Drunkenness on Purim / Rav Otniel Fendel

Click for PDF
For translation to Spanish and Português

In many of the mitzvot that we observe, we find that drinking wine constitutes an integral part of the mitzvah, such as Kiddush at our Shabbat meals, and increasing joy through wine at festival meals, as the Rambam writes in Hilchot Yom Tov: “Men eat meat and drink wine, for there is no joy except with meat and there is no joy except with wine.”
 
On the other hand, there are many warnings against excessive drinking of wine and reaching a state of drunkenness, as the Rambam writes two halachot later: when a person eats and drinks and rejoices on the festival, he should not be drawn after wine, frivolity, and lightheadedness and say that whoever increases in this increases the mitzvah of joy, for drunkenness, excessive frivolity, and lightheadedness are not joy but rather debauchery and foolishness; and we were not commanded regarding debauchery and foolishness, but regarding joy that contains service of the Creator of all. Therefore, it is somewhat strange that specifically on Purim, which is a rabbinic festival, Chazal came and told us that there is specifically an obligation to increase drinking and to become intoxicated on Purim, as we see in the Gemara in Megillah: Rava said: A person is obligated to become intoxicated on Purim until he does not know the difference between “Cursed is Haman” and “Blessed is Mordechai.” Rabbah and Rabbi Zeira made the Purim meal together; they became intoxicated; Rabbah arose and slaughtered Rabbi Zeira. The next day he prayed for mercy and revived him. The following year he said to him: Let the master come and we will make the Purim meal together! He replied: Not at every moment does a miracle occur. In our article we will attempt to trace the views of the Rishonim, and focus on the Rambam’s approach—how they understood this sugya regarding the parameters of the obligation of drunkenness on Purim.
 
The view of the Rishonim in explaining the sugya:
Rabbeinu Ephraim learned from the fact that the Gemara brought the story of Rabbah and Rabbi Zeira after Rava’s statement regarding the obligation to become intoxicated, that it serves as a qualification to Rava’s words, and the Gemara does not mean that a person should indeed become intoxicated on Purim to the point of loss of awareness, since such matters can lead to many mishaps. His words are brought by the Ran: Rabbeinu Ephraim wrote that from that incident in which Rabbah arose and slaughtered Rabbi Zeira, Rava’s statement is set aside and it is not proper to act that way. The Baal HaMaor likewise wrote as Rabbeinu Ephraim that Rava’s words were rejected, and one should not understand the obligation of drunkenness on Purim literally, to the point of losing one’s senses. The Meiri also understood that it cannot be said that the fulfillment of the mitzvah of intoxication on Purim reaches the level of losing awareness and confusion; he adds that when one reaches such a level of drunkenness, not only does one fail to fulfill the mitzvah—which is joy and thanksgiving for the miracles performed for us—but it is an act of debauchery and foolishness. However, the Meiri does not tell us what the proper way is to fulfill the obligation of intoxication mentioned by Rava in the Gemara. In any case, it seems from his words that if an intermediate level can be found that brings a person to joy and thanksgiving for the miracles Hashem performed for us, as long as it does not lead to debauchery and foolishness, that would define the fulfillment of the obligation of drunkenness on Purim.
 
These Rishonim learned that the Gemara brought the story of Rabbah and Rabbi Zeira after Rava’s statement in order to contradict the simple understanding of the obligation “until he does not know the difference between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordechai,” and to teach us that special care is required not to reach such a level of drunkenness that leads to corruption. From the Rishonim it does not appear clearly what the proper way to become intoxicated is, or whether such an obligation remains after the incident of Rabbah and Rabbi Zeira—except for the Meiri, who cites the Rambam’s view.
 
The Rambam’s view:
Until now we have seen the views of the Ran, Baal HaMaor, and Meiri, who hold that Rava’s words were rejected and that one should not become intoxicated until he does not know the difference between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordechai.
 
The Rambam writes in Hilchot Megillah: “What is the obligation of this meal? That one should eat meat and prepare a fine meal according to his means, and drink wine until he becomes intoxicated and falls asleep in his intoxication.”
 
We see that the Rambam established a very clear parameter for the obligation of drunkenness: that one should become intoxicated and fall asleep in his intoxication.
 
The Rambam’s words require clarification:
From where did the Rambam derive the parameter that he should sleep as a result of his intoxication?
 
If the Rambam did not hold that Rava’s words were rejected, why did he not mention that parameter in defining the obligation?
 
First explanation of the Rambam:
One way to explain the Rambam is found in the ruling of the Rema: “And some say that one need not become so intoxicated, but rather he should drink more than his usual amount and sleep, and since he sleeps he does not know the difference between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordechai.”
 
It appears that the Rema understood that the Rambam did not completely reject Rava’s words, but only defined a parameter that would avoid debauchery and corruption. According to the Rema, it is understood why the Rambam did not explicitly cite Rava’s formulation: because the state in which a person falls asleep is the stage in which he reaches the lack of distinction between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordechai, since he is asleep and knows nothing.
 
The difficulty in the Rema’s explanation, as raised by the Aruch HaShulchan, is that if so, why did the Gemara use such an unusual expression—“until he does not know the difference between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordechai”—instead of writing more simply that he is obligated to become intoxicated until he falls asleep?
 
Second explanation of the Rambam:
The Hagahot Maimoniyot writes that the source of the Rambam’s words is Rava’s statement that the measure is “until he does not know the difference between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordechai.”
 
At first glance, it appears that the Hagahot Maimoniyot explains the Rambam as the Rema did—that the parameter of “until he does not know” is identical to “until he becomes intoxicated and falls asleep.” However, the Hagahot Maimoniyot adds the view of the Ra’avyah that this level of “until he does not know” is for the sake of a mitzvah in an ideal sense, but not an absolute obligation.
 
