In Megillas Esther (9:22) we have the pasuk:לעשות אותם ימי משתה ושמחה ומשלוח מנות איש לרעהו ומתנות לאביונים – “To observe [Purim] as days of feasting gladness, of sending portions to one another, and of gift-giving to the poor.” Chazal (Megillah 7a) learn from the phrase ומשלוח מנות איש לרעהו, the mitzvah of mishlo’ach manos, the mitzvah to send two portions of food to a fellow Jew on Purim day. This mitzvah is codified in Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 695:4) as follows: חייב לשלוח לחבירו שתי מנות בשר או של מיני אוכלים שנאמר ומשלוח מנות איש לרעהו שתי מנות לאיש אחד וכל המרבה לשלוח לריעים משובח – “One must send to his fellow two portions of meat, or foodstuffs, as it says (Esther 9:19) ‘And send portions, man to his fellow.’ Two portions to one man [is the obligation]. And anyone who sends more to his fellow is praiseworthy.”
Many people send their young children to deliver mishlo’ach manos to their friends and neighbors and on occasion people will send mishlo’ach manos by mail or other delivery services – and some of these services use drones to deliver packages. This leads to the question of whether one fulfills the mitzvah of sending mishlo’ach manos if he sends it with a minor or with a drone, or does the agent delivering it need to be a person who is bar/bas mitzvah and obligated in mitzvos?
Before we can address this, we must also discuss some more general questions: What is the most ideal way to fulfill the mitzvah of sending mishlo’ach manos? Is it okay if one delivers it himself, or must it be sent with a shliach [agent] as the phrase משלוח מנות – “sending portions” seems to indicate? If in fact, a shliach is required, must the shliach conform to the general, halachic guidelines required of a valid shliach, or is an “inferior” shliach sufficient?
The Obligation to Use a Shliach for Mishlo’ach Manos
The Binyan Tzion (siman 44) wonders:
If someone gives mishlo’ach manos directly to his friend, does he fulfill the mitzvah? Normally we say “shelucho shel adam k’moso – one’s agent is like himself” (i.e. that one can use an agent as his representative for many areas of halachah), we never find the opposite, that the person can be an agent for himself. Therefore, since the term “mishlo’ach manos” implies that the mitzvah must be done by an agent, one cannot fulfill the mitzvah by giving the mishlo’ach manos to the recipient directly.
The Binyan Tzion then goes on to say that in practice a shliach is not required and one can fulfill the mitzvah by giving directly, however, it is preferable to use a shliach.
The Mishnah Berurah (695:18) brings the doubt of the Binyan Tzion, however, interestingly he brings his doubt and not the final conclusion which is that there is no such obligation and that it is a mere preference. Both the Shu”t Tzitz Eliezer (9:33:4) and R’ Yosef Efrati (Shu”t Yisa Yosef 1:154) point this out.
Definition of the Word “Mishlo’ach”
The Kaf HaChaim (695:41) writes that we can’t infer anything from the word “mishlo’ach” as we find many instances in the Torah where the root word “shilach” (שלח) does not refer to using a shliach. He lists a number of examples, two of them are, in Parshas Noach (Bereishis 8:9) we find: וישלח ידו ויקחה – “So he put forth his hand and took it [referring to the dove]”, and regarding Avraham we find (Bereishis 22:10): וישלח אברהם את ידו – “Avraham stretched out his hand”. However, he writes that if possible, one should send mishlo’ach manos with a shliach, out of respect.
Discrepancy in Terms for Mishlo’ach Manos and Matanos L’evyonim
The Mahari Asad (Shu”t Yehudah Ya’aleh, Vol. 1, Orach Chaim 207) initially notes the different terms for mishlo’ach manos and matanos l’evyonim, and he says that this discrepancy would seem to imply that mishlo’ach manos must be given with a shliach (and therefore must conform to all the halachos of shlichus as well). He shows that in the Shulchan Aruch the terminology is consistent with the pasuk as well.
However, he concludes that when the pasuk says,ומשלוח מנות איש לרעהו ומתנות לאביונים, the word משלוח is going on both the mitzvah of mishlo’ach manos and matanos l’evyonim, and the chiddush is that although normally by mitzvos it is preferable for one to do the mitzvah himself, by mishlo’ach manos and matanos l’evyonim there is no such preference.
R’ Ovadia Yosef (Shu”t Yabia Omer, Vol. 9, Orach Chaim 70) agrees with the Binyan Tzion, and says that one should not infer from the pasuk that mishlo’ach manos must be given specifically with a shliach, for we can interpret the word mishlo’ach to refer to both mitzvos, and thus there is no difference between the two.
Accordingly, the halachos of mishlo’ach manos and matanos l’evyonim are parallel to one another.
Fulfilling The Mitzvah of Mishlo’ach Manos Through an Exchange of Meals
The Gemara in Megillah (7b) relates that Abaye bar Avin and Rav Chanina bar Avin would “exchange their meals with one another,” which Rashi explains to mean, “This one would eat at his friend’s home this year, and the following year his friend would eat at his home.” The simple understanding of this Gemara is that they would eat their Purim seudah together, alternating homes each year, and they would fulfill their mishlo’ach manos obligation by exchanging their portions. Presumably, they were eating together at the same table and they did so personally, and not through a messenger. R’ Moshe Sternbuch in Shu”t Teshuvos V’Hanhagos (2:346) writes that R’ Chaim Brisker would cite proof from here that there is no need to use a shliach for delivering mishlo’ach manos.
However, R’ Moshe writes that the Rambam (Hilchos Megillah 2:15) apparently understood the Gemara to mean that they would send mishlo’ach manos to each other with a shliach. The Rambam writes:ואם אין לו מחליף עם חברו זה שולח לזה סעדתו וזה שולח לזה סעדתו כדי לקים ומשלוח מנות איש לרעהו – "If one does not have the means to send presents of food to a friend, they should exchange meals with each other, each one sending the other what they had prepared for the Purim feast and in this way fulfill the mitzvah of sending presents of food to one's friends.” This Rambam is brought down as halachah in the Shulchan Aruch.
It seems that there is a machlokes whether the “exchanging of meals” was done through a shliach (Rambam), or whether they simply ate together and exchanged portions – which means that giving it directly suffices (Rashi).
The Beis Yosef (695:4) brings Rashi and asks how they were able to fulfill the mitzvah of mishlo’ach manos, as surely one must send misho’ach manos with a shliach? And the Darkei Moshe (7) answers very simply that Rashi holds that when the pasuk says ומשלוח it is non-specific and one doesn’t need to specifically use a shliach.
From the above it seems that there is a machlokes Rishonim and poskim if one must use a shliach or if it is okay to send it directly. The Beis Yosef holds that it must be given with a shliach and he doesn’t understand Rashi who seemingly holds otherwise, and the Darkei Moshe understands that there is no obligation to use a shliach and therefore understands Rashi.
Must the Shliach for Mishlo’ach Manos be A Bar Chiyuva?
The Piskei Teshuvah (148) cites the following recollection of R’ Feivel Plau, author of Likutei Chover Ben Chaim (see Likutim V’Ha’aros on 199):
“I heard from the mouth of Maran, the Chasam Sofer, that the gaon R’ Akiva Eiger debated whether mishlo’ach manos must be sent specifically with a Jewish adult, and not with a non-Jew or a minor, similar to all other agents in the Torah, where shlichus with a non-Jew or a minor is invalid. [The Chasam Sofer] responded that had the mitzvah been to give mishlo’ach manos directly, if one seeks instead to fulfill the mitzvah with an agent based on the principle of shelucho shel adam k’moso (one’s agent is legally recognized as the sender himself), a non-Jew or a minor would certainly be invalid. But this is not so, since the mitzvah is not to personally give the mishlo’ach manos, but rather to see to it that it is delivered to the recipient. Hence the expectations of normative shlichus need not be satisfied.”
The Chasam Sofer maintains that only when one must perform personally a given mitzvah or action (such as separating terumah, effecting a get or kiddushin) but instead chooses to use an agent, must the agent be a bar chiyuva [one obligated in the mitzvah]. However, if one is not required to perform the mitzvah himself such as in the case of mishlo’ach manos, where the key point is that the food should be delivered, then the mitzvah can be fulfilled even by an agent who is not a bar chiyuva, such as a non-Jew, a minor or even a monkey. For so long as the recipient receives the gift, the mitzvah has been fulfilled.
This principle of the Chasam Sofer can also be found in his chiddushim to Gittin (22b) where he writes:
ודע והבן כל מה שאמרו חז"ל פלוני בר שליחות או אינו בר שליחות היינו ר"ל בר שליחות כמותו או אינו בר שליחות כמותו אבל שליח אפי' קוף יכול להיות שליח אלא שאינו כמותו. נפקא מיני' היכא שהקפידה תורה שהבע"ד בעצמו יעשה אלא שאנו אומרים שלוחו הוה כמו עצמו. לזה בעי' דין שליחות דאל"ה לא הוה כמותו אבל היכי שאמרה תורה שישלח שליח כגון משלוח מנות זה סגי' אפי' ע"י קוף וכל הפסולים והבן זה כי כבר טעו בו גדולים וטובים ממני.
“Know, that whenever Chazal say that so-and-so is, or is not, a bar shlichus (eligible to serve as a shliach), that is only to determine whether the agents action is deemed as if the sender himself did it. But merely to perform an action for someone else, even a monkey can serve as a shliach – just that its action will not be deemed as if the sender himself did it. The difference between the two cases emerges where the Torah calls for one to perform an action personally. In this case, the shliach must be like him – and the laws of shlichus must be satisfied... However, when the Torah says that he should send a shliach, such as with mishlo’ach manos, even a monkey or anyone who would normally not be an eligible shliach suffices. Understand this well, for better and greater people than myself have erred in this matter.”
[R’ Yitzchak Zilberstein (Chasukei Chemed, Megillah 7a) writes that a certain rav once complained to the Satmar Rav about someone who sent him mishlo’ach manos with a boy dressed up as a monkey. The Satmar Rav responded, “Don’t be upset! They could have sent it even with an actual monkey!” The rav was incredulous, but the Satmar Rav asserted that the Chasam Sofer writes this. The person searched the Chasam Sofer’s writings and failed to find such a ruling. He returned to the Satmar Rav, who told him that the Chasam Sofer was in Gittin (22b), as cited above. R’ Zilberstein adds, however, that it may very well be that the person who sent the mishlo’ach manos with a boy in a monkey costume did not fulfill his obligation, for according to the Manos HaLevi the purpose of mishlo’ach manos is to create closeness and friendship, and in this case, the sender did just the opposite – he distanced himself from the recipient who felt insulted. It is thus likely that he had not fulfilled his obligation.]
It Is Permissible to Send Mishlo’ach Manos Either by Oneself or Through a Shliach
Some argue that it seems from the Chasam Sofer who writes that one may give mishlo’ach manos with a minor, gentile or even a monkey, that the mitzvah of mishlo’ach manos can be fulfilled only with a shliach and not by oneself - for if one could fulfill it personally, then the agent would have to be a bar chiyuva. However, the Shu”t Yehudah Ya’aleh (Vol. 1, Orach Chaim 207) when explaining the wording “mishlo’ach manos” clarifies that this is not the case. He explains that the pasuk teaches us that although it is generally preferable to perform a mitzvah by oneself rather than with a shliach, for mishlo’ach manos there is no such preference. Alternatively, it may even be somewhat preferable to send the mishlo’ach manos with a shliach, since the purpose of mishlo’ach manos is to bring people closer, and delivering a tribute with an agent lends more significance to the gift. In any case when the pasuk says “mishlo’ach”, it doesn’t rule out the option of one delivering it himself.
The Shu”t Tzitz Eliezer (9:33:4) also explains the Chasam Sofer to mean like the Yehudah Ya’aleh that there is no preference in giving it himself. Rather, it was originally instituted that one can fulfill this mitzvah with someone else, and therefore, the laws of shlichus do not apply.
We find this also in the Eishel Avraham (Butchatch 695), who writes that shlichus is mentioned in the context of mishlo’ach manos only as a leniency – that one is not required to deliver the mishlo’ach manos himself.
Similarly, R’ Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld zt”l writes in Salmas Chaim (401) that the reason the pasuk uses the word “mishlo’ach” is to teach us that it can ideally be given with a shliach, but if one wants he may give it directly by himself.
It’s All About the Outcome
R’ Asher Weiss shlita (Kovetz Mi’Shulchan Melachim, Purim pg. 92) suggests an additional reason for why a shliach is unnecessary:
He suggests that whenever the primary purpose of a mitzvah is the outcome then the laws of shlichus don’t apply. For example, in regard to the mitzvah of tzedakah, the Torah says:נתון תתן - “you shall surely give him” (Devarim 15:10), and nevertheless it is obvious that even one who sends tzedakah with a minor or through the mail has fulfilled the mitzvah in the ideal manner. R’ Asher Weiss says that by mishlo’ach manos as well the primary purpose of the mitzvah is the outcome, either to enhance one’s Purim meal, or to foster good will. As such, it is self-evident that one fulfills the mitzvah of mishlo’ach manos even in such a fashion.
