates in the first month by non-mourners, thus emphasizing their uniqueness.

See Chapter 1, Halachot. 6-7.

This indicates that, as is also reflected in the f ollowing halachah, allowing the inhabitants of the villages to read the Megillah earlier is merely a convenience to enable them to fulfill that mitzvah with a quorum; it is not that the Purim holiday itself has been pushed forward. Thus, the day on which they read is not a holiday, and therefore fasts and eulogies are in place. In contrast, the day of Purim is a holiday even though the Megillah is not read on it.

The Rambam has concluded his description of the mitzvah of reading the Megillah and begins relating the other mitzvot of the Purim holiday. Esther 9:22 describes the Purim holiday as “days of feasting and gladness, of sending portions [of food] one to another, and giving presents to the poor.” The Rambam devotes the next three halachot to explaining the obligation implied by each of these three phrases.

Although the Sages ordained the celebration of Chanukah and Purim as festivals, they did not make them totally equivalent to the festivals mentioned in the Torah on which work is f orbidden.
Megillah 5b explains this concept by contrasting two verses of the Book of Esther. Esther 9: 19 writes that Mordechai and Esther desired that the Jews commemorate Purim as “a day of feasting, gladness, and a festival.” Esther 9:22, however, describes the Purim holiday as “days of feasting and gladness,” without mentioning “a festival.”
Our Sages explain that Mordechai and Esther desired that Purim be observed like the other holidays and that work be prohibited on it, but this was not accepted, neither by the other rabbis. nor by the people as a whole.

Megillah (loc. cit.) states that there were certain places where it was customary to work on Purim, and others where it was customary not to work. In a place where it is customary to work, one may. In a place where it is customary not to work, one should not. This is quoted in the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 696: 1). In his gloss on the Shulchan Aruch, the Ramah mentions that it has become customary in all places to prohibit work on Purim.
The commentaries on the Mishneh Torah (which was written several hundred years before the Shulchan Aruch) question why the Rambam does not mention the differences in custom. Perhaps the Rambam’s intent was that in no place is there an absolute prohibition against work, but in all places, even where it is customary to work, this is undesirable.
It must be emphasized that the prohibition against work on Purim differs from that of the Sabbath and holidays. In regard to Purim, the emphasis is on physical labor per se and not to the labors f orbidden on the Sabbath and holidays. In that light, it is interesting to note that the commentaries permit commercial activity (Mishnah Berurah 696:3) or working when failing to do so would cause a loss (Sha’ar HaTziyun 696:3), because such activities bring a person happiness and thus add to his appreciation of the holiday.

Generally, this wording implies that the statement which follows is a direct quote f rom our Sages and, in this instance, no quote of this nature is f ound. As a possible source, rnany commentaries point to the narrative (Megillah 5b) which relates that Rav cursed a man who sowed flax on Purim and the flax did not grow. Although the exact wording used by the Rambam is not found in that passage, it is employed by the Talmud in other places in a similar context. Others suggest an alternate version of Pesachim 50b as a source.

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) mentions that one will not see a sign of blessing from the work performed on that day forever. This is usually the interpretation of this phrase by Rashi and other Talmudic commentaries. By quoting—or borrowing—our Sages’ expression without this addition, perhaps the Rambam is alluding to a more severe punishment.

From the wording of this halachah and of the Rambam›s Commentary on the . Mishnah (Megillah 1:3), it would appear that although one fulfills the obligation to give gifts to the poor if one gives bef ore Purim, at the outset it is preferable to perf orm this mitzvah on Purim day as well. Note also the Rambam’s choice of wording in Halachah 16.
See also Megillah 4b, which relates that the gifts to the poor were distributed on the day of the Megillah reading, because the poor expected them to be given at the Megillah reading.

This also applies to the mitzvah of sending gifts of food to one’s friends. This is intrinsically connected with the celebration of Purim and can be fulfilled only on that day itself (Tosafot Yom Tov, Megillah 1:3).

Since the obligation to rejoice is taken from Esther 9:22, which speaks of making the days of Purim “days of feasting and gladness,” the mitzvah of celebration must be observed on Purim itself.

I.e., the night of the Megillah reading: the “night between the thirteenth and fourteenth of Adar in unwalled cities and the night between the fourteenth and fifteenth in walled cities.

Megillah 7b derives this from the verse “days of feasting and gladness”—i.e., the feasting and gladness must,take place during the day. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 695:1) emphasizes that although this is not considered the Purim f east, the meal served Purim night should be somewhat f estive in nature.
The Ramah (Orach Chayim 695:4) states that a similar law applies with regard to sending presents of food to one’s friends. The mitzvah must be fulfilled during the day and not at night. The Mishnah Berurah 695:22 establishes a similar requirement in regard to the presents given to the poor.

for Pesachim 109a states that there is no happiness [at a feast] with but meat. Significantly, however, the obligation to eat meat is not quoted by other authorities.

See Hilchot Shabbat 30:7, which states that the more one spends on making lavish preparations f or the Sabbath, the more praiseworthy it is. Nevertheless, the very same halachah states that a person should honor the Sabbath within his means, and if all he can aff ord is cooked vegetables, he also fulfills the mitzvah of Sabbath pleasure in this manner.

Many elements of the Purim narrative—e.g., the deposition of Vashti, the agreement between Haman and Achashverosh to kill the Jews, and Esther’s accusation of Haman—took place amid drinking parties. Therefore, the commemoration of the holiday is also associated with wine.

Note the Nimukei Maharai, which notes that the Purim holiday was instituted to be “days of feasting and gladness.” “Gladness” itself implies drinking wine, for Pesachim 109a states that after the destruction of the Temple, “there is no gladness other than wine.” By mentioning “feasting” in addition to “gladness,” the Megillah is implying drinking more than one’s usual amount.

Megillah 7b states that, on Purim, “a person is obligated to become so drunk that he cannot tel1 the difference between ‘Cursed be Haman’ and ‘Blessed be Mordechai.’ ”
The Rambam loathes the concept of intoxication. See Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 6:20, where he writes that “Drunkenness ... is not happiness, but frivolity and foolishness .... It is impossible to serve God ... while intoxicated.” (See also Hilchot De’ot 5:3.) For this reason, he counsels going to sleep, for in this manner one will fulfill the Sages’ command—since while asleep one will not know the diff erence between Haman and Mordechai—and yet will be guarded against conducting oneself with impropriety.
It must be emphasized that even those opinions that do not recommend that one fulfill the Sages’ directive through sleeping appreciate that our Sages did not desire simple drunkenness, but rather a spirited commitment to God that transcends the limits of our reason. Normally, our minds restrain our commitment to Divine service. At the time of the Purim miracle, however, the Jews showed self-sacrifice which transcended the limits of their thi.nking processes. Each year on Purim, we relive and express again this unbounded commitment (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. VII).

This obligation is equally incumbent on men and women. Similarly, children should be trained to give.

Note the Mishnah Berurah 695: 18, which states that “send” implies “send with an agent” and not to bring oneself. Accordingly, it has become customary to send these presents of food with children.

The Ba’er Heteiv ( Orach Chayim 695:7) quotes a number of sources from which it can be derived that the majority of—although not all—Rabbinic opinions require these presents of f ood to be ready to eat. Therefore, the meat would have to be cooked bef ore being sent.

Note the Be’ur Halachah 695, which quotes opinions that require the gift to be significant enough to be appreciated by the recipient.

The Mishnah Berurah 695:20 states that beverages are also acceptable.

Whether the recipient is rich or poor.

Plural.

With regard to the gifts to the poor, the minimum requirement emphasizes the importance of distributing one’s largess among others. ln contrast, with regard to this mitzvah, the minimum requirement emphasizes the importance of giving a gift of significance (Magen Avraham 695:12).
According to the Rambam, the mitzvot of sending portions of food to one’s friends on Purim—and similarly the sending of gifts to the poor—are an outgrowth of the happiness of the day. Nevertheless, they also share an intrinsic connection to the message of the holiday, which relates to the oneness of the Jewish people. It was after “gathering together all the Jews” (Esther 4:16) that Esther felt confident to extend her pleas to the king on the Jews’ behalf. Similarly, each year, the commemoration of the holiday involves the establishment of unity among our people.

i.e., two portions to one friend is a minimum, not a maximum limit.

Megillah 7b gives the example of two sages who would fulfill this mitzvah in this manner.

Note the Turei Even, who questions whether sending presents of food to a poor person also fulfills the mitzvah of giving gifts to the poor and thus one would be required to give to only one more person.

This obligation is equally incumbent on men and women.. Similarly, children should be trained to give. Even a poor person who himself receives these gifts should give to another poor person (Mishnah Berurah 694: 1 ).

This wording emphasizes the concept expressed in the commentary on Halachah 14, that these gifts are intrinsically related to the day of Purim.

The Pri Megadim writes that, at the outset, one should give a poor person something that he can benefit from immediately. Money is included in this category because it can be used to purchase f ood.

Both Hebrew words are plural.

one must give at least

and give one

each of

This is a minimum limit, as emphasized in the following halachah.

See Hilchot Matnot Ani’im 7:6, which mentions situations in which persons who ask f or charity should be examined, lest they be imposters.

lndeed, in certain communities, as an expression of “the ways of peace” (and not in fulfillment of the Purim mitzvah), it is customary to give even to gentiles (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 694:3).

Collectors of charity, so that one will not embarrass the poor by giving them directly (Ramah, Orach Chaim 694:2).

The poor, however, may use these funds for whatever purpose they desire.

The Rambam›s words, so eloquently spoken, are particularly applicable in an age in which many will spend hundreds of dollars on mishlo’ach manot for friends, and give a minimal donation to the poor. Without minimizing the importance of showing appropriate appreciation for one›s ftiends, it would be well for many to take to heart the Rambam’s words here.
Significantly, the Rambam emphasizes that sharing with others is the most complete expression of happiness. Note also the following passage from Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 6:18:
When a person eats and drinks [in celebration of the festivals], he should also f eed converts, orphans, and
widows, as well as other poor ur1f ortunates. When a person locks the gates of his courtyard ... and does not
provide food or drink to the poor and the bitter of soul, his happiness is not happiness associated with a
mitzvah, but the happiness of his gut .... Such happiness is a disgrace, as [implied by Malachi 2:3]: “1 will
spread dung on your faces, the dung of your feast s.”

The Rambam’s words are taken, with only slight stylistic emendations, from the Jerusalem Talmud, Megillah 1:5. They have, nevertheless, evoked questions from several Rabbis, among them the Ra’avad. He explains that none of the Prophetic or Holy Writings will be nullified entirely—i.e., the texts will continue to exist and will be ref erred to from time to time. In the Messianic era, in contrast to the present period, there will be no public reading of these texts. Nevertheless, even in that era, the public reading of the Torah and the Megillah will continue.
In Torah Or, the negation of these holy texts is explained as follows: In the present era, the holiness of these texts is open and apparent, because Godliness is not revealed in the world at large. ln contrast, in the era of the Redemption, “the earth will be filled with the knowledge of God as the waters cover up the ocean bed” (Isaiah 11:9; Hilchot Melachim 12:5). As such, these texts will no longer be unique and will be “nullified,” as the light of a candle does not attract special attention in broad daylight.

The Jerusalem Talmud (loc. cit.) derives this from the exegesis of a verse. For the Rambam, this is a fundamental principle of faith, as explained in Hilchot Yesodei Torah 9:1, and in the ninth of the Thirteen Principles of Faith mentioned in the Commentary on the Mishnah (introduction to the tenth chapter of Sanhedrin). See also the contrast between Moses’ prophecy manifest in the Torah and the other Prophetic writings, as developed in those sources.

The Jerusalem Talmud (loc. cit.) derives this on the basis of the exegesis of Chabbakuk 3:6, “The ways of the world are His.” The words “The ways of the world” (halichot olam) can be interpreted as hilchot olam, “eternal laws.”
See also Hilchot Melachim 11:3, where the Rambam emphasizes that even in the Messianic era, “This Torah, its laws, and its judgments will remain forever, for eternity. We may not add or detract from them.” Rather than see a change or diminution of Torah law, the era of the Redemption will mark the restoration of the complete practice of Torah observance as originally prescribed.

See also the conclusion of Hilchot Ta’aniot.

The profusion of “the knowledge of God” and the abundance of material benefit in the era of Redemption will cause the people to f orget all previous suff ering.

Although the Purim holiday is only Rabbinic in origin, it will thus take precedence over the observance of the other festivals. Among the explanations given for this is that there is a parallel between a Rabbinic holiday and the era of the Redemption. In that era, Godliness will be evident even in material reality and mundane things. This relates to a Rabbinic holiday, in which an ordinary day, not a day set aside as holy by the Torah, is transformed into a f estival.