6

There have long been 'legends' of various liberal figures in Judaism, including Yeshayahu Leibovitz (brother of Nechama Leibovitz) that would 'skip' Purim. On the 14th of Adar they would be sure to be in Jerusalem, while on the 15th of Adar they would be sure to be outside of Jerusalem, thereby avoiding the halachic requirement of fulfilling the mitzvah of Purim. The reason given is that Purim can be perceived as an 'immoral' holiday, celebrating the murder of tens of thousands members of the Persian empire at the hands of Jews (though possibly explainable as self-defense).

a) I've seen multiple sources referring to this story, some claiming it as fact, others claiming it as fiction. Does anyone have any clear cut sources on the matter?

b) Is there any reference in halachic literature to such a practice? Is it explicitly looked down upon? How about the more general idea of putting oneself in a position in order to be exempted from a mitzvah?

msh210
  • 73,729
  • 12
  • 120
  • 359
ChaimKut
  • 2,463
  • 21
  • 20
  • 3
    He feels he is more moral than the Anshei Knesses Hagedolah? Even if one was allowed to put oneself in a place where he would be Patur from a Mitzvah, he isn't allowed to do so if he is doing it as a protest against the "immorality" of the Torah. (IIRC, while there is no technical requirement to eat meat, the Rabbis generally disapprove of one who is vegetarian for "reasons" of Tzaar Baalei Chaim as it implies that the Torah is unethical). – ertert3terte Mar 05 '12 at 00:10
  • 1
    @ShmuelBrill You make a lot of unsourced sweeping claims in your comment. What if someone refuses to own a slave because he thinks it is immoral even though the Torah permits it? What about polygamy? Who are these "rabbis" who disapprove of vegetarianism? I'm a proud omnivore, and I know plenty of rabbis who are too, but some (notable Rav Kook and others) are perfectly happy with vegetarianism. Lastly, I'm not sure how you know that one's intention in avoiding purim determines its permissibility or not. So let's keep your self-righteousness out of it, shall we? – Double AA Mar 05 '12 at 04:45
  • 1
    @DoubleAA the OP said "The reason given is that Purim can be perceived as an 'immoral' holiday". All I said was that this attitude is wrong. – ertert3terte Mar 05 '12 at 04:46
  • Also, any complaints anyone has against Yeshayahu Lebovitz are not related to the question. It is a fine question. +1 – Double AA Mar 05 '12 at 04:47
  • @ShmuelBrill You think it is wrong, and you probably also think it wrong that I won't own a slave. I think you are wrong. (This is not to say I avoid purim! I'm just not rejecting the notion without thinking.) – Double AA Mar 05 '12 at 04:49
  • 3
    The difference, @DoubleAA, is that there's no mitzvah to own a slave. There is a mitzvah (miderabanan) to observe Purim. – Alex Mar 05 '12 at 05:48
  • @Alex No! There is only a mitzva miderabanan to observe purim under certain circumstances (happening to be in a walled city on the 15th or an unwalled city on the 14th). It's a Kiyumit Mitzva. – Double AA Mar 05 '12 at 06:19
  • Finally, even if the torah permits something for eating, it doesn't mean it thought it was a good thing (I don't see you all jumping on Shalom's comments at the end of this answer). – Double AA Mar 05 '12 at 06:19
  • Wait... but wouldn't there be something wrong with following something that you think is immoral?! Also, why would you keep it if you don't believe it is from God, and if you do, then how can you consider it immoral without saying that He is? – Annelise Aug 05 '13 at 12:18

3 Answers3

5

I've never heard of anyone purposely skipping Purim. I think that's a separate question.

But as far as the behavior of someone purposely trying to get exempted from a Mitzva, the Gemara says that someone who goes out of his way to round his four-cornered garment so he'll be exempted from the mitzva of tzitzis, when Hashem is angry, watch out. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein applied this to strongly frown upon those who might say on Sukkos: "hm I'll just choose to do a two-day trip to an amusement park for the fun of it over Chol HaMoed, and woops! I'm a traveller so I don't need a sukkah."

Similarly one of the strongest explanations for the Mishna's prohibition on getting on a boat a few days before Shabbos is it's likely (or at leased used to be likely) that when on the boat, a situation will arise in which life-threatening matters may come up, forcing a violation of Shabbos. You ideally shouldn't put yourself in such a situation.

There are a series of questions & answers relating to the various Jewish holidays that have been asked of IDF rabbis over the years; one of them was in fact "the way it turned out, I was stationed in an old city on the 14th, and a new city on the 15th, so I never heard megillah." The answer was: "well yes congratulations you've circumvented the mitzvah altogether, but doing so should be avoided if at all possible."

