Libsumei B'Puria

Understanding the Strange Obligation of "Getting Drunk" on Purim

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Rava said, “A person has the obligation ‘libsumei b’puria’ until he does not know the difference between ‘cursed is Haman’ and ‘blessed is Mordechai.’” – Talmud Megilla 7b 

The Talmudic passage is very well known amongst observant Jews, and has even been made into several songs. Many people take it to understand that Rava is saying a person has an obligation to get drunk on Purim until he can not distinguish between which is better – cursing Haman and bringing about his downfall, or blessing Mordechai and bringing about his promotion.

Of course, one could argue that there is no difference. Were we to conduct a straw poll, I would imagine that there would be a fairly even split over which is better. Which would lend itself to mean that there is no difference to be found. Both are equally good.

In truth, both are essential (versus one possibly being better), because one without the other creates an incomplete picture. If Haman isn’t demoted, he remains in power even with a promoted Mordechai. If Mordechai isn’t promoted, he is powerless to overturn Haman’s decree, even with a demoted Haman.

But the real question is “what does ‘libsumei b’puria’ mean?”

Most of the commentaries on the Tur and on the Shulchan Arukh talk about the depravity and anti-Torah behavior that comes from drunkenness. The tale that follows Rava's statement in the Talmud, about Rabba getting drunk on Purim and killing Rabbi Zeira, many argue, is the antithesis of Rava’s statement, which goes to show what kind of horrific behavior can come from becoming drunk – even if Rabbi Zeira was revived in the morning after Rabba prayed for him. Perhaps in telling the tale the Talmud serves as counterpoint, suggesting that getting drunk on Purim is very very bad.

We are all well aware of what people under the influence of alcohol can do – even unintentionally – and when it is younger people who are less familiar with alcohol, control, and understanding limits, the results are at a minimum a desecration of God’s name (chillul Hashem), and can, at worst, lead to severe hospitalization and even untimely death.

The Ramban refers to getting drunk as being a “Naval Birshut Hatorah” – being disgusting with the Torah’s approval. In other words, as the Torah doesn’t forbid the consumption of wine, drinking wine in excess is not against the Torah. However, just because the Torah allows consuming wine does not meant the Torah condones the resulting behavior which comes from drunkenness. This, Ramban argues, is absolutely against the Torah.

If getting drunk is forbidden (as Maimonides, the Tur, Beit Yosef, etc all say it is), then how could the Talmud say it is an obligation on Purim to get drunk?

Maybe we are reading the Talmud incorrectly. The word “Puria” appears over twenty times in the Talmud. In most cases the word means either a bed or a couch. In the Talmudic passage in question, it seems strange that it should mean “Purim” because two lines later the word “Purim” itself is used to refer to the holiday! If within the same breath the Talmud can say “Purim,” why would it use the term “Puria” to refer to Purim?

The word “libsumei” appears four times in the Talmud, and every other time (aside from our Megillah 7b passage) it means pleasantness or sweetening, in the context of either a pleasant voice or a sweet voice.

So perhaps the phrase can be understood to mean that “a person is obligated to feel pleasant or sweet on a bed until the point that he does not know the difference between cursed is Haman and blessed is Mordechai.” How is this accomplished? Maimonides suggests that on Purim one should drink a little more than usual, to the point of falling asleep, because while sleeping a person doesn’t even think about the difference between cursing Haman or blessing Mordechai – both of which might be the same thing anyway (their numerical values (gematria) happen to be the same as well), or meaningless as one without the other.

So what does one do with the Talmudic story? The Meiri suggests that the word which is usually translated as “slaughtered” should be read with the letter “sin” instead of a “shin” to suggest that Rabba “squeezed” Rabbi Zeira. Thus it could follow that Rabbi Zeira may have lost consciousness, but may not have died. (The Talmud never said he died, but that he was revived afterwards.)

Perhaps, however, following along the line of our novel interpretation, the pleasantness which was achieved through their celebrating properly led them to fall asleep, and the resulting tale was merely a dream. Perhaps Rabbi Zeira had a harder time waking in the morning, prompting Rabba to pray for him. But all’s well that ends well because Rabbi Zeira was fine in the end.

So why did he opt out of celebrating with Rabba the following year? Being pressured by a friend to drink is never a pleasant experience. If indeed Rabbi Zeira had a severe hangover the following day, perhaps he thought another bout of such celebrating could be damaging to his health.

Rabbi Zeira had the strength and fortitude to resist the peer pressure of going to a party in which the drinking might get out of hand (he unfortunately learned this the hard way). May we be blessed to celebrate Purim with those who understand limits and how to properly celebrate ths special holiday of Purim.