Q&A: A Sated Soul
A Sated Soul
Question
Hello,
It says in Ta’anit 26a: “a sated soul and a full belly.”
Do you see this as “doubling the same idea in different words,” or as two distinct laws/ideas?
Thank you, Rabbi.
Answer
At first glance it seems like the same thing. But perhaps the intent is two conditions that are fulfilled together: when a person eats, his belly is filled and his soul is also satisfied. Something like this appears with neshekh and tarbit according to Rashi at the beginning of the chapter “Eizehu Neshekh”: neshekh is what “bites” the borrower, while tarbit is the increase in the lender’s money. But clearly one does not exist without the other, and in essence these are two aspects of the same prohibition. There too it is interesting with regard to the count of the commandments: Maimonides, in the laws of Lender and Borrower, writes that one violates two prohibitions, but counts only one.
Discussion on Answer
It’s not a matter of there being a problem. There is a prohibition on tarbit and a prohibition on neshekh, even though they are done in the same act.
Who says a full belly is not good? A person being at ease is a good thing. He has something to give thanks for. Similar to this is “And it shall be, when the Lord enlarges your border, and you say: I shall eat meat,” which according to Saadia Gaon is apparently a positive commandment to eat meat when you are in a tranquil state. I once saw someone bring proof for this from King Solomon, who ate and slaughtered fattened cattle, and the verse gives the reason: “for he ruled over all the region beyond the river.”
I don’t know—even if eating is good, “a full belly” sounds a little not so good, no?
Since the Rabbi mentioned Saadia Gaon’s view, on the substance of his words: I saw Saadia Gaon quoted in Rabbi Yerucham Fishel Perla’s commentary, commandment 95, and it’s amazing.
But even though Rabbi Perla was emphatic, it doesn’t sound reasonable. Is there really a Torah-level commandment that if you feel like it, then eat?
Isn’t that strange?
In my opinion, the middle possibility that Rabbi Perla raised is much more plausible, namely: don’t eat ravenously, but only as needed. And everything Rabbi Perla rejected was because of the wording. [And besides, we are used to forcing the wording rather than the reasoning.] But even in terms of wording, it is much more plausible: “the Lord enlarges your border and your desire will be enriched with goodness and you will be satisfied,” meaning that you will dwell in the land and desire, and then remember that there is God and eat as needed. That is very similar to the motifs in the Torah’s passage about Grace after Meals.
Isn’t that so?
I completely agree that it is not a plausible interpretation, and not of the verse either. I brought it only as an illustration.
A nice comparison, and it really is interesting: do we have a problem, in principle, with tarbit? Or are they just stating a fact?
And also with Hallel there, apparently there is no special value in a full belly, and it is not a positive thing. And if I remember correctly, in Keritot 28 the commentators discuss whether “and let him fill his belly from the holy offerings of Heaven” is positive or negative. In any case, why didn’t they just say “a sated soul” and leave it at that?