Shalom
  • 132,602
  • 8
  • 193
  • 489
  • And yet, ever gadol in America has no problem finding reasons to avoid living in Israel. Clearly, you can't apply this rule to all mitzvot equally. – avi Mar 05 '12 at 07:24
  • @Avi, if we view yishuv eretz yisrael as a kiyumis (or positive only as it enables other mitzvas), it's the difference between: "status quo I'm obligated now I'll try to get out of it", and "status quo I'm not obligated, should I go put myself in a position to become obligated" – Shalom Mar 05 '12 at 13:23
  • status quo is that the person will be in Jeruselem on the 14th and outside of Jeruselem on the 15th... – avi Mar 05 '12 at 15:41
  • @avi I agree that according to this purim is kiyumis. I disagree that there aren't valid reasons for someone to live in Chu"l and especially for a gadol. Bnei Chu"l need poskim and leaders too and I think it is assur for the gedolim to abandon their people (like a captain on a ship doesn't leave till the end, even if it means risking not getting out). – Double AA Mar 05 '12 at 19:56
  • Technically, it's not "getting out" of a mitzvah. The obligation of the mitzvah never begins. See my answer over here: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/15084/1095 When four-cornered garments were normal, cutting off a corner to avoid tzitzit was actively removing from a mitzvah that was obligatory upon you already. Now that nearly all Western clothing has no corners, if you don't wear a special four-cornered undershirt, your mitzvah of tzitzit has not even begun. –  Mar 12 '12 at 11:41
  • @avi unlike Purim (obligation starts on 14th or 15th of Adar) and tzitzit (obligation starts when you want to wear clothing that has four corners) - the obligation to live in Israel has no time limit. Thus, every Jew is always required to live in Israel - except when he/she may have temporary dispensations (heterim) such as livelihood, getting or staying married, or performing a mitzvah overes (taking care of parents or children when no one else will do so, possibly teaching Torah no one else will do so, and Jews would otherwise be completely ignorant). –  Mar 12 '12 at 11:49
  • Being forced to violate Shabbat is very different from never being Chayav to begin with. – Double AA Aug 31 '12 at 18:26
  • I saw a child wearing a costume for Purim that had one part made of rectangular fabric with a hole in the top for his head. When his father saw it, he immediately said that a corner needed to be rounded straight away. I thought that it was an example of respecting the mitzvah rather than avoiding it, especially since they couldn't really put tzitzit on the 'garment' there and then. According to the idea of actively removing from a mitzvah, would you still say that it wasn't ideal to do that? – Annelise Aug 05 '13 at 12:26
4

There is a machlokes Rishonim about the status of a traveling Ben Ir and a Ben Kerach around Purim. According to one view (Aruch HaShulchan 688:14, the view of the Rosh), the correct procedure hinges on where one will be on the day of the 14th. If one expects to be home that evening before sunrise on the 14th, then he reads like wherever he lives (either on the 14th of the 15th), even if he doesn't actually get home. And if he doesn't plan to be home sometime on the night of the 14th (i.e. he will be in the place he is visiting for at least some daylight on the 14th), then he reads like the place he is visiting. According to this view, if one planned to be in Jerusalem on the day of the 14th, he would have to read like the custom of Jerusalem (on the 15th) no matter where he was then. So according to this view, it is not clear how one could avoid the megillah.

The other view (see Aruch HaShulchan 688:15, the view of Rashi & Rambam) states that the correct procedure hinges on whether you will be in a walled city for at least part of the daytime of the 15th, or a non-walled city for at least part of the daytime on the 14th. According to this view, one could potentially avoid Purim by planning to be in Jerusalem on the 14th.

This machlokes means it is not clear whether one could really avoid Purim (and certainly not according to all major Rishonim); thus I think the premise of the question is dubious.

