Gluttonous Eating
Different meanings in different genres
In Nazir 23a, Rabbi Yochanan discusses one eating the korban Pesach gluttonously.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״כִּי יְשָׁרִים דַּרְכֵי ה׳ וְצַדִּקִים יֵלְכוּ בָם וּפֹשְׁעִים יִכָּשְׁלוּ בָם״ — מָשָׁל לִשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁצָּלוּ אֶת פִּסְחֵיהֶן, אֶחָד אֲכָלוֹ לְשׁוּם מִצְוָה, וְאֶחָד אֲכָלוֹ לְשׁוּם אֲכִילָה גַּסָּה. זֶה שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ לְשׁוּם מִצְוָה — ״וְצַדִּקִים יֵלְכוּ בָם״. וְזֶה שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ לְשׁוּם אֲכִילָה גַּסָּה — ״וּפֹשְׁעִים יִכָּשְׁלוּ בָם״.
§ Rabba bar bar Ḥanna said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For the paths of the Lord are right, and the just walk in them, but transgressors stumble over them” (Hosea 14:10)? How can the same path lead to such different outcomes? This is comparable to two people who roasted their Paschal offerings on Passover eve, in the proper manner. One ate it for the sake of the mitzva, and one ate it for the sake of excessive eating. This one, who ate it for the sake of the mitzva, has fulfilled: “And the just walk in them,” while that one, who ate it for the sake of excessive eating, is described by the end of the verse: “But transgressors stumble over them.”
Reish Lakish objects that such a person would still have fulfilled the mitzvah, so how could he be termed wicked?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הַאי ״רָשָׁע״ קָרֵית לֵיהּ?! נְהִי דְּלָא קָא עָבֵיד מִצְוָה מִן הַמּוּבְחָר, פֶּסַח מִיהָא קָא עָבֵיד! אֶלָּא: מָשָׁל לִשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם, זֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ וַאֲחוֹתוֹ עִמּוֹ, וְזֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ וַאֲחוֹתוֹ עִמּוֹ. לְזֶה נִזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ, וּלְזֶה נִזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ אֲחוֹתוֹ. זֶה שֶׁנִּזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ — ״צַדִּקִים יֵלְכוּ בָם״, וְזֶה שֶׁנִּזְדַּמְּנָה לוֹ אֲחוֹתוֹ — ״וּפֹשְׁעִים יִכָּשְׁלוּ בָם״.
Reish Lakish said to Rabba bar bar Ḥanna: You call this individual wicked? Even though he had not performed the mitzva in the optimal manner when he eats this Paschal offering, he has at least performed the mitzva of the Paschal offering. Rather, this is comparable to two people; this one has his wife and sister in the same house with him, and that one has his wife and sister with him. Each husband arrives home and engages in sexual intercourse with one of the women. This one happened upon his wife, and that one happened upon his sister. This one, who happened upon his wife, is described by the phrase “And the just walk in them,” and that one, who happened upon his sister, is described by the phrase “But transgressors stumble over them.”
As an aside, I’m not sure I agree that Reish Lakish said this to Rabba bar bar Chana. I’d suggest that Rabbi bar bar Chana cited the very dispute, both the words of Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish.
At any rate, what arises from this discussion is that achila gasa, gluttonous eating, counts as valid eating according to both Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish. This seems to be at odds with Yevamot 40a, where Reish Lakish exempts one who eats achila gasa on Yom Kippur because it isn’t deemed eating. (Alternatively, and this may provide an out, in some manuscripts, this because on Yom Kippur the issue is לֹֽא־תְעֻנֶּ֔ה, and by eating at the point of nausea, he’s afflicting himself rather than enjoying.)
I wrote an article about this a while back, available here (text) and here (flipdocs, nicely graphically formatted).
To summarize:
Rashi and Tosafot note the contradiction. While Rashi defines achila gasa as eating for appetite, Tosafot take issue because that is the very definition of actual eating rather than achila gasa. They instead have achila gasa and achila gasa prime, where there is a difference in whether it is to the point of vomiting (Yom Kippur) or simply just not hungry (Pesach).
I think Rashi’s explanation actually makes more sense and gets to the root of the issue. We have to understand genre, and the purpose here is homiletics. The achila gasa prime is eating to satisfy one’s stomach, to enjoy it, and not at all focused on the mitzvah fulfillment. As in gluttony as one of the Christian Seven Deadly Sins. Because Tosafot are thinking of it as distinct halachic categories, rather than homiletic, they miss this point.
Oh, while discussing eating matzah gluttonously, I also mention Rabbi Yair Hoffman’s article, The Forgotten Method of Eating Matzah, where he recommends the following:
Therefore, the ideal correct procedure is the following four-step process (see S.A. O.C. 475:1). Please note that some people will find step 4 rather difficult, so an alternative step 4 is provided later.
1. We make the HaMotzi on all three matzos.
2. Then we drop the lower whole matzah and recite the blessing of Al Achilas Matzah on both the upper whole one and the broken matzah below it.
3. We then break a kezayis from both of them, wrap them together, and consumes a kezayis from each one simultaneously. Yes, that is correct: place both kezeisim in the mouth together.
4. Both kezeisim are then chewed well and split, within the mouth, in half–one kezayis on each side. Then one is swallowed, followed by the other.
If one reads the Shulchan Aruch carefully, the indication is that both kezeisim should also actually be swallowed together. However, both the Magen Avraham and the Mishnah Berurah (475:9) write that it is only necessary to have them in the mouth together, chew them, and separate them in the mouth, but it is not necessary to swallow them together–one after the other will suffice.
OK, in how much time should one perform this feat?
The consensus is that ideally we should adhere to the two-minute requirement mentioned by the Chasam Sofer (Vol. VI #16 and 23), but at a maximum we should not go beyond four minutes (see Shiurin shel Torah).
My reaction to this is similar to that of Rabbi Natan Slifkin, in the following old post:
Aside from surely not being the forgotten method our ancestors employed, I think there may be real questions as to whether one has fulfilled when eating in this manner, in this amount of time (and at the end of the meal when one is already stuffed, but even without that concern). It isn’t a normal derech achila, and indeed leans towards the achila gasa end of the eating spectrum.