This requires clarification: why did the Hagahot Maimoniyot choose specifically here to add the Ra’avyah’s words?
 
It can be suggested that according to the Hagahot Maimoniyot there are two levels in the obligation of drunkenness:
The minimal requirement is that one fall asleep from his intoxication.
 
The higher level is that he not know the difference between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordechai—this being a greater level, provided it does not lead to corruption as in Rabbah’s case. Even according to the Rambam, this would be a mitzvah unique to Purim, but not indispensable.
 
According to this explanation, the Rambam did not reject the “until he does not know” entirely, but established an earlier, attainable threshold so that everyone can fulfill it. The higher level remains a mitzvah, but not obligatory.
 
The Rambam according to Yad Peshutah:
Rabbi Eliezer Rabinovitch explains the Rambam differently. According to him, the Rambam holds that one should drink more than a revi’it and immediately go to sleep. When he sleeps, the sleep intensifies the effect of the wine until he becomes confused and does not know the difference between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordechai. Thus he becomes intoxicated without reaching debauchery, since he is asleep. He brings proof from the Gemara in Eruvin, which discusses sleep’s effect on wine: if one drank only a revi’it, sleep lessens its effect; if more than a revi’it, sleep increases the intoxication. Thus, the Rambam’s phrase means that through sleep he reaches intoxication—not that from intoxication he falls asleep.
 
The Aruch HaShulchan’s opinion:
The Aruch HaShulchan writes that according to the Rambam there is no need to reach the level of “until he does not know,” since the Rambam introduced a new parameter—until he falls asleep—indicating that Rava’s formulation was entirely rejected in his view.
 
We find four approaches in explaining the Rambam:
Rema: Sleep itself fulfills “until he does not know.”
 
Hagahot Maimoniyot: Two levels—sleep as obligation; “until he does not know” as ideal mitzvah.
 
Rabbi Eliezer Rabinovitch: Drink more than a revi’it and sleep; sleep intensifies intoxication to reach “until he does not know.”
 
Aruch HaShulchan: Rambam completely rejected “until he does not know.”
 
From these explanations—except for the Aruch HaShulchan—it appears that even according to the Rambam, Rava’s words were not entirely rejected, but that their literal understanding leads to corruption, as seen in the story of Rabbah and Rabbi Zeira. Nevertheless, the Rambam maintains an obligation of intoxication on Purim.
 
After clarifying the Rambam’s view, we may return to the other Rishonim who said that Rava’s words were rejected; they did not necessarily mean entirely rejected, but that the phrase “until he does not know” refers to extreme drunkenness—so intoxicated that he cannot even state that simple phrase coherently. Each Rishon defined a different intermediate stage of intoxication that brings joy and thanksgiving without corruption.
 
Tosafot cite the Yerushalmi that the measure is when he cannot recite a longer phrase including “Cursed is Zeresh and blessed is Esther,” etc. Another measure cited by the Aruch HaShulchan is that he cannot calculate the gematria of “cursed is Haman” and “blessed is Mordechai,” which both equal 502.
 
Practical halachic ruling:
The Shulchan Aruch rules like the Gemara: until he does not know the difference between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordechai. The Rema writes that one should not become so intoxicated, but rather drink more than usual and sleep, and through sleep he does not know the difference.
 
It appears that the Shulchan Aruch did not decisively rule like any specific Rishon, yet in Beit Yosef he cites the Orchot Chaim that the intent is not literal drunkenness, since drunkenness is a severe prohibition that leads to grave sins; rather, one should drink slightly more than usual. Thus, one must assess how much brings joy but not debauchery. The Rema, however, clarifies that the practical fulfillment is by drinking more than usual and sleeping.
 
The Sfat Emet defines that the obligation is to engage throughout the day in drinking and joy; “until he does not know” is the maximal boundary—once reached, there is no need to continue. Even if one does not reach that level, he fulfills the obligation if he was engaged in the festive meal and joy.
 
Summary:
The central question faced by the Rishonim and Acharonim is how to fulfill the obligation of drunkenness mentioned in the Gemara while avoiding the corruption associated with excessive intoxication. Therefore, they interpreted the obligation not literally, but as increasing joy through wine without reaching loss of reason. The Rambam introduced the parameter of falling asleep in one’s intoxication, and commentators debated whether this connects to “until he does not know.”
 
The main point of Purim is to increase joy and thanksgiving to Hashem for the miracles and kindnesses He performed for us, while at the same time guarding against the potential damage of drunkenness.
 
Aggadic dimension:
On Purim we incorporate elements not used daily in serving Hashem—such as a higher-than-usual quantity of wine, about which it is said: when wine enters, secrets emerge. When a person drinks wine, he may reveal hidden spiritual depths and serve Hashem through them.
 
It is said that in the future all festivals will cease, but the Megillah of Purim will not cease. The reason is that on Purim we create a new dimension of divine service—beyond ordinary intellectual judgment—learning anew from what the Jewish people experienced. When intoxicated, one sees things differently; therefore, Chazal defined the measure as lack of distinction between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordechai. On ordinary days, one clearly distinguishes good from evil; on Purim we learn to thank Hashem even for the difficult events through which salvation came.
 
Thus, the obligation of intoxication teaches that our gratitude is not merely for the means of salvation, but for the salvation itself. When a person reaches a state where he cannot distinguish between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordechai, what remains is pure gratitude to Hashem for the great miracle that occurred in those days. Yet at the same time, we do not wish for total loss of reason leading to corruption. Therefore, Chazal related the story of Rabbah and Rabbi Zeira to set boundaries. The Rishonim and later decisors followed by defining limits—approaching blurred distinctions for the sake of joy and gratitude, yet carefully avoiding destructive excess.

For comments: OTNIELF5@gmail.com