DSeid, the statement you recall about getting confused between “Blessed be Mordechai” and “Cursed be Haman” is correct, but there’s more to it than meets the eye. Here are some relevant (translated) quotes from the various commentaries on the Code of Jewish Law (section Orach Chayim 695:2), supporting what Chaim wrote earlier:
“Some say that one need not drink that much, but rather that one should drink more than usual so that he’ll sleep - and when he’s asleep, he won’t know the difference between ‘Blessed be Mordechai’ and ‘Cursed be Haman’” (glosses of R’ Moshe Isserles)
“Both of these phrases [in Hebrew] have the same numerical value, 502. Thus, when one has drunk enough that he can no longer figure out this numerical equivalence, he is exempt from further drinking” (Magen Avraham)
“Before one has gotten drunk, one surely expressed thanks to G-d for both of His acts of goodness [the degradation of Haman and the elevation of Mordechai]. Thus, our Sages were saying that one should continue giving thanks for this with such joy that one reaches the point of not being able to tell which is the greater good” (Mishnah Berurah)
“We are not commanded to get drunk and to degrade ourselves through [over]celebrating, since the joy we are told to experience is not one of wild abandon and silliness, but rather it should be a pleasureful joy which leads one to love of G-d and thankfulness for the miracles He performed for us” (Meiri, cited in Beur Halachah)
As far as Purim being “a playful little holiday, nothing too serious”: that’s an unfortunately mistaken impression. For one thing, it’s “serious” enough for its detailed laws to take up eleven sections in the Code of Jewish Law. For another, there’s a teaching - IIRC, it’s attributed to R’ Isaac Luria - that Yom Kippur (the full name of which is “Yom Kippurim”) is so called because it’s “a day like Purim” (yom ke-Purim); the implication is that Purim, in a sense, outranks Yom Kippur in importance and serves as its model!
I’m not too clear on the exact meaning of the term “shitfaced drunk”, so I can’t say for certain whether it applies. But it is true that there are many who interpret the requirement as being to get totally stoned. And even those who give alternate explanations (e.g. those cited by RedNaxela) allow for the totally drunk as being highly recommended if not required. Getting totally drunk on Purim has a long and honorable tradition, and is not to be dismissed.
Having said that, the important point is how one acts when under the influence. If in a given case someone will act innapropriately, he is NOT to get drunk, but rather to drink a bit and rely on the alternative explanations.
There are many many people who will get stoned out their minds and become better people. It all depends on what really lurks inside the mind. Those who are louts but afaid to show it will lose their inhibitions and act like louts. Those who are sincere fine people but restrained in expressing their emotions will lose their inhibitions and express themselves more fully as well.
Really, now? Even the best-behaved of drunks, if genuinely impaired, is not supposed to say grace after meals or the afternoon or evening prayers (I’ll assume that most of the enthusiastic Purim drunks are not drunk at morning prayer time, but merely nursing the hangover from the prior night). Is that “recommended” or considered “honorable”? What about someone who will not act inappropriately, but will end up vomiting from too much drink? No matter how you cut it, it certainly gives a bad image, and dare I say, a desecration of G-d’s name, in those who do it. I once personally prevented my Rosh Hayeshiva from being thrown up on by a fellow student who is, every other day of the year, a fine man…he even received his Rabbinic ordination last year. Is that level of debasement for Torah sanctioned by this “honorable tradition”?
Sorry, but I must disagree. There is a distinction to be made between “a little extra wine” and “totally stoned,” as so many Halachic authorities, some of whom were quoted by RedNaxela, have said. This day of license has become much abused in recent years, beyond any traditional sanction.
I would say it depends on the attitude of the guy on the receiving end. Generally, no. But as you know, though, even a certain amount of hezeik is sort of tolerated (though not called for) in the spirit of Purim. Obviously, you want to avoid vominting on people. But if a (very) small number of people end up throwing up, it goes with the territory.
I don’t know about you, but in the circles in which I move, getting totally stoned is extremely common. Vomiting is relatively uncommon (though certainly not unheard of, especially for younger teenagers), and I’ve never seen or heard of anyone throwing up on another person.
Disagree all you want. But you are disagreeing with a great many rabbinic leaders and halachic authorities, who felt that getting drunk was required or at least preferred, or who practiced this custom themselves.
As mentioned earlier, the halachic authorities cited by RedNaxela merely say that you can fulfill the requirement of ad d’lo yodah by means of alternative explanations. You will not find a halachic authority who says not to get literally drunk, unless there is a risk of innapropriate behaviour.
I disagree - Purim as currently practiced is one of finest and most uplifiting days of the Jewish calendar. I may start a thread in MPSIMS to describe this more fully, if I get around to it.
**Depends what “genuinely impaired” means, then. See Orach Chaim 99:1-3 and 185:4, and Mishnah Berurah there, for the details: in short, if a person is so drunk that he can’t speak coherently, then he may not recite Shemoneh Esrei, and there are various opinions as to whether he may recite the Grace After Meals. (And if he’s “as drunk as Lot,” where he has no sense of what he’s doing at all, then everyone agrees that his prayers are invalid. In Chaim’s example of a student about to throw up on his Rosh Yeshiva, I think a fair case can be made that this approaches Lot’s level of drunkenness!)
Note well the Rema’s expression (695:2): “If a person causes damage to his colleague due to the joy of Purim (my emphasis), he is exempt.” It seems to me that this is talking about a case where the damage is directly caused by an overenthusiastic expression of joy (picture a case where a guy is flailing his arms wildly as part of a Purim play, and accidentally socks another guy in the jaw), not where it’s an unnecessary byproduct.
[Compare also with the case in Choshen Mishpat 378:9 concerning damages caused during a horseback-riding (jousting?) tournament at a wedding; there too the emphasis seems to be that the riders are exempt from payment for damages incurred “in the course of play,” but not damages caused by getting drunk.]
See also the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (185:4), where he points out that a drunken person (who hasn’t yet reached the “drunkenness of Lot”) is considered to be fully compos mentis and liable for any damages or misdeeds he commits.
One other thing: even in the cases where hezeik is “sort of tolerated,” that’s on the receiving end; a person is still morally culpable for his actions, unless he’s oseh birshus (see, for example, Choshen Mishpat 378:8), a consideration which is conspicuously absent from the Rema’s formulation.
**Actually, there are indeed halachic authorities - I don’t have the necessary sefarim handy to look them up, but I can do so over Shabbos - who hold that the Gemara’s statement about drinking ad delo yada is not even accepted as normative halachah, as evidenced by the fact that it’s juxtaposed with the unfortunate episode involving Rabbah and Rav Zeira (Megillah 7b). So by insisting that this is indeed meant to be taken literally, you too are disagreeing with several Rishonim and Acharonim…
Furthermore, as you yourself noted, there are indeed different levels of drunkenness; surely you’re not going to claim that those “great many rabbinic leaders and halachic authorities” got drunk to the point of vomiting and making fools of themselves, G-d forbid!
Indeed, and there’s nothing like a good strong dose of yeinah shel Torah - in the form of maamarei Chassidus such as “Chayav Inish LeVasumei BePurya” in Torah Ohr, and “VeKibbel HaYehudim 5687” - to help a person appreciate the uniqueness of Purim!
It has to do with whether he can comport himself properly (“in front of a king”). Someone who is so drunk that he has no sense of what he is doing is exempted from all commandments. (In fact, R’ Yisroel Salanter held that ad d’lo yada was when a person reaches this point - he is exempt from further drinking because of the general exemption from all commandments.)
Throwing up has to do with the state of one’s stomach, and is not relevant.
Of course. My point here was to note that there is some degree of acceptance of this phenomenon. I would say that a person who has good reason to believe that he might harm someone else should NOT get drunk on Purim. But the fact that there might be some guys who fall through the cracks should be accepted in proper spirit and not be used to denigrate the proper approach.
You would be referring to Rabbeinu Efraim and those who hold with him (e.g. the Meiri and IIRC the Ran - I am well aware of this opinion. But this is not accepted halacha. (Though there is a Taz, IIRC, that seems to suggest otherwise). As I am sure you are aware, we follow the accepted halacha in matters that have been disputed, and I consider your claim that by “insisting that this is meant” etc. I am “disagreeing with several rishonim” etc. to be misleading at best.
Please reread the second and thirds paragraphs of my first post to this thread.
Quite true, to some extent. Halachic literature goes all the way back to the Mishna, which was compiled about 1900 years ago. Since then there have been numerous sages, who have commented on and codified works of Jewish law.
However, in this thread, despite the many names thrown around, there haven’t been too many different works mentioned.
Orach Chaim and Choshen Mishpat are two of the four parts of the Shulchan Aruch, a codification of Jewish law written by R. Yosef Cairo in the 1560s.
The Rema (which is an acronym for Rabbi Moshe Issrelis) is a gloss written on the Shulchan Aruch about ten years later. Rabbi Cairo’s work reflected the norms of Jewish law and Sephardic customs. Rabbi Issrelis added comments to the text which reflected the practice in Ashkenazic countries.
The Mishna Berura is a commentary written on Orach Chaim by R. Yisroel Meir Kagan (also known as the Chofetz Chaim. This work was written in the early 1900s.
The Shulchan Aruch Harav (not to be confused with the Shulchan Aruch) was written by Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi in the mid to late 1700s.
Megilah as quoted above, is one of the Tractates of the Talmud and was compiled at about 450.
I think that covers most of the citations mentioned below.
The problem for me isn’t the drunkeness (although I’ve never been drunk in my life, and I’m in no hurry to start), but the fact that I’m driving most of the day.
Put it this way, I drink far more with the arba cosos at the seder than I do the entire year round (forget about just Purim…)
No, it has to do with whether he can speak (yachol ledabber) before a king - i.e., coherently without mistakes. (The Rav, in his Shulchan Aruch (185:5), draws a clear distinction between one who sounds drunk but can still speak clearly - which puts him in the category of shasui - and one who can’t speak coherently, who is defined as shikor. See also Mishnah Berurah 185:6.)
**Yes, but throwing up on one’s Rosh Yeshivah has to do with the state of one’s mind; I am sure that Chaim’s friend would never have done such a thing if he was at all conscious of what he was doing, which is why I would characterize his state of drunkenness as Lot-like.
But how many have to “fall through the cracks” in a particular community before we say that something is indeed wrong with their approach - not with the halachah itself, G-d forbid, but with how they’re (mis)applying it? Granted that most posekim would place the limit higher than Chaim’s “slight buzz,” they would also place it lower than DSeid’s “shitfaced drunk,” which to me suggests unlimited drinking and losing control of one’s faculties - and that’s the characterization to which Chaim was objecting. So if people in your community indeed rarely reach that latter stage, then they do indeed have good halachic support for what they’re doing - but that’s precisely because they recognize that there are limits.
I apologize and withdraw that comment, then: when you wrote that “you will not find a halachic authority who says not to get literally drunk,” I parsed that as meaning “any authority on halachah, regardless of whether their opinion is accepted.” (BTW, thanks for providing the references to Rabbeinu Efrayim’s opinion.)
I have done so, but I don’t really see where you’ve addressed the issue of involuntary drunken behavior (vomiting, etc.) which leads to a debasement of Torah and a chillul Hashem. One can be a fine person and still reach such a state through over-inebriation, as Chaim’s friend’s example demonstrates.
Well, I normally don’t drink to celebrate Purim either!
Seriously, gentlemen, with the Feast of Unleavened Bread looming, would you gentlemen be willing to address (perhaps in a new thread) what Passover means to you and what you understand it to mean to Jews generally? There have been any number of comments made in my general direction that “you Christians don’t get half of the real meaning of Passover” because of the particular focus we put on our parallel commemoration of what happened to Jesus on Pesach 29 AD. I think it would be highly enlightening to all of us to read what it signifies in your lives. Thanks.
However, I don’t think you can make a parallel between the events of the Exodus and the events surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. The former involved a very physical liberation from a very physical bondage. The latter, (as I understand it) involved a spiritual libertation from sin.
In addition, I think that people who have been physically enslaved (as many of those in American history have been) certainly can understand the spirit of Passover.
Well, that’s something of the point, Zev – the parallels may not be obvious from your side of the table, but the narrative of the Last Supper, particularly in Luke, parallels the Seder quite closely, the idea of the sharing in the Lamb without Spot sacrificed to God, the whole idea of the angel of death passing by those marked with the blood of the lamb… it has great significance from our end. Therefore I wanted to get a handle on what it meant to you, since what Jews found meaningful in the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread would be what the first Christians, who were Jews, would have been working from in the parallels to what Jesus did.
Three Easter hymns that draw the parallel even stronger than what I said above: At the Lamb’s high feast we sing The Day of Resurrection
(On attempting a link, I find the third one may be copyrighted, so a short excerpt:
I trust you can see how these make strong reference to Pesach and draw the parallels between what Jesus is supposed to have accomplished for all men and what God is supposed to have accomplished for the Israelites many years before.
I’m sorry, but I believe you are wrong here. The language should more properly be translated “address a king”, not speak to a king. Not being able to enunciate the words clearly would be one example of not being fit to adress a king, but if he could speak clearly but was lurching to and fro or the like, he also could not pray.
Actually I think it is an involuntary reflex
I don’t know. Interestingly, there were ads in the religious papers this weekend signed by zillions of rabbis and scholars warning about dangerous drinking practices particularly among the underage. But no one suggested that no one should drink more than a slight buzz.
Again, I don’t know what “shitfaced drunk” means. But again, a person who is a good person inside will not act like a jerk even when losing control of their faculties. This has been my experience. (Whether they will throw up or get sick is another story).
I’ve looked over the hymns that you’ve linked to, as well as the account of the Last Supper in Luke. To be honest, I still don’t see that much of a parallel. True, the LS was a Passover seder. But beyond that, I don’t see much of a parallel.
The biggest thing that breaks the parallel for me, is that Christians (as I see it. If I’m wrong please correct me) view Jesus as a sin-offering; as someone who was sent by God to atone for their sins. But the first thing that you need to realize is that the Passover sacrifice was not a sin-offering. It was an offering that was offered at a specific time to commemorate a specific event in our history. Unlike a true sin-offering, both the sinner and the sin-free had to bring it; both had to partake of it; and both faced the same penalties for not doing so.
And, remember, of course, that the blood that was sprinkled on the doorposts was only done by the first Passover in Egypt. This ritual was not performed at any other time in Jewish history. The only other significance that the blood of the sacrifice played was that it’s blood had to be thrown on the altar. However, that is true not just for the Passover offering, but for every offering, whether it was a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, a peace-offering, a thanksgiving offering, or any other type of sacrifice. There is no special meaning to the blood of the Passover sacrifice over any of the thousands of other sacrifices that were offered year-round in the Temple. I understand that Christians place a great deal of emphasis on the blood of Jesus, but the parallel there is strained too. Firstly, of course, in order for any sacrifice to be acceptable, the blood of the sacrifice had to be sprinkled on the Altar. Jesus’ blood was not. Beyond that, there are numerous other places where the parallel between a sacrifice and Jesus’ death fails.
**
Passover, to Jews, as mentioned above, is primarily a holiday commemorating and giving thanks for our liberation from a very physical slavery in Egypt. We do things on the night of Passover to bring into focus our new-found status as free men. We eat the meal and perform the rituals leaning on a pillow. We do not pour our own wine for the Four Cups, rather others pour our wine for us. These are all symbols of chairus, freedom. In many Sephardic households a ritual is performed whereby the people in the household get up, put sacks over their shoulders and walk around the table. They are asked “Where are you coming from?” and they answer “Egypt.” “Where are you going?” “To Jerusalem” is the answer.
Symbolism abounds on Passover. We eat matzah to commemorate the bread that our forefathers ate. We eat marror (bitter herbs) to remember how bitter the Egyptians made the lives of the Jews. We drink four cups of wine in commemoration of the four expressions of redemption mentioned in Exodus. We eat the charoses, which is designed to look like mortar, to remind us of the bricks we formed. We eat vegetables dipped in salt water, to remind us of the tears that were shed by our ancestors.
On the night of Passover, the Exodus is discussed at lenght, far beyond what is written in the text of the hagaddah. People are encouraged to ask questions about the Exodus and the laws of Passover. There is much lively discussion that goes on between chapters of the hagaddah.
Lastly, Passover is about redemption. However, it is a holiday of physical redemption. We remember the past enslavement of Egypt and how we were redeemed from there by God’s hand. And at the seder we pour a cup of wine for Elijah, who will come before our final redemption, when we are redeemed from our current Exile.
We already have a holiday for our redemption from sin. It’s called Yom Kippur. It existed well before Jesus’ time. I see more of a parallel between Yom Kippur’s meaning and Jesus death as Christians see it, than between Passover and the Crucifixion.
I’d just like to apologize for the term “shitfaced drunk” … a bit of hyperbole that even I really don’t know the precise meaning of. Only that I haven’t been it for well over twenty years. Buzzed occasionally, sure. Any m ore and I’d just fall asleep. Heck, a glass of wine at dinner and I want to nap.
The point was that the day is one of revelry and celebration, not serious study (all rules and regs notwithstanding). Besides, one man’s buzz may be one mensch’s shitfaced.
As to the Pesach parallelisms … I too find the analogies a bit strained. Maybe if one believes that The Law was bondage, then the Pauline interpretation of Christ’s message and sacrifice as a release from The Law would hold as an analogy … maybe.
