Q&A: Laws of Establishing a Meal for Celiac Patients
Laws of Establishing a Meal for Celiac Patients
Question
Hello and blessings,
I am a 26-year-old law student, and I have been studying and reading your writings for many years.
I would be very grateful if you could help me with a halakhic question that has been occupying me these days.
I have celiac disease, and therefore I cannot eat bread.
In recent years I have been accustomed to drink a revi’it of grape juice at the first two Sabbath meals, in order to establish them as meals, since I have no other way to establish a meal. If I do not do this, then seemingly I will not fulfill the commandment of the three Sabbath meals, and I will run into a problem with kiddush needing to be in the place of a meal. At the third meal I do not do this, and I am unsure whether I am then running into a problem of eating after sunset, since I do not establish the meal before sunset.
[On the first night of Sukkot and Passover I eat special bread made from gluten-free oats, but it is not available all year round.]
The first question I would like to ask is whether it can be said that the laws of establishing a meal are subjective—that is, while someone who can eat bread is required to eat it in order to establish a meal, someone who cannot, such as a person sensitive to gluten, would have his regular meal count for him as establishing a meal. That would spare me the need to drink a revi’it of wine at the Sabbath meals, and would also resolve the question regarding eating the third meal after sunset.
A source that seemingly contradicts this possibility is the statement of the Talmud in Berakhot 35b, which discusses someone who establishes his meal on wine, and rules that his view is nullified relative to everyone else, unless Elijah comes and tells us whether establishing a meal on wine—which nourishes and gladdens—is considered establishing a meal. If that is the case regarding wine, then all the more so regarding food over which one recites the blessing “Borei Nefashot.”
In the course of examining this question, I came across the principled view of Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun (an echo of it can be found in his words here:
http://www.929.org.il/page/161/post/5000
though the matter was not written in the form of a halakhic ruling. I did not find this claim appearing in a halakhic article), and I would be glad to hear your opinion on the matter—
can it be said that someone who regularly establishes his meals without bread would be obligated to recite Grace after Meals afterward?
A source that seemingly contradicts this possibility is the dispute of the tanna’im in the Mishnah, Berakhot 44a, where Rabbi Akiva presents quite clearly a similar position: “Even if one ate cooked vegetables, and that is his nourishment, he recites three blessings over it,” and his view was rejected in practical Jewish law. In order to rule like him, seemingly we would need to show that life circumstances have changed significantly from the period of the tanna’im until our time—namely, that in their time people did not at all establish meals without bread, whereas today many do so (Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun seems to make something like this claim). But to my mind such a claim is not persuasive—for Rabbi Akiva himself presented a case in which people establish a meal on cooked vegetables, and even so the Sages disagreed with him, and the Jewish law was established in accordance with their view.
I would be very grateful if you could help me,
Wishing you a good year and a happy holiday,
Answer
First, is it really impossible to obtain oat bread on a regular basis? That surprises me מאוד.
I am familiar with Rabbi Yoel’s position, and as far as I know he is the only one who holds that one recites Grace after Meals for a meal without bread (for everyone, not only celiac patients, because nowadays bread is not the primary staple food). It seems to me that a Torah-level law is דווקא easier to change when circumstances change. With regard to rabbinic laws it is harder, because we require a religious court greater in wisdom and number even when the reason for the enactment no longer applies.
Here (http://www.yeshiva.org.il/ask/91721) I found a reference to Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, who holds that for a celiac patient the rule of kiddush in the place of a meal can be fulfilled even without bread (although one does not recite Grace after Meals. Rabbi Azarya Ariel, who wrote the responsum, raises the possibility of also reciting “Who brings forth bread” and Grace after Meals, but he notes that many did not accept this). It seems to me that you certainly may rely on these opinions regarding kiddush in the place of a meal and regarding the basic definition of a meal itself. But not to recite “Who brings forth bread” or Grace after Meals.
Rabbi Akiva’s words do not contradict this, because he is not speaking about a situation in which there is a distinct group of significant size for whom this is the primary food, but about such an individual case.
All the best and happy holiday.
It is interesting to note, based on Rabbi Elyashiv’s words, that perhaps according to him one could say that in pressing circumstances it is treated like an after-the-fact case—especially since it seems that Grace after Meals is not obligatory here, though perhaps optional. Notes of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv on tractate Berakhot 35b:
Whether drinking a large amount of wine, which stimulates the appetite, is covered by Grace after Meals
“If so, let us recite three blessings over it.” It is explained that anything that satisfies is fit for three blessings; nevertheless, the Sages did not institute the three blessings as an obligation except for bread, because people establish a meal on it. The practical implication for Jewish law is that after the fact, if one recited Grace after Meals over wine, he has fulfilled his obligation, as explained in the Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 208:17. However, this requires examination, because in our sugya it is explained that a small amount satisfies, whereas a large amount stimulates the appetite; if so, the Shulchan Arukh should have distinguished and said that after the fact one fulfills the obligation with Grace after Meals only for a small amount and not for a large amount. And although it is explained in the sugya that fixed-meal status is required in order to obligate Grace after Meals, certainly this fixed-meal status is not speaking of drinking a large quantity, for as stated, when one drinks a lot it does not satisfy at all. Rather, the intention is to a regular meal setting, such as sitting with companions and the like.
It must therefore be explained that even when he drinks a large amount, he still fulfills the obligation after the fact with Grace after Meals, because at the moment he drank a small amount and it satisfied him, he was already obligated in Grace after Meals, and that obligation is not then undone by drinking more. The logic certainly is that this is not at all comparable to food having been digested, for there the obligation of blessing has lapsed. More than that, even the additional drinking he did after he was satisfied is drawn after and secondary to the original drinking, and Grace after Meals covers everything. The Bi’ur Halakhah writes similarly there and leaves it unresolved; see also what the Chazon Ish wrote on this.