There are two reasons given for the mitzvah of mishlo’ach manos: 1) The Terumas HaDeshen (111) discusses whether one may fulfill the mitzvah of mishlo’ach manos with shirts, sheets and other non-edibles and he writes that the idea of mishlo’ach manos is to ensure that everyone will have enough food to properly fulfill the seudah, therefore, one should specifically send food. 2) The Manos HaLevi (Esther 9:16-17) however, writes that the idea of mishlo’ach manos is to generate feeling of brotherhood and friendship.
However, according to either reason, the essence of the mitzvah of mishlo’ach manos is the outcome, therefore, it makes no difference whether the mishlo’ach manos is delivered by a shliach or directly; both accomplish the same result.
Conclusion: An Agent is Not Needed
The overwhelming majority of poskim agree that one fulfils the mitzvah of mishlo’ach manos even if he delivers it himself without using a shliach.
R’ Ovadia Yosef (Shu”t Yabia Omer, Vol. 9, Orach Chaim 70) brings that the halachah follows the achronim that mishlo’ach manos can be sent with or without a shliach. He brings the Mishnah Berurah who wonders whether mishlo’ach manos is fulfilled without a shliach, but asks, as noted above, that the Mishnah Berurah cites the beginning of the Binyan Tzion’s Teshuvah and not the end, where he concludes that one doesn’t need to use a shliach.
In Orchos Rabbeinu (Vol. 3, pg. 53) they bring that the Steipler gave mishlo’ach manos without a shliach, even when he was in the presence of his grandchild ... The Chazon Ish also gave mishlo’ach manos by himself and not with a shliach, and he told R’ Chaim Kanievsky that the halachah is not like the Binyan Tzion who wonders about this.
R’ Yosef Efrati also writes (Shu”t Yisa Yosef 1:154) that when he was younger, he heard from R’ Shlomah Zalman Auerbach that there is no need to use a shliach, and he added that the Mishnah Berurah saw a great person [the Binyan Tzion] who wondered about this, and therefore cited him. However, as for the practical halachah, it is clear that one need not be concerned about this.
He brings that he heard like this from R’ Elyashiv as well. However, there were years that R’ Elyashiv would fulfill the mitzvah of mishlo’ach manos with a shliach as well.
The Shu”t Mishneh Halachos (6:124) also concludes that one may deliver mishlo’ach manos himself, and interestingly he writes “there is greater love when one brings the gifts himself and doesn’t send them through a shliach.”
Additional Consideration to Send Mishlo’ach Manos with a Shliach
The Sefer Yafeh L’Lev (Vol. 2, 696:19) writes: “I once heard of a certain talmud chocham who was stringent to personally deliver the mishlo’ach manos, since it is generally preferable to do a mitzvah by oneself [rather than doing it with a shliach] – but I believe his stringency was in fact a leniency, for mishlo’ach manos should preferably be done with a shliach and not by himself. In addition, when one uses a shliach, one mitzvah leads to another, and he will now have the opportunity to fulfill two mitzvos, mishlo’ach manos and matanos l’evyonim at one time, when he pays the agent for his efforts. For most of the sheluchim [delivery agents] are themselves needy, and they receive a tip for delivering the mishlo’ach manos, and hope that the recipient may appoint them as his own sheluchim.”
Based on the above, the Tzitz Elizer (9:33:4) writes: Although one is certainly permitted to deliver mishlo’ach manos by himself, one should at least follow the second reason (the one we mentioned) of the Yafeh L’Lev and send it with a poor shliach, since this will result in an additional mitzvah of matanos l’evyonim, when the poor person receives a tip for serving as a shliach.
The Shu”t Hisorerus Teshuvah (498) writes that receiving from a shliach is not embarrassing, as the shliach is not giving his own things. Since it is less embarrassing, it is more ideal to send in this manner.
An additional reason for using a shliach can be found in the Mekor Chaim (695) who writes: “It is a greater mitzvah to send mishlo’ach manos with a shliach then it is to deliver by oneself, and this applies to matanos l’evyonim (as well), since pirsumei nisa [publicizing the miracle] is more important.”
The Mekor Chaim learns that using a shliach increases pirsumei nisa. According to this reason, the objective of mishlo’ach manos is not merely the “outcome” – as R’ Asher Weiss maintains – but in the “means” as well, in that it is the means that generates the pirsumei nisa.
R’ Tzvi Ryzman (Ratz K’Tzvi) suggests that in light of the above we can understand why the Mishnah Berurah cites the doubt of the Binyan Tzion (as to whether shlichus is required for mishlo’ach manos) without citing his conclusion (that it is not necessary), because in his opinion, it is preferable to send them with a shliach based on the above reasons – either to lead to the mitzvah of matanos l’evyonim, or to avoid embarrassing the recipient, or to create more pirsumei nisa.
When Using a Shliach Can We Apply the Rule of Chazakah Shali'ach Oseh Shelichuso or Must the Sender Double Check to Make Sure It Was Received
The Gemara in Eruvin (31b) brings a machlokes whether we apply the rule of chazakah shali'ach oseh shelichuso [that one may assume that a shliach carried out his assignment] on laws that are de’O’raisa. The Mechaber (696:7) writes that mitzvos that are Divrei Kabbolah have the status of de’O’raisa. The Turei Even (Megillah 5b) rules that all doubts regarding Hilchos Purim are to be treated as sofek de’O’raisa, and one should be stringent. Therefore, when sending mishlo’ach manos via an agent, seemingly one should have to double check that it was sent. Is this in fact the halachah?
The Shu”t HaEleph Lechah Shlomah (Orach Chaim 383) writes that if the agent notifies the sender that he carried out the shlichus, he is believed, and even if he doesn’t notify the sender we believe he carried out the shlichus, as if he didn’t deliver it the sender will eventually find out.
On the other hand, the Shu”t Achiezer (Vol. 3, siman 73, s.k. 4) writes that since mishlo’ach manos is Divrei Kabbolah and has the status of de’O’raisa we can’t assume the shliach carried out his job. However, he adds, that if the shliach gets paid to carry out the job, then he has the status of a po’el [paid worker], and we can assume he carried out the job.
R' Moshe Sternbuch (Teshuvos V’Hanhagos 1:407) writes that perhaps the above concern is the reason that when people receive mishlo’ach manos they like to offer the deliverer something to eat, as this can act like payment for the shliach, and based on this payment the sender can assume that the delivery was carried out.
The Shu”t Chelkas Yaakov (Orach Chaim, siman 235) discusses this shailah and brings the Noda B’Yehudah who says that if not carrying out the shlichus can lead to an issur de’O’raisa on behalf of the sender, then we assume the shliach carried out the task.
They bring in the name of R’ Shlomah Zalman Auerbach zt”l that in cases such as separating terumah we are worried that the shliach didn’t carry out the task, however, in our case where if the shliach would keep it he would be a thief, we aren’t concerned (cited in Avnei Zikoran pg. 152).
For more about this question see Shu”t Yabia Omer, Orach Chaim 9:71.
Back to Our Question of Sending Mishlo’ach Manos via Mail and Using Drones
We mentioned above the Chasam Sofer’s position that there is no need to send mishlo’ach manos with a shliach who is a bar chiyuva, but rather even a child, gentile, or monkey suffices. This is brought down l’halachah in Chazon Ovadia (Mishlo’ach Manos 16).
Accordingly, one clearly fulfills the mitzvah of mishlo’ach manos by delivering it in the mail or with a delivery company, since the shliach need not be obligated in the mitzvah.
Similarly, one can fulfil the mitzvah of mishlo’ach manos by sending it with a drone, since this would be no worse than delivering it with a monkey. Certainly according to R’ Asher Weiss, who says that the primary mitzvah is in the outcome, a drone would suffice for this purpose.
According to the Mekor Chaim, however, who says that the reason it is preferable to use a shliach is for pirsumei nisa, it is unclear whether using a gentile or child to send mishlo’ach manos would fulfil that purpose.
Similarly, it is unclear whether there is pirsumei nisa when sending it in the mail or with a drone – although perhaps when sending it with a drone, those who see it will talk about it and there will indeed be pirsumei nisa. This requires more looking into.
For more on this topic, see R’ Gamliel HaKohen Rabinowitz’s sefer Gam Ani Odcha (Purim, siman 7).
(This write up was based on a Teshuvah written by R’ Tzvi Ryzman shlita, the Mechaber of Ratz K’Tzvi)
