YHE-HOLIDAY: SPECIAL PURIM 5765 PACKAGE

Yeshivat Har Etzion

This Package contains:

1. Insights into Megillat Esther, by Rav Yonatan Grossman & Rav Yehoshua Reiss

2. A Concise Guide to the Laws of Purim Meshulash, by Rav Yosef Zvi Rimon

3. Halakhic Issues Raised by the Leap Year, by Rav Binyamin Tabory

For more Purim-related articles, see our website:

http://www.vbm-torah.org/purim.htm

Chag sameach.

*********************************************************

Insights into Megillat Esther

By Rav Yonatan Grossman & Rav Yehoshua Reiss

Translated by Kaeren Fish

We would like to offer a number of short and unrelated insights into major themes and ideas in Megillat Esther, to serve as food for thought as you hear the Megilla this Purim.

I. THE STORY'S STARTING POINT

Every story that is made up of a chain of events has a starting point. However, it is not always clear from where the story should begin. The Sages debate the question, "From which point does a person read the Megilla in order to fulfill his obligation?" In fact, the parties to this debate reflect differing views as to where the crux of the story begins:

On the other hand, the Megilla conceivably could have started earlier than it actually does, such as with the coronation of Achashverosh, or with Mordekhai's adoption of Esther.

In fact, the Megilla opens with Achashverosh's banquet for his servants, even though, at first glance, this seems to have nothing to do with the main plot. Attention should be paid to the fact that the main events of the Megilla take place in the twelfth year of Achashverosh's reign, but the story begins with the banquet in the third year of his reign. Apparently, this is meant to emphasize the foresight of Divine Providence: it was the removal of Vashti in the third year that prepared the ground for the salvation of the Jews in the twelfth year. At the time, her removal looked like a regular royal scandal, with no ramifications for history. Only a perspective of many years revealed this event to have paved the way for the salvation of Israel from the terrible fate that awaited them.

In the Megilla, Divine Providence operates in hidden ways; therefore God's Name is not mentioned anywhere in it. This may be what the Sages allude to in their teaching:

Through the manner of its writing, Megillat Esther presents its readers with a challenge of faith: one has to seek the Divine Providence leading events to unfold the way we see them – even if God's hand is not clearly revealed in them.

II. THE MAIN CHARACTER OF THE MEGILLA

The two main characters of the Megilla – Mordekhai and Esther – bring about the salvation of the Jews. Why is the Megilla named after Esther and not after Mordekhai?

If we seek the true main character of the story, we must divide the Megilla into two parts. Up until the moment when Mordekhai convinces Esther to appear before the king and to beseech him on behalf of her people (chapter 4), Mordekhai is presented as the main character. He is extremely active, while Esther is presented as subordinate to him and passive ("Whatever Mordekhai said, Esther would do"). In this first half, Mordekhai is the hero, and the plot revolves around him (his refusal to bow down before Haman, his overhearing Bigtan and Teresh, etc.).

However, once Esther agrees, with great self-sacrifice on behalf of the Jewish people, to enter the king's presence, she begins to lead events, while Mordekhai becomes subordinate to her ("Mordekhai came before the king because Esther had told what he was to her"). Henceforth, the plot centers on her (the two parties that she hosts for the king and Haman, her accusation and request, etc.), and the Megilla as a whole is named after her.

When festival is accepted by the Jews of all the provinces, we again find an emphasis on Esther's request rather than that of Mordekhai: "And Esther's word confirmed these matters of Purim, and it was written in the book" (9:32). The fact that the Megilla is named after her serves to emphasize the self-sacrifice that led to the eventual salvation. It was Esther's human action on behalf of her nation that brought to realization the machinations of hidden Divine Providence, and ultimately also the acceptance by the Jews of Shushan and of all the provinces of Esther's wish that thanks and praise be offered to God for their redemption from their enemies.

III. "HE HAS FALLEN IN THE PIT HE DUG" (TEHILLIM 7:16)

Towards the end of the Megilla, the text describes the turnaround which is the essence of the story: "…On the day when the enemies of the Jews hoped to have power over them, it was turned upside down – that the Jews themselves would rule over their enemies" (9:1). The same idea finds expression in the "boomerang" literary structure of the Megilla narrative, as we shall set forth.

In the first half of the story (episodes A-F below), Haman rises to power and causes the king to carry out his wish: a decree of annihilation against the Jews. This half concludes with Haman's relatives proposing "that Mordekhai be hanged… then go joyously with the king to the banquet…" (5:14). The second half of the story (episodes F1-A1) represents a symmetrical inverse, in which the star of Esther and Mordekhai rises, Haman himself is hanged on the gallows which he had prepared for Mordekhai, and his decrees are nullified. This half of the story opens again with the advice of Haman's cronies: "If Mordekhai, before whom you have begun to fall, is of Jewish lineage, then you will not prevail against him; you will surely fall before him" (6:13).

