Nice Thread. Joseph does seem like a shtickle troll.
1- DY on the Seder HaYom – many good sources by all cited, but that was particularly interesting. It does seem that the pashut p’shat is held by many Kabbalists. See the Kaf HaChayim brings the Sefer HaKavonos. But the Arizal (cited by Sefer Yesod Shoresh v’ Avodah) says not literally – even though he cites this from a Be’er Heitev that is not in our S’A.
2- I am not one to question the Aruch HaShulchan’s question on the S’A (and the many Talmedei Chachamim on the thread ;-)) but to me it is not a kashya. The S’A is a synopsis of the Bais Yosef, but it also can be m’ramez. The Tur brings the lashon shikar. The S’A davka CHANGES back to l’vsumei. This is his maskana which the Archos Chayim stated – l’vsemei not shikar. This is defined by drinking more than usual. [See Pri Chadash that we are discussing more than usually drunk by Yom Tov or another time one does drink]. This to me is only a minimum not davka a little more. That is why the Rema says “yesh omrim”. The S’A is stating the din is l’vesumei drink more than usual until but not including being shikar (see the Bach) – the Rema says no just more than usual (ie to a minimum) but not more – then go to sleep. Even though it is not a real fulfillment even to the Rambam who seems to be saying one has to drink enough that it causes sleep – as the Gra and others cited stated from Ravyah “its a mitzvah b’alma not an obligation”. This would not the derech in a normal situation but because yiddishkeit frowns on drunkedness – the Rema & M’B are makel.
3- On just wine. I also enjoyed DY’s refutation of the Radvaz being proof specifically by wine – however it does seem clear its ideal to drink wine.
Relatedly, I thought of p’shat in Rashi before Purim that I would like to hear if the CR agrees. Rashi has two comments on the gemara of Rava – both defining the word l’vsumei. First by the chayav inush l’vsemei (Rashi – get drunk with wine). Then by the word v’avasum (sp? – referring to when Rabbah and R’ Zeirah got drunk – Rashi defines this time just they got drunk). Why does Rashi have to repeat himself? He already defined the word. I think you could learn p’shat like so. “With wine” is not a what statement but a how statement. Rashi is saying it is the type of drunkenness that one associates with wine, not more harder beverages. Not that you have to drink wine. But the gemara says l’vsumei to limit the drinking to the parameters of drunkenness with wine not total wasted-ness that is associated with harder beverages. O, the story – that was real drunkenness – therefore the poor conclusion – therefore Rashi just states shikar. This could fit with Rabbein Efrayim that (see the Bach) still holds by the din but not the part of “ad d’lo yadah”. Or Rashi is stating ad d’lo yadah is shikar mamish [that’s the story] but within the parameters of Rava. One has to get drunk, Rashi explains like one does by drinking some wine, until the point they reach real drunkenness. This makes senses as it wouldn’t seem that l’vsumei means one has to get drunk mamish… if he’s already drunk like a real shikar – what’s the until he doesn’t know referring to – a total shikar doesn’t know. Rather it must be a lighter drunkenness to shtark drunkenness.
I wonder if anyone knows of someone who asked on Rashi like so, and how they answered.