In his article “Tora of Israel, Tora of Exile” (Azure 2, Spring 1997), Yoav Sorek argues that the halachic discussion in exile became fossilized and “technical,” while ignoring the goals and ends of the commandments. This is exemplified by the third Sabbath meal. The author maintains that the third meal, which was established for oneg shabat (the pleasure derived from the Sabbath), was transformed by the “Tora of Exile” into a symbolic meal whose importance lies in its symbolic nature, and not in any actual pleasure.

This example would seem to support the argument; but even a shallow examination reveals the example to be a false one. Two classical and central books of the “Tora of Exile,” the Shulhan Aruch (Orah Hayim 291:1) and the Mishna Brura (ad loc.), offer directives concerning the third meal which are quite different from what we might expect.

The Shulhan Aruch states: “Take great care to observe the third meal, and even if one is satiated, he may fulfill it with an egg’s worth [of food in volume]; and if he is incapable of eating it, he is not obligated to suffer.” The Mishna Brura adds: “The meal was given for pleasure, and not for suffering.” The Shulhan Aruch writes in the continuation of this discussion, “The wise one who has eyes in his head will not fill his stomach in the morning meal, in order to leave room for the third meal.” The Mishna Brura adds: “For otherwise, at times this would be gluttony and would not be regarded as [proper] eating.” In other words, the rabbis who are regarded as the leading proponents of the “Tora of Exile” are fully aware of the meaning of the obligation, and are of the opinion that this meaning influences the carrying out of the obligation—even to the extent of canceling it in special instances. They do not, however, maintain that ordinary satiation is sufficient to override the commandment. In this as well, they are not “divorced from reality,” since members of our affluent society know how easy it is to enjoy tasty food, even when one is full. The position they offer is also in line with the original purpose of the third meal—the goal of celebrating the Sabbath by means of an additional meal, and not merely the addition of courses to the existing meals. Neither the Shulhan Aruch nor the Mishna Brura (both, again, among the pillars of the “Tora of Exile”) mention any symbolic aspect of the third meal. They must certainly have been aware of such an aspect, but did not regard it as being a relevant component of the legal discussion. It would therefore seem that the difference between the “Tora of the Land” and the “Tora of Exile” is really quite artificial.

In truth, in order to restore the “Tora of the Land” to its former glory, there is no need for revolutionary measures. It would be more productive to join the discussion currently taking place in the beit midrash, both orally and in writing, on the basis of a broad store of knowledge and common sense.

Ruth Landau
Jerusalem

 

The first part of Ruth Landau’s letter is correct, and puts in focus an argument which may not have been made clearly enough in my article. The Tora of Exile finds its major expression in the realm of the de facto, and not in that of the de jure. Religious psychology, the popular approach toward the halacha, and the norms of Jewish society are the main underpinnings of the Tora of Exile, which in many instances later find some expression in the halachic literature as well. It should be recalled that the Tora of Exile preserves the Tora of Israel. The concept of the reformation of this world is learned and transmitted from one generation to the next, and, in the formal plane, no conception clearly belonging to the Tora of Exile can be anchored in the halacha.

As for joining the discussion conducted in the religious academies, with the proviso that this be done from a broad base of knowledge and common sense—such a view is somewhat naive. Broad knowledge, within the realm of the classical Tora literature, is a fundamental of the discussions in the beit midrash; but so is the understanding that there are laws which are not taught, and that the strength of the “spirit of the halacha” is greater than is commonly assumed. These assumptions also are part of the beit midrash discussion. Anyone coming to the beit midrash waving Landau’s quotations from the Shulhan Aruch will find himself among the community of eccentrics who insist upon the application of the halacha solely as it is written.

 

 

Corrections: In the last issue, Elliott Abrams and Enrico Mentana were described erroneously. Abrams is President of the Center for Ethics and Public Policy in Washington; Mentana is the director of Italian television’s Channel 5 News. We apologize for the errors.  —Ed.