The turnaround itself takes place "on that night," when the king could not sleep (episode G). The Gemara expounds: "Rabbi Tanchum said: The King of the Universe was unable to sleep" (Megilla 15b). By the end of this fateful night, the king commands Haman to lead Mordekhai upon his own royal horse in the streets of the city. This image represents the turning point: Haman, instead of hanging Mordekhai, as he had planned, leads the horse upon which Mordekhai is seated. The point where the "turning" structure is most strikingly apparent is the contrasting parallel between Haman's letter and Mordekhai's letter (see below).

It should be noted that the bookends of the story (see A and A1 below) focus specifically on Achashverosh, king of the Persian empire. This emphasizes the "hidden" nature of the miracle. To mortal eyes, it appears that Achasheverosh – a mortal king – rules and controls his kingdom, but behind the scenes, the hand of Providence is apparent; it is this force that withholds sleep from the king on the fateful night.

We may summarize the "boomerang" structure of the story as follows:

IV. "SOMETHING WRITTEN IN THE KING'S NAME CANNOT BE REVOKED"

As demonstrated above, the structure of the Megilla reflects the concept of "turnaround." This is particularly striking in the parallel between the letters that Mordekhai writes, permitting the Jews to gather and defend themselves, and the writing and dispatching of the previous letters by Haman. The results of the dispatch of these two missives are similarly presented in a contrasting parallel: following Haman's letter, Mordekhai tears his clothes and dons sackcloth; after the second letters are sent, Mordekhai emerges from before the king "in royal robes."

This parallel shows up Achashverosh in all his weakness and fickleness: he hands his ring to Mordekhai with the same ease with which he previously handed it to Haman, although the purposes to which he is committing himself are diametrically opposed. Ironically, it is the king himself who highlights his own absurdity when he tells Mordekhai and Esther, "You may write as you please concerning the Jews, in the name of the king, and seal it with the king's ring; but writing which has been written in the king's name, and which has been sealed with the king's ring, cannot be revoked" (8:8). Despite the unthinking "rule of the ring", the king repeats his mistake and hands the ring to whoever seeks it.

On the other hand, this comparison also highlights the wheel of history, which turns in accordance with the wishes of the King of kings. That which Haman planned to do to the Jews ends up happening to him and to all the others who sought to cause evil to the Jewish nation.

V. MEGILLAT ESTHER AND THE STORY OF YOSEF

The Megilla contains many expressions that are borrowed from the description of Yosef in Egypt, in Sefer Bereishit. The two narratives are indeed very similar in content: both concern a Jew who rises to power in a foreign country, and seeks the welfare of the Jewish people in dealing with the ruling powers. Chazal note this connection:

This connection hints at that which is left hidden in Megillat Esther but made explicit in the story of Yosef: just as God protected Yosef and brought success to all his endeavors in Egypt, so God watched over Esther and made her successful.

However, the connection to Yosef may also hint at a teaching of the Sages that explains why Hallel is not recited on Purim: "For we were still the subjects of Achashverosh" (Megilla 14a). In other words, even after the happy ending of the Megilla, the Jews of Shushan were still in exile; this had not been a complete redemption. Through the veiled connection to the story of Yosef, the reader is reminded also of the continuation of that story – the bitter slavery in Egypt. Even if a Jew is placed at the very highest echelons of power in a foreign land, this is no guarantee for the safety of the Jewish nation so long as it dwells in exile. In the next generation, a new "Haman" may arise, "who did not know Yosef"…

VI. THE TIME OF THE STORY

When did the story of the Megilla take place? This depends on the identity of King Achasheverosh. According to the Sages (Megilla 11b), Achashverosh ruled immediately after Koresh (Cyrus), "at the end of seventy years of Babylonian exile," as Rashi explains (in his commentary on the beginning of the Megilla). This assumption appears to be based upon a unique chronological perception of the order of the Persian kings; even the early commentators note that this view does not sit well with the literal text.

The generally accepted view identifies Achashverosh as Xerxes, who ruled during the years 486-465 B.C.E. This identification is supported by the record in the Book of Ezra:

In this list of kings, Achashverosh parallels Xerxes.

According to this identification, the story of the Megilla unfolds after the rebuilding of the Second Temple. At the same time Haman plotted in Shushan, the Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel was fighting for its survival (see Ezra's description of Achashverosh's decrees "upon the inhabitants of Yehuda and Jerusalem," which highlights the viewpoint of the returnees from Babylon).

Various midrashim contrast the description of Achashverosh's palace with the description of the Temple. Chazal explain, for example, that the vessels that Achashverosh used at his banquet were in fact vessels plundered from the Temple (Megilla 11b), that the clothes that Achashverosh wore during the banquet were the special garments of the Kohen Gadol (Megilla 12a), etc. Perhaps the point of these midrashim is to criticize the Jews of Shushan, who remained in Persia and enjoyed the banquets held at the royal palace, instead of serving God in the Temple. The shape of the king's palace is presented in the Megilla as being similar to the form of the Temple (an outer court and an inner court); similarly, an uninvited commoner who approaches the king's inner court is put to death, just as is one who approaches the Sanctuary of the King of kings without being entitled to do so. Esther, who enters the king's inner court while fasting, resembles the Kohen Gadol who enters the "inner court" of the Temple on Yom Kippur. This parallel hints at a condemnation of the Jews of Shushan, who have "traded" the King of kings, as it were, for a mortal king, whose person and whose reign are the subject of considerable mockery in the Megilla.

***********************************************

A Concise Guide to the Laws of Purim Meshulash

By Rav Yosef Zvi Rimon

Translated by David Strauss

THE ENACTMENT OF PURIM MESHULASH    

When Purim falls out on Shabbat, the megilla is not read in its proper time. Today, this can happen only in Jerusalem, when the fifteenth of Adar falls out on Shabbat. Rabba explained that the megilla is not read on Shabbat because of a rabbinic decree, lest a person come to carry the megilla four cubits in the public domain. According to Rav Yosef, the megilla is not read on Shabbat, so that the poor should not lose the charity that they ordinarily receive at the time of the megilla reading.

MEGILLA READING IN ITS PROPER TIME, OR ADVANCED READING?

The Gemara says that the megilla is not read on Shabbat but rather on Friday. The question may be raised whether the Friday reading follows from the original enactment of the Anshei Kenesset ha-Gedola (which is equivalent to divrei kabbala [laws known through tradition]), or is it a later rabbinic enactment. This question leads to the more fundamental question whether the Friday reading is considered megilla reading in its proper time (for this was part of the original enactment) or is it regarded as reading in advance (because this enactment was only enacted at some later point). This question has a number of practical ramifications:

CAN A JERUSALEMITE READ THE MEGILLA FOR A TEL AVIVI?

Can a Jerusalemite read the megilla for a Tel Avivi? If Friday is the proper time for megilla reading, as enacted by the Anshei Kenesset ha-Gedola, even for the Jerusalemite, it stands to reason that he can read for the Tel Avivi, because the level of obligation of each of them is the same. (In practice, a Jerusalemite should not read for a Tel Avivi.)

IS A QUORUM OF TEN REQUIRED?

Can the megilla be read with less than ten men present? According to many Rishonim, megilla reading not in its proper time is only possible for a congregation (the Shulchan Arukh rules that this is the way one should act lekhatchila). If the Friday reading for Jerusalemites is considered reading not in its proper time, then ten people are necessary. The Mishna Berura rules that an individual Jerusalemite who reads the megilla should do so without reciting a blessing. But the Chazon Ish and many other authorities are lenient, ruling that when a person is forced to read the megilla as an individual, he may do so with a blessing (they put together additional arguments in favor of leniency).

READING FOR WOMEN ON PURIM MESHULASH

Is a women's megilla reading possible in Jerusalem in a year when there is Purim Meshulash? Women are not regarded as a "congregation," and therefore according to the Mishna Berura they must hear megilla reading in a synagogue (in such a year). Many other authorities, however, have ruled leniently, for it is possible, as stated above, that a quorum of ten is not needed, and it is possible that for the purpose of megilla reading, ten women are regarded as a "congregation," for there is pirsumei nisa. This leniency was accepted by the Chazon Ish, Rav Zvi Pesach Frank (the chief rabbi of Jerusalem), and others.

GOING FROM TEL AVIV TO JERUSALEM AND VICE VERSA

If the resident of an unwalled city who already fulfilled his obligation in that unwalled city went to Jerusalem for Shabbat: If the obligation of Purim falls out on Shabbat, and it is only the megilla reading which was advanced to Friday, then since he will be in Jerusalem for Shabbat, he may become obligated a second time (especially if he is a Jerusalemite), at least in the other mitzvot aside from the megilla reading (which he already did on the fourteenth, and also in Jerusalem it is read on the fourteenth). The halakhic authorities disagree. It would seem that according to the basic law there is room for leniency, but in such a case a Jerusalemite should ideally observe (at least in minimal manner) the mitzvot of mishlo'ach manot and the Purim meal on Sunday. If a Jerusalemite was in Jerusalem on Friday, ideally he should not travel to Tel Aviv for Shabbat, because the whole obligation might only come into being on Shabbat, and he will therefore lose out on Purim. And if the obligation comes into being already on Friday, he does indeed become obligated in Purim, but he loses out on some things (for example, the Purim Torah reading). Ideally, then, he should not go away for Shabbat. If he went away, he should recite Al ha-Nisim on Shabbat (according to some, he should say it in "Elokai netzor" or in "Ha-Rachaman"), and on Sunday he should distribute mishlo'ach manot and celebrate the Purim meal, but he loses out on the Purim Torah reading.

AN INDIVIDUAL WHO READS ALONG WITH THE MEGILLA READER - IS THIS CONSIDERED MEGILLA READING IN A CONGREGATION?

If a person has a kosher megilla, and he reads along together with the megilla reader – according to the Chazon Ish, this is considered congregational reading. According to the Griz of Brisk, he is regarded as an individual. According to this, on Purim Meshulash, a person should not read along quietly to himself. It stands to reason, however, that if he reads along quietly and exactly at the same pace as the reader, and he hears the reader's reading – it is considered as congregational reading, and he may do so even on Purim Meshulash (even those who wish to be stringent).

A MINOR WHO REACHES MAJORITY ON PURIM MESHULASH

If a minor reaches majority on this Shabbat – then if the obligation comes into being only on Shabbat, he might have to read the megilla a second time on Shabbat, since on Friday he was still a minor! In practice, we rule that he does not read the megilla on Shabbat.

IF A PERSON DID NOT READ THE MEGILLA BECAUSE OF REASONS BEYOND HIS CONTROL

If, for reasons beyond his control, a person failed to read the megilla on Friday, should he read it on Shabbat? If the obligation comes into being only on Shabbat, perhaps he should read it. Practically speaking, however, he should not read the megilla on Shabbat. (For a frightening story from the Holocaust regarding Sukkot which fell out on Shabbat, and people who wished to fulfill the mitzva of lulav – see Responsa Mima'amakim, IV.)

FRIDAY

On Friday, the megilla is read, but Al ha-Nisim is not recited.

In the morning, the megilla is read a second time, and matanot la-evyonim are distributed.

When reciting the "Shehecheyanu" blessing, one should have in mind the rest of the mitzvot of Purim which will be observed over the next few days.

Al ha-Nisim is recited only on Shabbat. This seems to imply that Purim essentially falls out on Shabbat, in accordance with its original time, and that it is only the mitzvot of the day that are advanced or delayed. Some authorities, however, disagree with this conclusion.

THE TORAH READING

The special Torah portion for Purim ("Vayavo Amalek") is read on Shabbat. There is no concern that a person will go to an expert to learn the Torah reading, because there is no such concern regarding obligations falling on the community, and because this is no different than the Torah reading every week, regarding which people remember and do not come to violate the prohibition of carrying.

THE PURIM MEAL

According to the Yerushalmi, the Purim meal should not take place on Shabbat, because Shabbat is a time of joy, and the Purim meal should be eaten on a day that is not otherwise a day of joy (this would be a diminishment of Shabbat or a diminishment of the Purim meal). The Meiri rules that the Purim meal should be eaten on Friday, but many authorities preferred Sunday, because only after the obligation comes into being (i.e., on Shabbat) is it possible to make up the Purim meal. This is the ruling of the Shulchan Arukh, and so it is the customary practice to celebrate the Purim meal on Sunday. (Some add a special dish on Shabbat in honor of Purim, and some also add a special dish in honor of Purim on Friday.)

There are two reasons for mishlo'ach manot:

1) help for the Purim meal;

2) increasing peaceful and friendly relations.

According to the first reason, mishlo'ach manot should be sent on Sunday, the day on which the Purim meal is observed. This is the common practice. (According to the Chazon Ish, mishlo'ach manot precedes matanot la-evyonim, and so it should be observed on Friday. Therefore, there are those who are accustomed to send mishlo'ach manot on Friday as well. There are also those who also send mishlo'ach manot on Shabbat – Rav Sonnenfeld in "Purim Meshulash.")

DOES PURIM FALLING OUT ON SHABBAT EFFECT RESIDENTS OF UNWALLED CITIES?

Owing to the honor of Shabbat, the Purim meal which non-Jerusalemites eat on Friday should take place before noon or before mincha ketana. (There are certain individuals who are accustomed to observe the Purim meal in the afternoon, and when Shabbat arrives, they recite kiddush [in the middle of the meal, without a blessing on the wine], followed by Kabbalat Shabbat, and the rest according to the usual order.)

So, too, it is customary not to recite tachanun on Sunday, even in unwalled cities (Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach).

BRIEF SUMMARY - THE LAWS OF PURIM MESHULASH

The residents of unwalled cities celebrate Purim as usual on the fourteenth of Adar. The general custom is to celebrate the Purim meal in the morning (there are some who continue the meal into Shabbat – see above).

The residents of walled cities divide up the mitzvot of Purim over three days:

Megilla reading. The megilla should be read in the presence of ten men (in a case of great need, there is room for leniency, e.g., for women, especially when there are ten women).

Al ha-Nisim is not recited. (If by mistake a person recited Al ha-Nisim, he need not repeat the prayer.)

In the morning: Megilla reading, matanot la-evyonim (some practice stringency and send mishlo'ach manot and add a special dish to their meal [to discharge their obligation according to the Meiri]). Work is permitted, though there are some who are stringent in this regard as well.

When reciting the "Shehecheyanu" blessing, one should also have in mind the mitzvot of Purim to be observed in the coming days.

Torah reading – for the maftir, we read "Vayavo Amalek;" for the haftara – the haftara of Parashat Zakhor ("Pakadeti" – as on the previous Shabbat).

