Q&A: The Nature of the Act
The Nature of the Act
Question
Hello honorable Rabbi, why is it that in some areas of Jewish law you can see that the example is less important for fulfillment and they relate only to the essence of the act, while in some cases they stick with the example of the act even though it is no longer relevant (and I’m not talking about the reason for the law, meaning an answer to the question why). I’ll explain with a random example:
– Example of the act – once a week one must shower with soap made from sheep fat.
– Essence of the act – maintaining cleanliness.
– Reason for the act – God commanded cleanliness.
And now an example from Jewish law:
“A person says three things on Sabbath eve…” Since those things are less relevant today, they go back to the essence of the act, which is to make sure everything is ready for the Sabbath.
Another example:
For those who say that Ezra’s enactment to wash clothes on Thursday is because Friday should be left free for Sabbath needs, some say that nowadays one may do laundry because washing takes only a short time in an electric machine. Again, this is relating to the essence of the act and not to the example of the act, and the essence can still be fulfilled even if one does laundry.
In contrast,
The “Me’ein Sheva” prayer is still recited even though the example of the act is no longer relevant, and the essence of the act is really protection from danger according to the Babylonian Talmud at least (which is relevant at all times, but it does not necessarily have to come in the form of the Me’ein Sheva prayer).
Answer
There is no general rule in these matters. Usually it is a combination of a need for change together with an interpretation of the original enactment. See my article on changing enactments in our time.
Discussion on Answer
There is no point in dealing with such general determinations. The Babylonian Talmud was redacted later, and most halakhic decisors prefer it, but a determination one way or the other is just an empty statement.
With your permission, a side question that came to mind because of the example of Me’ein Sheva and the difference between the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud regarding it: in your opinion, are the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud parallel tracks (not in terms of historical time, but in terms of halakhic authority), or does the Babylonian Talmud contain the Jerusalem Talmud and serve as a broader and more “advanced” halakhic continuation?
I’ve seen halakhic decisors whose view matches one of these two options.