Double AA
  • 98,894
  • 6
  • 250
  • 713
Curiouser
  • 7,901
  • 2
  • 35
  • 45
  • But it seems the Shulchan Aruch and on all paskin like the Rambam, so it should be possible to skip purim according to the normative view. – Double AA Mar 05 '12 at 05:35
  • @ Double AA: Note that the Aruch HaShulchan doesn't seem to take a clear side (unlike his usual approach) which indicates to me that this is far from a "normative", well-established view. But I never denied it wasn't possible (anything is possible according to some opinion), but that based on this machlokes, making such an argument and actually paskening according to it would be difficult (and perhaps unimaginable) – Curiouser Mar 05 '12 at 05:41
  • In other words, to pasken like the Rambam in Shulchan Aruch on the question of which day to read is easy, in that one still reads, just potentially on a different day from the ROsh; but to pasken like the Rambam to get a result where you don't read, where the Rosh would require a reading, seems extremely unlikely. Do you see the difference? – Curiouser Mar 05 '12 at 05:47
  • He says that the Shulchan Aruch follows the Rambam and doesn't quote any later dissenters. The Mishna Berura also takes it as pashut that the SA is like the Rambam. No one has long discussions because there were no later arguments AND it wasn't really so relevant. I can also tell you that when I was in yeshiva in Israel I was told regarding traveling to/from yerushalayim the psak of the Rambam/SA as simply the psak without question and I know many Israelis in the yeshiva who were going home for day 2 in yerushalayim held of it lechatchila. I really think that is the ikar hadin. – Double AA Mar 05 '12 at 05:50
  • Re your second comment: You assume we only like the rambam lechumra. I don't see why it isn't just psak as usual picking a side and paskining. Do you have any evidence that it isn't? – Double AA Mar 05 '12 at 05:51
  • My point is that we are picking a side and paskening but on the issue of which day to read the megillah. But if the issue is whether to read the megillah at all, that question is not (necessarily) decided by the psak in the first question. i.e. one of the conditions on paskening like the Rambam might have been that, after all, he still reads the megillah on one or the other days. But if you take away that condition, it is not obvious the psak will turn out the same. – Curiouser Mar 05 '12 at 05:58
  • You seem to be asking here in the comments if the rambam would really allow this situation to happen or if it would default to 14th (or maybe 15th). That is a perfectly fine question (and may be what the OP is asking). But you can't tell me that there is still a safek from the rosh, and that's what I see in your answer. – Double AA Mar 05 '12 at 06:02
  • No, I am stating that you are extrapolating incorrectly from the psak in the Shulchan Aruch. Just because it is paskened like the Rambam (with the assumption that there will be at least one reading) doesn't mean the halacha would follow the Rambam if that precludes any reading at all. Perhaps the Shulchan Aruch would have paskened like the Rosh in such a case. But that case is not dealt with explicitly, and you want to assume the result based on the psak like the Rambam. Hence I wrote my answer to remind everyone that the Rosh disagrees and might well be highly relevant. – Curiouser Mar 05 '12 at 06:05
  • Ah. Ok I guess that is a possiblitly, though I don't find it remotely likely at all. I'm much more concerned that the rambam himself would say you default to some day if you try to skip, and even that is not so clear. – Double AA Mar 05 '12 at 06:16
  • 3
    As one point of reference, Rav Melamed, head of the Yeshivat Har Bracha and an influential posek in Israel, explains here the issues of when to observe Purim and Shushan Purim: http://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/shiur.asp?id=7056 . He concludes that the majority opinion is that one's obligation is dependent on your location at the halachic time of Alot HaShachar on the day of Purim and Shushan Purim. Based on Rashi, Ritva, Ramban, Riyaz (R Yeshaya Matruni), Shulchan Aruch, the Jerusalem Talmud (Yerushalmi) and more. In fact, the Rosh is very much in the minority. – ChaimKut Mar 06 '12 at 04:28
  • Therefore, if a Jerusalemite is at home at Alot on the 14th, and in Tel Aviv on the 15th, then he will have no obligation. Tangentially, many people living in Jerusalem and its suburbs have the practice of visiting friends so that they can obligated for 2 days of Purim and enjoy twice the merriment. – ChaimKut Mar 06 '12 at 04:29
  • @ ChaimKut: The Aruch HaShulchan doesn't portray the Rosh as such a far out or minority opinion, and he spends a lot of time explaining his view. So I think if you assume that R. Melamed is correct, then you significantly limit the range of answers to your question, a range that is fully considered by far more significant poskim like the Aruch HaShulchan. – Curiouser Mar 07 '12 at 03:05
  • @ChaimKut FWIW, the practical advice I've heard for Jerusalemites who want a two-day party is: leave J'lem before the night of the 14th, observe all aspects of Purim there, STAY THERE THE NIGHT OF THE 15th, wake up the morning of the 15th, and ONLY THEN return to J'lem. In this way, one may sing, dance, eat, and drink with those celebrating Shushan Purim, without needing to hear megilla again, give mishloach manos and matanos l'evyonim again, and wash for the seudas mitzvah again. –  Mar 12 '12 at 11:55
0

this is part of an answer by @Yishai to another question but I believe is applicable to part b) here

The Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S"A 688:8) says that one who lives in Yerushalayim and leaves on the 14th after dawn and stays away (in Tel Aviv) until after 15th at dawn, has successfully avoided Purim - however, he says that anyone G-d fearing should not do this, and if he did, he still has to read Megillah and do the other Mitzvos on the 15th, he just does it without a Bracha and cannot read Megillah for others.

rikitikitembo
  • 14,079
  • 3
  • 22
  • 80