Some add a special dish to the Shabbat meal (and some send mishlo'ach manot). On this Shabbat, a discourse is delivered relating to Purim.

Al ha-Nisim is not recited (if a person recited Al ha-Nisim, he is not required to repeat the prayer. According to some, Al ha-Nisim is recited at the Purim meal, but it is preferable not to say it, though it may be added in the Ha-Rachamans). Work is permitted (some maintain that it is customary to refrain from work from noon on – in the name of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach).

Even the residents of unwalled cities refrain from reciting tachanun (Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach).

For a full treatment of the laws of Purim Meshulash, see:

http://vbm-torah.org/archive/halak65/16halak.htm

http://vbm-torah.org/archive/halak65/17halak.htm

***********************************************

Halakhic Issues Raised by the Leap Year

By Rav Binyamin Tabory

Translated and adapted by Rav Eliezer Kwass

INTRODUCTION

The Jewish calendar year is based on the movements of both the moon and the sun. Months are naturally measured by the cycle of the moon, while years and seasons follow the sun. Whereas a purely solar calendar must arbitrarily chop up a 365-day year into twelve pieces in order to create months, and a purely lunar calendar must arbitrarily pick some quantity of months to measure years, the Jewish calendar balances lunar months with solar years.

This fulfills the biblical command to ensure that Pesach always comes out in the spring: "Keep the holiday of the spring." If a purely lunar calendar were followed, the season within which Pesach falls would gradually drift away from spring, moving from season to season about every nine years (a twelve lunar-month year falls eleven days short of a 365-day solar year). Periodically adding an extra month to the year aligns the lunar calendar with the solar.

The first Adar is this extra month. When the months were sanctified monthly (kiddush ha-chodesh) by the Sanhedrin, the Sages would convene before Nisan and decide (based on seasonal indicators) whether to add a month to the year. In a permanent calendar system (whose foundations were set up by the amora Hillel the Third - 359 CE), an extra Adar is added in seven out of every nineteen years.

In years with two Adars, a number of questions naturally arise. In which of the two Adars is Purim celebrated? When does someone born in Adar become a bar mitzva? When is the yahrzeit of one who passed away in Adar commemorated? Does the technical term "year" (in contracts, vows, etc.) include both Adars or does it finish after twelve months?

PURIM

The mishna (Megilla 6b) deals directly with the laws of Purim during a leap year:

The gemara quotes a dispute among the tannaim about whether the obligation to read the megilla can be fulfilled in Adar I or only in Adar II. If the latter is true, then the megilla must be read in Adar II even if one already read it in Adar I.

The mishna refers to a case where a leap year was declared by the Sanhedrin after the megilla had already been read in the first Adar. What is the halakha now that we work with a fixed calendar? Both tannaim in the gemara agree that one who reads the megilla in Adar II has fulfilled his obligation. The whole discussion there is whether one who has already read it in Adar I has fulfilled his obligation post facto. Therefore, in a situation where we have a choice between the two Adars, it is clear that megilla reading and matanot la-evyonim should be done in Adar II.

The dispute between the tanna'im about when to read the megilla when there are two Adars stems from how they each understand the verse "[to keep the fourteenth ... and the fifteenth ...] every year" (Esther 9:21). The basic implication of this verse is that a year that has two Adars should be similar (based on "every year") to the rest of the years. The tanna'im argue about HOW they should be similar. One tanna understands that just like every year the megilla is read in the month that immediately follows Shevat, so too in a leap year it should be read in Adar I. The other holds that just like every year the megilla is read in the month immediately preceding Nissan, so it should be read during a leap year.

The gemara then proceeds to put forward a further rationale for each of the two opinions. It should be read in Adar I, they say, because a mitzva should be done at the first possible opportunity. According to the other opinion, Purim should be juxtaposed, as much as possible, to Pesach, based on the principle that the two holidays of redemption should be adjacent to each other.

If there is already a way of supporting each opinion based on halakhic principles, why must the gemara also bring the proofs from the verse? Apparently, without the verse "every year," we would have thought that we are obligated to read the megilla TWICE during a leap year, to fulfill both halakhic principles. Based on the verse, however, we only read once; the question which the gemara then answers is: which month?

What about the prohibition against fasting (ta'anit) and eulogies (hesped) on Purim? What about the mitzva to be joyous (simcha) on Purim? Do these also apply only to Adar II, or do they apply to Purim in Adar I (what we call Purim Katan) as well?

Three opinions appear in the rishonim about the status of Purim Katan:

1. The Tosafot say that there is a prohibition against eulogies, but no mitzva to be joyous.
2. The Rosh says that the mitzva of joy and the prohibition against eulogies are linked, and both do NOT apply to Adar I.
3. The Ran takes the opposite approach. He agrees with the Rosh that simcha and hesped go hand in hand, however, he holds that both DO apply in Adar I.

By examining other laws which are affected by the leap year, we will gain a better understanding of its nature and consequently the dispute regarding Purim Katan will become clearer too.

[For more on the effect of the leap year on the laws of Purim, see Rav Yair Kahn's VBM article:

http://www.vbm-torah.org/purim/pur60-yk.htm.]

VOWS - NEDARIM

The gemara (Nedarim 63a) deals with one who vowed in Adar not to drink wine "for a full year." If the year was subsequently made into a leap year, must he keep his vow for only twelve months (a "year" = 12 months, ending in Adar I), or must he keep a full thirteen months (a "year" includes the leap month) ending in Adar II? The mishna says that it depends on the terminology he uses in his vow. The term "year" includes the leap month; "until Rosh Chodesh" means until Rosh Chodesh of the FIRST Adar, and "until the end of Adar" implies until the end of the SECOND Adar.

The gemara also asks about one who, in formulating his vow, says "Adar," yet does not specify which Adar he is referring to. The same passage deals with a parallel issue in the writing of contracts - does "Adar" (unspecified) refer to the first or the second Adar?

The gemara concludes by distinguishing between a case when the person using the word Adar knows about the leap year and when he does not. People who know about the leap year refer to Adar II when they use the word Adar without specifying; those who do not know about the leap year are referring to the first appearance of Adar, namely - Adar I.

To understand this, it is crucial to differentiate between two separate issues:

1. which Adar is, objectively, the real Adar of the calendar;

2. what people mean when they use the word "Adar" without specifying.

Only this second question is the focus of the gemara in Nedarim. The content of a vow is totally dependent on what a person's intention is. This is the foundation of the Talmud's axiom to follow the commonly understood meaning of human speech (and not necessarily a word's biblical or halakhic meaning) when determining what a person's vow means. The rules of vows and contracts can therefore be viewed independently of some of the other issues that we will discuss.

SELLING AND RENTING

In discussing rental for a year during a leap year, the mishna (Bava Metzia 102) seems also to be based on subjective criteria: when a rental agreement states "a year," do the two parties intend to include the second Adar or not?

Another issue, the sale of homes in walled cities, might shed light on whether the Halakha objectively defines a year to include the leap month or not. One who sells a home in a walled city in Israel has one year within which he can force the buyer to sell it back to him at the same price. The mishna (Arakhin 31a) rules that in a leap year, the seller has THIRTEEN months to do this. The gemara bases this on the Torah's expression, "a complete year" (shana temima - Vayikra 25:30).

This does not necessarily solve our problem. Perhaps a year in Halakha does not, in general, include the leap month, but the special expression, "temima," indicates that the rule of sales in walled cities is unique. Consequently, the Rashba (Nedarim 63a) infers that the Torah's year in general is only twelve months, even in a leap year. The Ran explores the possibility that the Torah's year during a leap year is indeed thirteen months long, and offers an alternative explanation for the special need to indicate this in the law of walled cities. (See his comments on Nedarim 63a.)

BAR MITZVA

Several rishonim discuss how the leap year affects the date of a child's bar mitzva. There are three possible situations which need to be examined:

1. the child is born in Adar of a regular year, and he becomes bar mitzva in a leap year;
2. he is born in a leap year, and becomes bar mitzva in a normal year;
3. both the year he is born in and the one within which he becomes bar mitzva are leap years.

1. The Shulchan Arukh (OC 55:10) states that the leap year is considered thirteen months long with regard to bar mitzva. The Rema (OC 55:11) quotes the Mahari Mintz, who explicitly rules that a child born in Adar of a regular year becomes bar mitzva in Adar II of the leap year. As a prooftext, the rishonim quote the Yerushalmi at the end of Ketubot 1:2, which implies that a young girl's basic physical maturity (after three years old) will naturally modify itself in order to fit in with the leap year. The gemara's solution to the conflict between the physical and the calendar reality is a supernatural one: the physical reality models the calendar one. The same thing must be true of bar mitzva, for thirteen years old is the default age for a boy's maturation.

The Peri Chadash quotes a dissenting opinion, that in Adar I the boy physically matures. Some, in order to account for this opinion, make sure that a child in such a situation already keeps mitzvot a month earlier than his real bar mitzva. (See Responsa Beit Shlomo, Even Ha'ezer # 56.)

2. If a child is born in Adar II and his bar mitzva takes place in a year with only one Adar, he becomes bar mitzva in Adar and not Nisan. A curious outcome of this halakha (Shulchan Arukh OC 55:11) is that a child who is "younger" can become bar mitzva before an older one. A child born on 6 Adar II will become bar mitzva earlier than one born on 7 Adar I of that same year, since in their bar mitzva year there is only one Adar. (Arakhin 31b contains a similar discussion with regard to redeeming houses in walled cities.)

3. Where both the year of a child's birth and the year of his bar mitzva have two Adars, we would expect a child to become bar mitzva in the same Adar he was born in. Even if Adar I is considered a second Shevat, it would be inconsistent not to relate to both Adar I's the same way - either both are Shevats or both Adars. This is the opinion of most acharonim, except for the Magen Avraham. According to him, no matter which Adar the child was born in, he becomes bar mitzva in Adar II.

MOURNING LAWS

A similar set of problems arises concerning the laws of mourning. The determination of when a year of mourning for parents ends is unaffected by how we view the two months of Adar. Mourning for parents, in principle, lasts twelve months, not a year. The two Adars must count as two months, no matter what. (See Rosh, Mo'ed Katan 3:50, and Shulchan Arukh YD 391.)

However, determining the yahrzeit (yearly commemoration of a relative's passing away) requires fixing a date, a day within a particular month every year. If someone passed away in Adar, it is crucial to know in which Adar to commemorate the yahrzeit. The authorities differ about how to deal with this dilemma.

The Shulchan Arukh (OC 568:7) rules that the yahrzeit takes place in the second Adar, whereas the Rema, based on the Maharil, argues that the yahrzeit should take place in Adar I. The Gra, in his commentary to the Shulchan Arukh, takes a stringent approach and rules that one should observe a yahrzeit in both Adars. In order to understand the basis of their dispute, it is necessary to better understand what determines when the yearly yahrzeit commemoration takes place.

Several approaches present themselves:

1. The yahrzeit is fixed on the date that the twelve months of mourning end. The Chatam Sofer (Responsa OC 14) rejects this possibility, since the yahrzeit of someone who died in Shevat of a leap year would then always be commemorated in Tevet. The Chatam Sofer explains that the discussion among the poskim was limited to the question of the two Adars in a leap year.

2. The yahrzeit might be determined by the day of passing away. During leap years, Adar II is always considered in place of the normal Adar; therefore, the yahrzeit should be commemorated in Adar II.

3. The yahrzeit is determined by the day of passing away, but the date when the twelve-month mourning period ends is commemorated as the yahrzeit. Because the mourning ends in Adar I, the yahrzeit is commemorated in Adar I. Many acharonim understood these last two options as the rationale behind the two approaches that the poskim raise.

4. A fourth approach, taken by the Gra, fits in with the simple meaning of what a yahrzeit is. The concept behind the yahrzeit is that on a certain DATE in the calendar one keeps certain customs. In order to determine when an Adar yahrzeit takes place, one must determine when Adar is. Based on a passage in Massekhet Megilla, it seems that both Adar I and Adar II are legitimately considered Adar. If one would ask when Adar 7th falls out, the correct calendar answer is twice - once on the 7th of Adar I, and once on the 7th of Adar II. The gemara needs a special derivation from the expression "in every year" to teach us that Purim is unique and to limit the Purim celebration to only one of the Adars. Nevertheless, the gemara assumes that both Adars are considered legitimately to be Adar. The Gra (OC 368) therefore holds that an Adar yahrzeit should be commemorated twice in a leap year, once in Adar I and once in Adar II.

The Chatam Sofer's question (see 1 above) is now easily solved. The yahrzeit of someone who passes away in Shevat of a leap year will obviously occur in Shevat every year. That is the calendar date to be commemorated. Likewise, the yahrzeit of one who passes away in Adar will also always fall out in Adar - and both Adars are considered Adar on the calendar. [There is still room to differentiate between different types of yahrzeit customs; see Mishna Berura, OC 368.]

This question might be dependent on the nature of yahrzeits in general. See the Chatam Sofer's comments below regarding days commemorating miracles.

ADDITIONAL ISSUES

We will mention briefly five additional halakhic issues that arise in leap years.

A. From the verse, "He should be free to stay at home for one year" (Devarim 24:5), we learn that there is a mitzva for a man to make his wife happy during their first year of marriage. (In his commentary to this verse, the Netziv views this as a mitzva incumbent on army officers not to draft newlywed men, but not as a mitzva on the husband himself.) How long does this mitzva last in a leap year - twelve months or thirteen? The Aderet, Rav Eliahu David Rabinowitz Teomim (quoted in an appendix to the Minchat Chinukh), raised this question.

B. Some are accustomed to treat the seventh of Adar, the yahrzeit of Moshe Rabbeinu, as a minor festival. Chevrot kadishot, Jewish burial societies, have their annual dinner after the seventh of Adar. Some have a custom to fast on this day. Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yechaveh Da'at 1:3) discusses this issue and rules that it should be commemorated in Adar II. The Magen Avraham (OC 380:18) and other acharonim rule that it should be observed in Adar I. (It is not clear whether the year Moshe passed away was a leap year or not.)

C. Celebrating the day of a personal miracle: When should this celebration, tantamount to a mini-Purim, take place in a leap year? The Mishna Berura (OC 687:8) rules that it should take place in Adar II.

Rav Shaul Frimer (Or Hamizrach #110-111, p. 322) points out that in the source of this ruling, the Chatam Sofer (Responsa OC #163) distinguishes between different types of customs. If the day of the miracle is commemorated as a fast day, it should be observed in Adar II, based on the talmudic guideline to push off fast days to a later date (for example, if the normal date comes out on Shabbat). If, on the other hand, the day of the miracle is celebrated as a holiday, then

D. If someone has resided on a piece of land for three years, he thereby stakes a claim to the land (chezkat shalosh shanim). The Ritva (Bava Batra 28a) rules:

The Pitchei Teshuva (CM 141) relates to this issue and leaves it unresolved.

E. Parashat Zakhor, read the Shabbat before Purim, is, according to many poskim, a biblical mitzva. They understand that the commands to "remember" and "not forget" Amalek require us to read the portion in the Torah about Amalek once a year. What defines a "year" with regard to this mitzva? If a year is defined as being twelve months long, then our custom to read Parashat Zakhor on the Shabbat before Purim is problematic, since more than twelve months may elapse between readings. Since the goal of the mitzva of Parashat Zakhor is to remind us about Amalek, twelve months is particularly appropriate. In the laws of mourning, this is considered the time after which one begins to forget one's loss. It is fitting that a yearly reminder should come up at twelve-month intervals.

Within our system of reading the Torah, we can solve the problem by intending to fulfill the mitzva of Zakhor on the Shabbat when the portion of Ki Teitzei is read (roughly six months after Shabbat Zakhor). However, what would those who followed the old custom of spreading the Torah reading over three years do? The Chatam Sofer (Even Haezer #119) raises an unconventional possibility that in a leap year, the amount of time for forgetting is thirteen months! (See Mo'adim U-zemanim 2:166 for a discussion of this issue.)

OVERVIEW

How to treat the leap year in a particular realm of halakha is dependent on what the crucial units of time in that realm are. When a number of MONTHS must be counted - twelve months of mourning, or, according to the Ritva, the thirty-six months of chazaka - it is irrelevant whether the year is a leap year or not. One simply counts the months, no matter what their names are.

On the other hand, when a YEAR must be counted, the leap month is included. The year within which a seller has a chance to buy back the property he sold in a walled city includes the leap month. A child reaches the age of bar mitzva when he has COMPLETED thirteen YEARS, and must therefore include the leap month of his thirteenth year, according to most poskim.

Sometimes, as in a yahrzeit, a DATE is commemorated. One must determine when dates that come out in Adar fall out in a leap year. According to the Gra, since both Adars are really considered Adar as far as the date on the calendar is considered (Purim has been specially excluded and takes place only once), one observes an Adar yahrzeit in both Adars. When writing the date in a legal document, one must take care to differentiate between Adar I and Adar II (see Nedarim 63a and compare to Yerushalmi Megilla 1:5).

In some realms, a year is defined SUBJECTIVELY. Whether a vow that lasts a year includes the leap month or not depends on what people intend when they refer to a year. Although both dates are considered Adar, only one of them is relevant. According to the Chatam Sofer, the Adar in which one celebrates a personal Purim is dependent on how one understands the nature of the day. The same might be true of the seventh of Adar and yahrzeit.

Our original discussion, as to whether there is a mitzva of joy and a prohibition against fasting and eulogies on Purim Katan (the fourteenth of Adar I), takes on a new light now. When the verse limits Purim to one date, Adar II and not Adar I, it would seem that the fourteenth of Adar I should be viewed as a totally non-Purim day.

The Rosh, in fact, holds that there is no obligation of happiness in Adar I. His comment that Adar I is like Shevat does not necessarily mean that he argues with the approach we have been following, viewing both Adars as truly Adar. He might only be calling it Shevat with regard to Purim, once the verse has taught us when to celebrate Purim.

Tosafot distinguish between Megillat Esther, excluded from Adar I by the verse, and the prohibition against fasting, stemming from Megillat Ta'anit, and dependent on the date. (See Rav Kahn's aforementioned shiur about the status of Adar I.) Therefore, the Megilla is read and the mitzva to be joyous applies only in Adar II, yet it is still forbidden to fast on the fourteenth of Adar I. The Ran also seems to believe that the date "the fourteenth of Adar" appears twice on the calendar, and likewise distinguishes between Megilla on the one hand, which we read only once, and se'udat Purim and the prohibition against fasting, on the other hand, which are linked to the date. Since the date occurs twice, these mitzvot apply twice.

Rav Yair Kahn pointed out in conversation that Rav Aharon Turtchin (in his Kuntres Chanuka U-megilla) explains the Ran differently. He sees the mitzva of se'udat Purim, the feast of Purim, as also dependent on Megillat Ta'anit (instead of the date 14 Adar, as we presented it), and that is why it applies in Adar I too. Whether one says "Al Ha-nisim" in the se'udat Purim Katan might be a practical difference between the two approaches.

The Shulchan Arukh quotes the Tosafot and then adds the Rosh's opinion. The Rema adds that the custom is to follow the Tosafot (prohibiting fasting on 14 Adar I, but not obligating a feast) and, as an additional opinion ("yesh omrim"), quotes those who obligate feasting on Purim Katan also. In the last subsection of Orach Chayim, he concludes: