Megillah v'Chanukah - Chapter 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.