Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 244:17-23

Sugya Map

• Issue: The halachic status and practical requirements of several key mitzvot associated with Shabbat, specifically:
  • The source and level of obligation for Se'udah Shlishit (the third Shabbat meal).
  • The necessary components of Se'udah Shlishit (e.g., bread).
  • The concept and application of Tosefet Shabbat (adding from chol to kodesh).
  • The source and level of obligation for Hadlakat Ner Shabbat (lighting Shabbat candles).
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Se'udah Shlishit: Whether one may fulfill the obligation with foods other than bread; the weight of the mitzvah (e.g., concerning she'eilat chacham for leniency).
  • Tosefet Shabbat: The precise moment melacha becomes prohibited; implications for last-minute preparations.
  • Hadlakat Ner Shabbat: The intensity of the chiyuv and its implications for birkat hamitzvah or when facing extenuating circumstances.
• Primary Sources: Shemot 16:25 (Man story); Berachot 49b (shoneh halachot); Shabbat 118b (Se'udah Shlishit discussions); Vayikra 23:32 (Tosefet Shabbat source); Rambam, Hilchot Shabbat 5:1, 30:9; Magen Avraham, OC 244:4; Gra, OC 244:4; Tosafot, Shabbat 118b s.v. "שליש"; Rosh, Berachot 8:16.

Text Snapshot

The Arukh HaShulchan (AHS) navigates these crucial halachot with characteristic rigor and practical insight:

• 244:17: "מצות סעודה שלישית היא מדברי קבלה. והיש אומרים שהיא דאורייתא, ואין דבריהם נראים, דהא קרא על המן קא מיירי, וכבר עבר ובטל."^[Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 244:17]
  • Dikduk/Leshon: The AHS uses "מדברי קבלה" (rabbinic decree) for se'udah shlishit, explicitly rejecting the d'Oraita opinion. His phrasing "ואין דבריהם נראים" (their words are not plausible) is a strong dismissal, indicating his firm stance that the pasuk from Shemot 16:25 is context-specific to the Man and cannot be generalized to a d'Oraita obligation for se'udah shlishit.
• 244:18: "וצריך לאכול פת דוקא... אבל דברי המגן אברהם נראים, דהא אמרינן בפרק מי שמתו (ברכות מ"ט ב') דמי שאכל ושנה ושלש וכו' הוי סעודה שלישית אף שלא אכל פת."^[Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 244:18]
  • Dikduk/Leshon: The AHS initially presents the stringent view, "צריך לאכול פת דוקא" (one must eat bread specifically). However, he immediately pivots with "אבל דברי המגן אברהם נראים" (but the words of the Magen Avraham seem correct), indicating his final psak leans towards leniency based on the Gemara in Berachot. This rhetorical structure allows him to present both sides before definitively ruling.
• 244:23: "מצות הדלקת נר שבת היא מדברי קבלה... ואף על גב דהיא מדברי קבלה, חמירא חמירא כדאורייתא, שעל ידה הוא שלום בית ושלום וכל טוב."^[Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 244:23]
  • Dikduk/Leshon: The phrase "חמירא חמירא כדאורייתא" (it is as stringent as a Torah obligation) is significant. While confirming d'Rabbanan, it elevates the practical weight of the mitzvah, emphasizing its criticality due to its foundational role in shalom bayit and oneg Shabbat.

Readings

1. The D'Oraita vs. D'Rabbanan Status of Se'udah Shlishit

The AHS firmly sides with the view that Se'udah Shlishit is d'Rabbanan, rejecting the d'Oraita opinion. This stance is rooted in a fundamental understanding of the derashot connected to the Man in Parashat Beshalach.

• Rambam: Maimonides, the quintessential codifier, explicitly states: "ומצות שלש סעודות בשבת מדברי סופרים" (And the mitzvah of three meals on Shabbat is from the words of the Sages).^[Rambam, Hilchot Shabbat 30:9] This unambiguous declaration establishes the rabbinic nature of the obligation. The Rambam’s silence on any d'Oraita possibility itself serves as a powerful refutation. His focus in the halachot is on the quality of the meals and the oneg they provide, rather than their source.
• Rashba: The Rashba, in his Chiddushim to Shabbat 118b, directly addresses the Gemara's discussion of "שלש סעודות בשבת מנין?" (From where do we derive three meals on Shabbat?). He explains that while the Gemara brings the pasuk "אכלוהו היום כי שבת היום לה'" (Eat it today, for today is Shabbat to Hashem) and derives three "היום" for three meals, this is an asmachta (a rabbinic teaching supported by a verse) rather than a direct d'Oraita command. The Rashba clarifies that the verse itself pertains to the Man and the prohibition of gathering it on Shabbat, not to a general commandment of three meals. He writes: "אבל עיקר שלש סעודות אינו אלא מדרבנן, וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא הוא."^[Rashba, Shabbat 118b s.v. "שלש סעודות"] This aligns perfectly with the AHS's reasoning that the pasuk "על המן קא מיירי, וכבר עבר ובטל" – it’s about the Man, which is a past phenomenon, and therefore cannot be the source for a perpetual d'Oraita chiyuv. The AHS thus reinforces the mainstream Rishonim’s interpretation of this derasha.

2. The Bread Requirement for Se'udah Shlishit

The AHS initially presents the requirement for bread for Se'udah Shlishit as l'chatchila, but ultimately adopts the more lenient view of the Magen Avraham and Gra that other foods can suffice, especially b'dieved.

• Magen Avraham: The Magen Avraham (Rav Avraham Gombiner) on Shulchan Arukh OC 244:4 directly challenges the notion that Se'udah Shlishit requires pat (bread). He cites the Gemara in Berachot 49b which states: "מי שאכל ושנה ושלש וכו' ועל השלישית לא אכל אלא ירקות או פירות או בשר ודגים" (One who ate, and repeated, and did a third... and for the third did not eat anything but vegetables, or fruits, or meat and fish). The Gemara continues, "הרי זה נכנס לשלישית" (behold, he has entered the third [meal]). This passage implies that one can fulfill the obligation of the third meal even without bread. The Magen Avraham concludes that while it's a mitzvah min hamuvchar (a superior mitzvah) to eat bread, one is still considered to have fulfilled the mitzvah with other foods.^[Magen Avraham, Orach Chaim 244:4] This is precisely the Gemara reference the AHS brings to validate his final position.
• Gra (Vilna Gaon): The Gra (Rabbi Eliyahu of Vilna), in his annotations to the Shulchan Arukh, similarly agrees with the Magen Avraham's interpretation of Berachot 49b. He points out that the Gemara Berachot uses the language of "אכל ושנה ושלש" for the third meal, implying that even non-bread items can constitute a "meal" for this purpose. The Gra often aligns with the Magen Avraham in deriving halacha directly from the Gemara and Rishonim, and here, he finds the Gemara's plain meaning to support the leniency.^[Gra, Orach Chaim 244:4] The AHS, by explicitly citing the Magen Avraham and the Gemara in Berachot, demonstrates his agreement with this broader understanding of se'udah for the purpose of se'udah shlishit, prioritizing the spirit of oneg Shabbat over a strict definition of a meal.

Friction

The Enigma of the "Man" Derasha for D'Oraita Se'udah Shlishit

The Arukh HaShulchan, in 244:17, unequivocally rejects the opinion that Se'udah Shlishit is d'Oraita, stating that the pasuk (Shemot 16:25) refers specifically to the Man and is therefore irrelevant for a perpetual d'Oraita obligation. This seems to fly in the face of the Gemara itself (Shabbat 118b), which explicitly asks, "שלש סעודות בשבת מנין?" (From where do we derive three meals on Shabbat?) and answers with "היום היום היום", deriving it from the threefold mention of "היום" in the Man narrative. If the Gemara itself uses this derasha, why does the AHS dismiss it so forcefully as "ואין דבריהם נראים"? Is the AHS suggesting the Gemara's derasha is flawed, or is there a deeper distinction?

Terutz: The AHS is not rejecting the Gemara's derasha per se, but rather its capacity to establish a d'Oraita chiyuv. The Gemara in Shabbat 118b brings the derasha as an asmachta (a rabbinic teaching supported by a verse) for the d'Rabbanan obligation, not as a direct d'Oraita source. Many derashot in the Gemara serve to lend biblical flavor or support to rabbinic decrees without elevating them to d'Oraita status.

The distinction lies in the nature of the derasha. A derasha that establishes a halacha l'Moshe miSinai or a clear d'Oraita command typically relies on precise linguistic nuances or gezeirot shavot that are universally accepted as binding. The derasha of "היום היום היום" from the Man story, while homiletically appealing, is not of that rigorous legal caliber to establish a d'Oraita chiyuv. As the Rashba (Shabbat 118b) clarifies, "וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא הוא" – the verse is merely an asmachta. The AHS, aligning with the Rambam and Rishonim, is emphasizing that peshat (the plain meaning of the text) and the specific context of the Man story preclude a d'Oraita derivation. The Man was a temporary phenomenon, and a mitzvah derived directly from it would logically be similarly temporal. The perpetuity of Se'udah Shlishit must therefore stem from a different, rabbinic, source. The AHS's "ואין דבריהם נראים" is thus a rejection of the argument for d'Oraita, not a rejection of the Gemara's homiletic use of the verse.

The Apparent Contradiction in the Bread Requirement for Se'udah Shlishit

In 244:18, the AHS initially states, "וצריך לאכול פת דוקא" (one must eat bread specifically), implying a strict requirement. Yet, immediately after, he pivots: "אבל דברי המגן אברהם נראים, דהא אמרינן בפרק מי שמתו (ברכות מ"ט ב') דמי שאכל ושנה ושלש וכו' הוי סעודה שלישית אף שלא אכל פת." This apparent contradiction, where he first posits a strict rule and then embraces a more lenient one, begs clarification. Is the AHS contradicting himself, or is there a subtle distinction at play?

Terutz: The AHS is not contradicting himself but rather presenting the l'chatchila (ideal) and b'dieved (post facto or in difficult circumstances) approaches, ultimately ruling with the b'dieved leniency for practical purposes. The initial statement, "וצריך לאכול פת דוקא," reflects the common understanding of a se'udah (meal) as one involving bread, and indeed, it is the preferred way to perform the mitzvah of Se'udah Shlishit. Eating bread allows for Birkat HaMazon, which is considered a more complete shevach (praise) after a meal.

However, the AHS then brings the Magen Avraham's argument, which is directly sourced from the Gemara in Berachot 49b. This Gemara discusses fulfilling the mitzvah of "אכל ושנה ושלש" (eating, repeating, and a third) on Shabbat, and explicitly states that the third can be fulfilled even without bread, with other foods like vegetables, fruits, meat, or fish. This Gemara is a clear indicator that the halacha provides an alternative.

Therefore, the AHS's final ruling is a nuanced one: l'chatchila, one should strive to eat bread for Se'udah Shlishit. However, if one cannot (e.g., due to feeling full, health reasons, or lack of bread), one can still fulfill the mitzvah with other foods that are commonly eaten as part of a meal. His phrasing "אבל דברי המגן אברהם נראים" indicates that the Magen Avraham's interpretation, based directly on the Gemara, represents the binding halacha, even if it offers a more lenient option than the initial ideal. This demonstrates the AHS's commitment to both the ideal performance of a mitzvah and the practical realities of fulfilling it.

Intertext

1. Tosefet Yom Kippur: Extending the Sacred Time

The concept of Tosefet Shabbat (AHS 244:20-22), adding from chol (weekday) to kodesh (holy day), is not unique to Shabbat. It finds a powerful parallel in Tosefet Yom Kippur. The Gemara in Yoma 81b states: "תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל: נאמר קדוש ביום הכיפורים ונאמר קדוש בשבת, מה קדוש בשבת תוספת, אף קדוש ביום הכיפורים תוספת."^[Yoma 81b] This derasha draws an analogy between the sanctity of Yom Kippur and Shabbat, concluding that just as Shabbat requires tosefet, so too does Yom Kippur. The source for Tosefet Yom Kippur is the pasuk "שבתון שבת קודש תענו את נפשתיכם בתשעה לחדש בערב" (Vayikra 23:32), which dictates beginning the fast on the ninth of the month, even though Yom Kippur officially begins on the tenth. This highlights a meta-halachic principle: the imperative to voluntarily extend the boundaries of sacred time, not merely to avoid transgression, but to embrace and internalize the sanctity itself. The AHS's discussion of Tosefet Shabbat thus sits within a broader framework of enhancing kedusha by proactively separating from the mundane.

2. Hadlakat Ner Chanukah: D'Rabbanan with D'Oraita Weight

The AHS (244:23) states that Hadlakat Ner Shabbat is d'Rabbanan, but "חמירא חמירא כדאורייתא" (it is as stringent as a Torah obligation) due to its role in shalom bayit and oneg Shabbat. This elevation of a rabbinic mitzvah to near-Torah status finds an illuminating parallel in Hadlakat Ner Chanukah. Ner Chanukah is undeniably a mitzvah d'Rabbanan, yet the Gemara in Shabbat 23b emphasizes its importance: "הידור מצוה עד שליש בממון" (one should spend up to a third more of the mitzvah's cost to beautify it), and the severity of its neglect is palpable. The Rambam, in Hilchot Chanukah 3:1, highlights that "מצות נר חנוכה חביבה עד מאד וצריך אדם להזהר בה" (the mitzvah of Chanukah lights is exceedingly beloved and one must be careful with it). This demonstrates a rabbinic heuristic: mitzvot that are central to Jewish identity, communal memory, or domestic harmony, even if d'Rabbanan, are treated with utmost gravity. The ner Shabbat, by ensuring light and peace in the home, directly contributes to the oneg and shalom bayit that define Shabbat, thereby earning its "כדאורייתא" status.

Psak/Practice

The Arukh HaShulchan's analysis in this section provides critical practical guidance for several core Shabbat observances:

• Se'udah Shlishit: While ideally one should eat bread to fulfill the mitzvah of Se'udah Shlishit, the psak leans towards leniency. B'dieved, or when one is too full or unable to eat bread, other substantial foods (e.g., meat, fish, mezonot items like cake) are sufficient to fulfill the mitzvah. This reflects a pragmatic approach to oneg Shabbat, recognizing that forcing oneself to eat bread when full might detract from the oneg. The underlying principle is that while pat is ideal, the essence of the mitzvah is to have a third enjoyable meal on Shabbat.
• Tosefet Shabbat: The concept of Tosefet Shabbat is a binding chiyuv. One is obligated to accept Shabbat and cease melacha a short while before sunset. This is not merely a chumra but an integral part of ushering in the holy day, derived from "שבתון שבת קודש" (Vayikra 23:32). Practically, this means avoiding melacha after plag hamincha (for some communities) or at least a few minutes before shki'a (sunset) according to universal custom, ensuring one does not inadvertently transgress.
• Hadlakat Ner Shabbat: Although Hadlakat Ner Shabbat is d'Rabbanan, its importance is elevated to the level of d'Oraita stringency due to its role in shalom bayit and oneg Shabbat. This means that one must be exceedingly diligent in its performance, treating it with the same gravity as a direct biblical command. Women are primarily obligated in this mitzvah, and its omission is considered a severe transgression. The widespread custom of lighting candles even in places where electricity is available further underscores its symbolic and spiritual significance beyond mere illumination.

Takeaway

The Arukh HaShulchan masterfully illustrates the intricate balance between d'Oraita and d'Rabbanan obligations, often elevating rabbinic decrees to profound stringency where they underpin core values like shalom bayit and oneg Shabbat. His rigorous yet pragmatic approach, grounded in comprehensive textual analysis, ensures that halacha remains both intellectually robust and practically accessible.