Page 275 - Tzurba M'Rabanan Volume1

ןנברמ אברוצ םירופ תוכלה · 273

2. Classic forgiveness of the debt (other to the novel understanding of what mechila ac-
Rishonim). tually is, would agree here that he hasn’t fulfilled
the mitzva, for ultimately the food was not edible
In relating this back to our discussion, the Rema
who rules that mechila works for mishloach manot for him.
understands like the Rosh (definition 1): mechi- Importance – תובישח
la is really an acceptance and return of the object However even according to the Korban Netanel
as a gift, and that’s why there is no difference be- one could argue that whether the Rema would
tween a physical acceptance and mechila. On the hold that the sender still fulfills his obligation in
other hand, the Pri Chadash held like definition our case depends on another variable – the con-
2, that mechila is only forgiveness, and that’s why cept of importance.
one does not fulfill one’s obligation: There is no 16
The Chayei Adam proves from the Yerushal-
actual acceptance. mi that every mishloach manot has to contain
17
According to this explanation, one could still two kinds of food or drinks of important value.
interpret the Rema as holding that the reason for The question is as follows: Is the importance is
the mitzva is to ensure that all have what to eat, measured according to the sender or according
and mechila only works because it is as if there to the recipient? If someone poor sends his rich
was an acceptance. If so, mechila would only work friend a cheap bottle of wine as mishloach manot
if the contents of the mishloach manot were ed- would this constitute a valid mishloach manot? If
ible. But in our case where the contents of the we measure the importance and value according
mishloach manot are not edible for the recipient, to the recipient, a cheap bottle of wine might not
the sender would not fulfill his obligation, even be considered of value for the rich friend, and he
if the recipient would be mochel, since mechila is will definitely not serve it during the Purim meal,
an acceptance, and even if he would have actually hence the sender would not fulfill his obligation.
accepted the mishloach manot the sender would This question also has ramifications for our case.
not be have fulfilled his obligation. When someone sends his diabetic friend mish-
To summarize what we have learned until loach manot that he can’t eat, if we measure the
now. The Rema and the Pri Chadash disagree re- importance according to the sender it is still valid,
garding whether the sender fulfills his obligation but if we measure according to the recipient, per-
if the recipient is mochel their mishloach manot. haps the food has no value for him and the sender
We saw two different ways to explain the opin- does not fulfill his obligation. The same question
ion of the Rema (the Chatam Sofer versus the Ko- would apply in the reverse scenario: If someone
rban Netanel and Rabbi Befler) and the ramifica- who has diabetes sends food that he can’t eat to a
tions for our case: According to the Chatam Sofer, friend who does not have diabetes, if we measure
the sender fulfills his obligation, as there is an in- importance based on the sender, he does not ful-
crease of friendship, which is the reason for the fill the mitzva, but if we measure by the recipient,
mitzva according to his explanation of the Rema. the sender can fulfill the mitzva.
By contrast, the Korban Netanel, who understood At first glance, it seems that we can prove from
the Rema’s reason for the mitzva as being based Rabbeinu Chananel that we measure accord-
18
on having what to eat, and mechila working due ing to the sender. The Gemara in Megilla brings

16. Chayei Adam 155:31
17. Yerushalmi Megilla 8:4
18. Masechet Megilla 7a

This volume is not to be distributed. Copies are for the personal use of purchaser only.