[Avodah] Chayav livsumei

[Zev Sero via Avodah]

On 03/21/2016 10:19 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> 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"?

Because it is an obligation, part of the total experience of the day,
but it's not one of the mitzvos.  The mitzvos come from the megillah,
this is an independent memra in the gemara.  Al Hanissim and Vayavo
Amalek are also not mitzvos, but they are chiyuvim.   What happens if
one omitted them?  Nothing.   The mitzvos of the day have been fulfilled,
one just didn't do the whole day in the ideal fashion.

I don't know whether "kol haposhet yad" is a chiyuv, a recommendation,
or, on the contrary, a kulla, that one is yotzei matanos la'evyonim
without conducting the sort of due diligence one must normally do to
be yotzei mitzvas tzedaka; but if it's something approaching a chiyuv,
what happens if one omits it?  Again, one didn't do the whole day in
the ideal fashion.


>  OTOH, if it is an actual chiyuv, why "michayav" rather than the usual
>  (and shorter) conjugation, "chayav" itself?

AFAIK "michayav" *is* the usual conjugation.  Can you find an example of
"chayav inish" to do something?


> Also, who said the chiyuv started with the amoraim, just because it's
> stated as a quote from Rava?

I'm just going on the fact that this memra is the first (and last)
mention of it.  The four mitzvos are in the megilla.


> 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.

It could be, but then it should say "livesumi bise`udata" or something
like that.

  
> 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.

On the contrary, the fact that Rabba suggested it again proves that
this was the correct conduct, and if a miracle would be required again,
it would be provided. Rav Zeira didn't say he wasn't going to get drunk,
and he didn't tell Rabba not to get drunk, he just didn't want to be there
at the time, in case there wouldn't be a second miracle. Maybe there's
a drasha there about when one can and can't rely on miracles, and what
sort of person can or can't rely on them, but there's no disapproval of
the drunkenness itself. Presumably R Zeira found someone more congenial
to get drunk with.



On 03/21/2016 10:51 AM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> Perhaps the line should be read bit'mihah. "Is one chayav to drink on
> Purim...?" It would explain why it's immediately followed with what
> can only be a cautionary tale *again* overdrinking.

How can it be bitmiha when there has been no previous suggestion that
it *should* be that way?   This is the first we hear of such a thing,
so it must be read straight.   And the upshot of the story is that
despite what happened the previous year Rabba did not refrain, because
drunkenness on Purim *is* the right thing to do, and the consequences
are in Hashem's hands.



-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
zev at sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".