Go With the Flow: Rivers, Bridges, and the Local Halacha And More Chulin 16-18

Chulin 16

Melave Malka and the Secret of Resurrection

Our Gemara on Amud Beis states a position that in the wilderness the Jews were not allowed to consume ordinary meat. The only time that one could eat meat is if it is part of a sacrifice such as a shelamim. In Sefer Daf al Daf, he quotes the Sar Shalom Mi-Belz that this Gemara proves that one is not obligated to have meat at Seudas Melave Malka. His reasoning is as follows: if in the wilderness they could only consume sacrificial meat, such meat would be from a shelamim sacrifice brought on Friday before Shabbos. Such meat would be forbidden by Saturday evening as nosar — a shelamim must be consumed within the period of the day of the sacrifice, the evening after and the day after, which would be Friday, Friday night and Shabbos day. After that, it must be burnt. If so, in the wilderness it would not have been possible to have Melave Malka from meat.

While on the topic, let’s take a closer look at Melave Malka. Regardless of what food is to be eaten, the ritual itself is part of honoring the Shabbos. It is our last experience and the way of transitioning from Shabbos. The Gemara (Shabbos 119b and Rashi) compares it to escorting a dignitary on his way out of your home.

There also is a tradition (Mateh Moshe 513, and see Eliyahu Rabbah OH 300:2) that one who eats Seudas Melave Malka will merit the resurrection of the dead. This will come from the human remains of the tailbone.

What is the connection? Symbolically we can see the obvious correlation. If one honors the ending of Shabbos, even as it is technically over, in turn, the final remains of a person, the last bits that have not decayed, will merit a resurrection.

But just because it is a clever derush, does it really make sense that one should merit something as grand as being revived from the dead for eating this final meal? Thought there is a symbolic correspondence, does it really follow in classic middah kneged middah — measure for measure compensation? Are the two equivalent?

On a deeper level, eating the Melave Malka seudah effectuates a revival of the dead because this very action of celebrating and clinging to spirituality as Shabbos wanes is not merely engaging in a symbolic act of resurrection — one is actually performing resurrection. Celebrating and holding onto the holiness of Shabbos as the week begins IS RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.

As we noted in yesterday’s blog post, Psychology of the Daf, Chulin 15, spirituality is not a metaphor; to the contrary, the physical world is a metaphorical representation of the spiritual world. Therefore, the physical enactment of the resurrection of the dead is only one dimension of the deeper principle. When a person actively engages in holding onto the remainders of spiritual benefit from Shabbos, they are tapping into the deeper source that enables resurrection of the dead. Furthermore, right now, by bringing a part of Shabbos into their weekday they are already living in a form of renewal and rejuvenation.

Chulin 18

Go With the Flow: Rivers, Bridges, and the Local Pulse of Halacha

Our Gemara on Amud Beis reports a response by Rav Yosef to explain what seems to be contradictory halachic practices in different locales. Rav Yosef says, “nahara, nahara upashta” — “Each river and its unique course, i.e., each place follows its custom.”

What does Rav Yosef mean? Rashi explains that rivers naturally flow differently in different locations. The Aramaic word “pashta” is translated as direction of spread or flow. Later on daf 57a, he elaborates and says in some locations rivers flow strongly; in other locations rivers flow more gently. So too, in some locations the halacha may be more strict and in others less so.

Rabbenu Gershom translates the word pashta differently. It still comes from the same root of spread but here it means the bridge that goes over the river. The metaphor is that just as each river requires a different kind of bridge, so too each locale may require a different kind of halachic ruling.

Let us analyze how Rashi and Rabbenu Gershom understand this idiom. Both of them are implying that it is not merely a random statement, but there is an interaction between the river and its environment. That is to say, the halachic rulings are dynamic, and based on the needs and interaction — one might also say the analytical skills and interpretations — of the local rabbinic authority. However, there is a difference between Rashi and Rabbenu Gershom connoted by their metaphors. According to Rashi, we may say the river flows according to the terrain and so too the halacha responds to the terrain of the location. But according to Rabbenu Gershom, it is not the river that is accommodating; it is the bridge that is accommodating.

I think there is an extra level of meaning here. The practice and ruling of halacha is a bridge mechanism toward reaching a goal, just as the bridge takes you over the river from one place to another. So the philosophy according to Rabbenu Gershom is that the Halacha follows different rulings in different locations in order to serve as a bridge toward the desired goal of expressing the will of God in the correct way in that place. This is reminiscent of what we discussed in blog post Psychology of the Daf, Chulin 15, based on the Vayikra Rabbah 13, that the Commandments have a function of refining and elevating human behavior, and therefore they can be a means an end, a bridge and not just an intrinsic act. The factors that may influence different halachic decisions are what best accomplishes this bridge.