Why are you grouping categories two and three together when it would be more logical to group categories one and two together?
The way I choose to group them is dependent on what point I’m trying to make. Here, the point I was trying to make was that there is an extreme dearth of sources that understand Rava k’pshuto and hold of it l’halacha. If I was trying to point out that there are many sourses which hold of some form of drinking then I would in fact group category two with category one.
Why would they unclearly quote Rava’s lashon verbatim without further elucidation if they didn’t mean it in the simple sense?
Why did Rava quote Rava’s lashon verbatim without further elucidation if he didn’t mean it in the simple sense? Also, poskim have a proclivity for using the exact language of the Gemara (or earlier rishonim). Open to any siman in Shulchan Aruch and you’ll find verbatim quotes of the Gemara/Rambam/Tur etc.
Oh good. Now I can tell everyone that they shouldn’t get drunk because…
Ah! This is the problem – that people arguing against Purim drunkenness are often coming with an agenda as their starting point. They want to assur drunkenness on Purim and then go looking for shittos for fit that goal. And many even get upset at you merely for pointing out all the many valid shittos insisting on the halachic requirement to get drunk and all the real examples of contemporary and historic vintage of great and regular yiddden appropriately fulfilling this halacha by getting drunk on Purim.
I was being sarcastic. I highly doubt DaasYochid would accept such a claim.
BTW, it was worth starting this thread if for nothing else than to have you cite Rav Menashe Klein zt’l.
I can’t think of anything in the teshuva that is so noteworthy as to justify starting this thread. So I assume you mean the fact that I cited specifically R’ Menashe Klein. Which leads me to wonder what is so special about that.