Laws of determining a meal for celiac patients
Peace and blessings,
I am a 26-year-old law student, studying and reading your writings for many years.
I would be happy if you could help me with a halachic question that is currently preoccupying me.
I have celiac disease, and therefore cannot eat bread.
In recent years, I have been drinking a quart of grape juice at the first two Shabbat meals, in order to establish a meal, since I have no other way to establish a meal. If I do not do this, I will apparently not fulfill the commandment of three meals on Shabbat, and I will run into the problem of sanctifying the place of the meal. At the third meal, I do not practice this, and I am doubtful whether I will not run into the problem of eating after sunset, since I do not establish a meal before sunset.
[On the first night of Sukkot and Passover, I eat a special bread made from gluten-free oats, but it is not available all year round].
The first question I want to ask is whether it can be said that the laws of determining a meal are subjective, meaning that while someone who can eat bread must eat it in order to determine a meal, someone who cannot, such as someone who is sensitive to gluten, will count their regular meal as determining a meal. This would eliminate the need to drink a quarter of a glass of wine at Shabbat meals, and would eliminate the question of eating a third meal after sunset.
The source that seemingly contradicts this possibility is the words of the Gemara in Berakhot 32b, which deals with one who determines his meal on wine, and states that his mind is useless for every person, until Elijah comes and asks whether determining a meal on wine, which is a blessing and a joy, is considered determining a meal. If this is the case with regard to wine, let alone with regard to food with which souls are blessed.
In the course of examining this question, I was exposed to the principled opinion of Rabbi Yoel ben Nun (which can be echoed in his words here:
http://www.929.org.il/page/161/post/5000
But the words were not written in the manner of a halakhic ruling. I did not find this claim appearing in a halakhic article), and I would be happy to hear your opinion on the issue –
Can it be said that someone who regularly schedules his meals without bread will be obligated to recite the blessing of food after them?
The source that seemingly contradicts this possibility is the Tannaim dispute in Mishnah Berakhot 44a, where Rabbi Akiva clearly presents a similar position, “Even if he eats a shekel and it is his food – one recites three blessings over it,” and his opinion was rejected by the halakhah. In order to rule like him, we must show that life circumstances have changed significantly from the time of the Tannaim to our time, meaning that in their time it was not customary to set a meal without bread, and today many do so (it seems that Rabbi Yoel ben Nun makes a similar claim), but in my opinion such a claim is implausible – after all, Rabbi Akiva himself presented a case in which people set a meal on shekel, and even the most sages disagreed about it, and the halakhah was established in their favor.
I would be very happy if you could help me,
Happy New Year and Happy holidays,
First, isn’t oat bread available on a regular basis? This is very surprising to me.
I know what Rabbi Yoel said, and as far as I know, he is the only one who believes that the Rabbis bless a meal without bread (everyone, not just celiacs. Because today bread is not a staple food). I think that the Torah law is easier to change with changing circumstances. Regarding the rabbinic law, it is more difficult because in their opinion, the Jewish Law is greater in wisdom and minyan even when the taste is null.
Here ( http://www.yeshiva.org.il/ask/91721 ) I found a reference to Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky who believes that for a celiac patient, the law of Kiddush in place of a meal is possible without bread (although the Rabbis do not recite the blessing. Rabbi Azaria Ariel, who wrote the answer, also raises the possibility of reciting the blessing of the exorcist and the Rabbis, but he notes that many did not accept this). I think you can certainly rely on these opinions regarding the matter of Kiddush in place of a meal and regarding the law of a meal itself. But not the blessing of the exorcist and the Rabbis.
The words of the Rabbi do not contradict this because he is not talking about a situation in which there is a distinct group of significant size that is the main source of income, but rather about such an individual.
All the best and happy holidays.
It is interesting to note what Rabbi Elyashiv says, perhaps according to his words one can say that the time of distress is like a blood sacrifice, (and in particular that it seems that it is not obligatory to recite the blessing of food, but perhaps permitted): Notes of Rabbi Elyashiv Tractate Berachot, page 3, page 2
Drinking wine from a large amount of water, did he die in Brahm”7
Why should we recite three blessings on it? And it is explained that every drink from the hands of Dasaid is worthy of three blessings, but that the Sages did not prescribe the obligation of three blessings except with regular bread, a meal for her. And it is concluded from the halachic law that in retrospect, if Brahm”7 blessed the wine, it is out, as explained in Shulchan But it is a mistake, since in the Sugyan it is explained that only the Purta is a Sa'id, while the Tuba is a Garir, and therefore the Shulchan had the opinion that one does not come out retrospectively in Brahméz, but in the Purta and not in Tuba, and even though it is explained in the Sugya that he has established a fixed rule in order to be obligated in Brahméz, this fixed rule is certainly not in excessive drinking, since as stated, when one drinks a lot, he is not a Sa'id at all, only one who is called by the way of fixed rules in a meeting of friends, etc.
And it must be interpreted that even when a person drinks a good meal, he retrospectively becomes subject to the blessing, and because at the time he drank a portion and his heart was already obligated to recite the blessing and no longer lapses due to his excessive drinking, it is certainly understandable that this is not at all similar to the case of food being digested, which is completely void of the obligation of a blessing, and even more so, the additional drink he drank after his heart was dragged and treated and passed away in the blessing on top of everything. And so in the court there and he placed the chacha and looked at his gaze, as in this case.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
