[Avodah] Chayav livsumei

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 09:18:00PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: On 03/18/2016 05:22 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
: >Is this a separate mitzvah apart from the classic four?
: 
: No, it's not a mitzvah.   The Amoraim were not authorised to make up
: their own mitzvos.  Thus there is nothing to be "yotzei"...

I think RSN's question is based on the word "michayav", rather than
"raui inish livsumei" or "tov le'inish" or the like. But whether or not
I'm second-guessing intent correctly, your answer begs the question: If
there is nothing to be yotzei, why do they use the shoresh "chayav"? OTOH,
if it is an actual chiyuv, why "michayav" rather than the usual (and
shorter) conjugation, "chayav" itself?

Also, who said the chiyuv started with the amoraim, just because it's
stated as a quote from Rava? If it were a din in the se'udas Purim, a
suggestion RNS entertains and fits the context in the gemara, isn't it
common for dinim in de'Oraisos and derabbanans to be quoted from amoraim
(and not only discussions of what tannaim meant)? Like the very next din,
same list of dinim from Rabbah, then you aren't yotzei se'udas Purim
with a meal at night.

The topic I raise every Purim: It is clear from both texts and common
practice that we hold like rava. Even if some Litvaks find ways to
minimize the statement. But why? The bulk of the sugya is the story
of "qam Rabah shachteih leRabbi Zeira" and the sugya closes with RZ's
"there won't be a miracle every time." The sugya reads as a PSA against
drunkenness, in disagreement with Rabbah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
micha at aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter