1) The MB in OC 690 s”k 39 on the din of one who reads the megillah while “misnamnem,” half-asleep, quotes the PM”G who holds that one has to be awake enough to have an awareness of kavanah l’shem mitzvah throughout the reading. In the Shaar haTziyun the MB writes that he is not convinced this chidduh is correct. He argues that so long as one has kavanah at the start of the reading l’shem mitzvah, that is sufficient.
2) The MB in 695:4 quotes the PM”G that you need kavanah to be yotzei the mitzvos ha’yom, including seudas Purim.
The Rambam writes that the mitzvah of shofar requires kavanah, yet the Rambam paskens that one is yotzei achilas matzah without kavanah. Ran famously explains the difference: when it comes to eating, one inevitably derives pleasure from the experience (the halacha is that one is chayav for eating cheilev even as a mitasek because the pleasure received from the food is an inevitable outcome of the act), and the kavanah is therefore automatic.
Why then does the PMG insist that one needs kavanah to be yotzei seudas Purim –- it should be like eating matzah?
It seems that it’s not the eating per se which is the mitzvah of seudah, but rather the ikkar mitzvah is the simcha which results from having the meal. Yesh lachkor according to this a) whether one needs to eat a k’zayis to be yotzei the seudah, or whether some smaller amount would suffice so long as it engenders simcha b) does seudas Y”T require kavanah l’shem mitzvah? Is it a mitzvas achila (there definitely are shitos Rishonim that define a shiur achila required for the seudah) or a mitzvah of simcha? c) "ain simcha elah b'basar" -- is meat required for seudas Purim? (discussed by many Achronim)
-- "1) ...so long as one has kavanah at the start"
ReplyDeleteas in the Amidah, also written by the Anshei Knesset ha'Gedolah. and what is the first bracha there? Magen Avraham; Shield/Protector of Avraham. but only the >entire< megillah reveals Hashem's protection of bnei Yisrael, pointing us back to the PM"G and to kavanah "throughout the reading"...
and the converse, if we can be "half-asleep" after the first bracha of the Amidah and still be yotzei, then we have added piquancy to the second bracha: u'm'kayeim emunaso >li'sheinei< afar [he who prays already without kavanah, half-wittedly prays for himself in his immediate, half-witted state]...
-- "2) ...one inevitably derives pleasure"-- from "cheilev", yes, but from matzah? rather we "automatic"ally sense affliction, a flatness of taste, just as intended...
' 1) ...what is the first bracha there? Magen Avraham '
Deletebut if we define the first bracha by its opening words (calling it Avos), and follow the opinion of Rav Yehuda on 19a (that one begins his reading from ish Yehudi, 2:5), then we get the following: Elokeinu (Mordechai's generation as the sons, for point-of-reference?) v'Elokei avoseinu, Elokei Kish, Elokei Shimi, v'Elokei Ya'ir.... pasuk 2:5 in itself thus equals the Avos bracha, and like the Amidah we need kavanah only for it ["at the start of the reading"]
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI've never understood why missing hearing a word is a problem. Bishlema if there is noise, them לא משתמעי unless it's חביב. But if the only sound is the Baal korei, the physical reality is that you heard it, you just weren't paying attention. Who cares? You don't need to understand the meaning of the words as long as you hear them, and you must have heard them. And even the rishonim that to be yotzei with שומע כעונה is only of you understand Hebrew, everyone agrees that does not apply by מגילה. So what's this obsessive focus and scrambling to say the words you "didn't hear?" You certainly heard them, you just didn't pay attention. It's like looking at a scene. Sure, you miss 99% of the nuances, but you saw it all.
ReplyDelete>>>the physical reality is that you heard it
ReplyDeletePerceptual psychologists I think would argue that hearing, vision, etc. are not physical processes alone -- there is always a cognitive element to perception or it's not real.
I have come to realize that you are right. I posted on the topic the other day.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete