Following my previous question on the origin of Purim Halochos, I wondered why the Mishnah doesn't mention Halochos of Mishloach Manot, Matanot laEvionim, and the Seudah and only mentions a lot of Halachot of reading the Megillah?

  • 5
    It mentions Matanot laEvionim in Megillah 1:3 and 1:4. – Heshy Mar 24 at 14:53
  • There’s a lot of halachos that aren’t discussed in Mishnayos. Chanukah is almost never mentioned, for instance. Same for Tzitzis and Tefillin. Why would you think this should be included? – DonielF Mar 24 at 18:03
  • @DonielF התרחק מן הכיעור - if the Mitzvos are compared to organs, the Mishna seems very ill-formed so to speak. I would love hearing logical explanations of why certain Mitzvos are important enough to be included in the main compendium and why others aren't. – Al Berko Mar 24 at 18:36
  • Are you going to remove Mattanot Laevyonim from the question already or not? What are you waiting for? – Double AA Mar 24 at 18:48
  • @DoubleAA That's not the point "they are mentioned", that's why I edited to "Halochos". They are mentioned but not as Halochos, Compare to Halochos of Megilah. – Al Berko Mar 24 at 19:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .