Ramban's (Nahmanides') View of Medical Care (Mystical View)

I think we should start with the Ramban's opinion about medical care since it is probably the most widely held stance in Orthodox Jewish circles (Either consciously or subconsciously). The first source that we can delve into is what he says in Parshas Bechukosai (Vayikra 26:11). In the middle of his commentary on this verse, the Ramban goes on to explain his Views of medical care. I will translate his words and then discuss them.

והכלל כי בהיות ישראל שלמים והם רבים, לא יתנהג עניינם בטבע כלל, לא בגופם, ולא בארצם, לא בכללם, ולא ביחיד מהם, כי יברך השם לחמם ומימם, ויסיר מחלה מקרבם, עד שלא יצטרכו לרופא ולהשתמר בדרך מדרכי הרפואות כלל, כמו שאמר (שמות טו כו): כי אני ה' רופאך. וכן היו הצדיקים עושים בזמן הנבואה, גם כי יקרם עוון שיחלו לא ידרשו ברופאים רק בנביאים, כעניין חזקיהו בחלותו (מ"ב כ ב ג). ואמר הכתוב (דהי"ב טז יב): גם בחליו לא דרש את ה' כי ברופאים, ואילו היה דבר הרופאים נהוג בהם, מה טעם שיזכיר הרופאים, אין האשם רק בעבור שלא דרש השם. אבל הוא כאשר יאמר אדם, לא אכל פלוני מצה בחג המצוות כי אם חמץ.

The General rule is that when the children of Israel are complete and numerous then nature does not effect them at all. Not their bodies, not their land, not as a nation and not as individuals because G-D blesses their bread and their water. He removes sickness from their midst to the point that they don't need a doctor and they are guarded in their path (of life) from (even needing to follow) the ways of medicine. For example, it says (Shemos 15:26) "Because I am G-D your healer." So too, that is what the righteous people did in the days of prophecy. When the important people would sin and become ill they would not seek out doctors, but only prophets like the story of Hezekiah (Chizkiyahu) when he became sick (Kings 2 20:2,3) Also, the verse says (Chronicles 2 16:12) "Also in his sickness he did not seek out G-D, only doctors" and if going to doctors was the path to follow what was the reason [the verse] mentions physicians (the verse should just say he did not seek out G-D)? The only sin here should be that he (King Asa) did not seek out G-D (to heal him and there should be no mention of doctors). However, (this was a case where) a man (the doctor) says so and so should not eat Matza (unleavened bread) on Pesach (passover) only Chametz (leavened bread) (and that apparently was the sin or increased the sin).      

אבל הדורש השם בנביא לא ידרוש ברופאים. ומה חלק לרופאים בבית עושי רצון השם, אחר שהבטיח וברך את לחמך ואת מימיך והסירותי מחלה מקרבך, והרופאים אין מעשיהם רק על המאכל והמשקה להזהיר ממנו ולצוות עליו.

However, the one who seeks out G-D through a prophet does not inquire of doctors. What is the purpose (lit. portion) of a doctor in a house that does the will of G-D? After we are assured (by G-D) that He will bless our bread, our water, and remove sickness from our midst (what is the point of a doctor?!?!). By doctors, their actions only involve warning us which food and drink we should stay away from and they make demands of us. 

וכך אמרו (ברכות סד א :

כל עשרין ותרתין שנין דמלך רבה רב יוסף אפילו אומנא לביתיה לא קרא, והמשל להם (במדב"ר ט ג): תרעא דלא פתיח למצותא פתיח לאסיא.

והוא מאמרם (ברכות ס א): שאין דרכם של בני אדם ברפואות אלא שנהגו, אילו לא היה דרכם ברפואות יחלה האדם כפי אשר יהיה עליו עונש חטאו ויתרפא ברצון ה', אבל הם נהגו ברפואות והשם הניחם למקרי הטבעים.

So it says [in the Gemara] (Tractate Brachos 64a):

During the entire 22 years that Rabbah reigned (as Rosh Yeshiva), Rav Yosef did not even call upon a cupper (some form of doctor) to come to his house (Showing that righteous people do not need doctors). Also, there is a parable for this [idea that a righteous person does not need doctors and a sinner does] (Bamidbar Rabba 9:3): A door that doesn't open for mitzvos (Jastrow translates as charity) opens for the physician (meaning you will be punished with sickness for not performing the mitzvos).   

This is a saying [in the Gemara] (Brachos 60a): It is not the [intended] path of man to deal with medicine, rather it is what they are accustom to doing. If it was not man's custom to deal with medicine then a man would become sick when he did a misdeed. (Meaning), he would sin and be healed by the will of G-D. However, they (man) are accustomed to deal with medicine so G-D leaves them to the occurrences of nature.
 

וזו היא כוונתם באמרם(שם:

ורפא ירפא מכאן שנתנה רשות לרופא לרפאות.

לא אמרו שנתנה רשות לחולה להתרפאות, אלא כיון שחלה החולה ובא להתרפאות כי נהג ברפואות והוא לא היה מעדת השם שחלקם בחיים, אין לרופא לאסור עצמו מרפואתו, לא מפני חשש שמא ימות בידו, אחרי שהוא בקי במלאכה ההיא, ולא בעבור שיאמר כי השם לבדו הוא רופא כל בשר, שכבר נהגו. ועל כן האנשים הנצים שהכו זה את זה באבן או באגרוף (שמות כא יח): יש על המכה תשלומי הרפואה, כי התורה לא תסמוך דיניה על הנסים, כאשר אמרה (דברים טו יא): כי לא יחדל אביון מקרב הארץ, מדעתו שכן יהיה. אבל ברצות השם דרכי איש אין לו עסק ברופאים.

This is the intention of the saying [in the Gemara] (Berachos 60a):

(It says in Shemos 21:19) "He shall cause him to be healed," from here [we see] that [G-D] gave permission to physicians to heal.

It does not say that [G-D] gave permission to the sick person to seek out healing. However, since the sick person became ill and [instead of seeking out G-D] came to be healed, for [the sick person] is accustomed to use medicine. Furthermore, [this man] is not from the congregation of G-D that their portion is while living (and G-D will cure this man Himself). Therefore, the physician should not inhibit himself from his healing. Not because he is worried that perhaps [the patient] may die by his hands, because he is an expert in his work. Also, [the physician should not be worried] because [of the idea that] is said that G-D alone is the healer of all flesh, because it is already the custom [of people to seek out a physician.] Therefore,  by the men who are fighting and hit each other with a stone or fist (Shemos 21:18) there is a payment needed for the healing of the wound, because the Torah (Bible) does not rely its laws on miracles. When the [Torah] says (Devarim 15:11) "For the poor shall not cease from in the midst of the land (this is in reference to the commandment of charity),"  this was because He knew [and wanted] it to be this way. However, [this is opposite to healing] because G-D wanted the path of man to be that he [or she] should not deal with medicine or physicians.  

I want to sum up the Ramban's view and then I will discuss it in more detail. The Ramban goes through great length to explain that, simply put, a sick person seeking out a doctor or medicine is a Bidieved (not optimal) situation. The way the world is supposed to work is man sins, he is afflicted with sickness, he prays to G-D and is healed. However, because man has perverted the original path of the world and has accustom himself with seeking medicine and doctors, now those avenues are the natural way to be healed.

This opinion really fits well with the Ramban's whole philosophy of life. This philosophy can be found most clearly and succinctly in the Ramban's commentary on Shemos 13:16 in the last paragraph.

 From the great open miracles man will admit to the hidden miracles that are the foundation of the entire Torah. For a man does not have a portion in the Torah of Moshe, our teacher, until he believes that all our dealings and occurrences are miracles that are not nature or the custom of the world whether it be on a general or on an individual scale. [One must believe] if he does the mitzvos (commandments) our success is his reward. However, if he transgresses [the mitzvos] our destruction is his punishment. Everything is according to heavenly decree, as I have mentioned already. (Breishis 17:1, Shemos 6:2)

The Ramban believes that there is no such thing as nature, at least by the Jewish people. Everything that happens to us, rain or shine, is directly from G-D. This philosophy obviates the need for the Ramban to explain why medicine appears to be the healer and not prayer to G-D. According to the Ramban, G-D really does directly heal. In fact, back in the good old days, that was the only way to be healed, pray and be healed. However, somehow man became reliant on medicine, because that became the custom. This led to G-D changing the healing process from an open miracle (pray and thou shalt be healed) to a hidden miracle (you must go to doctors). Still, it is not the medicine that heals the person, but G-D (through a hidden miracle that APPEARS to be nature).

My explanation of the Ramban comes down to a few details. The Ramban believes that nature (at least with regards to Jews) is an illusion. Everything is directly from G-D either in the form of an open miracle (10 plagues of Egypt) or a hidden miracle ("natural" occurrences). This leads the Ramban to explain that a patient should NOT seek out a doctor, because prayer to G-D SHOULD help in and of itself. In fact, the Ramban points out that this used to be the only way to be cured from illness. However, once man became accustom to seeking medicine and medical care that was ALLOWED to be given by a doctor. There was no obligation created to give medical care, because people should NOT be seeking medical care.

That is how I will end my opening explanation and thoughts on the mystical view of medical care as seen through the Ramban's eyes. Really, medical care is part of the illusion of "nature" according to this view.   

DIfferent Approaches To Medical Care In Judaism

Judaism, as many of you are aware, has many different approaches to a wide variety of topics. Being that I am shortly going to be officially joining the medical profession, I thought it would be appropriate to discuss the two main philosophies in Judaism behind a doctors role as caretaker. The two main figures I will be discussing are the Rambam (Maimonides) and the Ramban (Nachmanides). They seem like the best two approaches because they are polar opposites, yet they were both physicians. 

Rambam, based on his rationalistic approach to Judaism, believes that a doctor has a biblical obligation to use his or her knowledge to heal anyone with an illness. He also conveys that a patient has the obligation to seek out the best possible treatment that can be attained. In contrast, Ramban, based on his mystical approach to Judaism, argues that G-D is the healer of illness, not man. According to him, even when a physician is involved with treating a disease, it is really G-D that cures the patient. To the Ramban a physician’s role within medicine is very minimalistic and he argues that a physician is permitted, rather than biblically obligated, to heal. Ramban goes so far as to say that a devout person should not seek out a physician but rather rely on prayer. 

These two views represent, I believe, the paradigms of rationalist vs mystical Judaism. Both were physicians, but Ramban clearly believed that G-D's involvement is absolute, controlling every little detail of human existence. However, the Rambam was much more of a minimalist. G-D's involvement only went so far, but man has to be the master of his own physical world. 

I plan on going through the sources in the Rambam and the Ramban and show how they tease out their different understandings. However, I also want to delve into their personal backgrounds. How could it be that two physicians, born and raised as Jews under Muslim rule, in approximately the same era come to such radically different conclusions about their own profession?

It's going to be a fun journey.  

Can A Multiverse Exist In Jewish Thought

This seems like a silly idea, but ever since I read this article in Scientific American a couple of years ago this was something on my mind. Previously, I thought the "Multiverse" was something made up in order for the DC Universe to have a solution to having so many conflicting stories with the same personalities (corrected with the comic book "Crisis on Infinite Earths"). However, it seems like this idea has taken hold in more mainstream sources.

Personally, I thought this idea was made up by people that were trying to figure out a way to exclude G-D from being a necessary part of the world. I thought that an infinite amount of universes existing just meant that scientists could claim that there was no creator, since there are an endless amount of "realities" where every possible permutation existed then the world could exist "by accident" without an intelligent being creating life. Imagine, every possible universe existing somewhere. One universe still has not experienced the "Big Bang." Another universe never had the proper conditions to form life on Earth. Yet, another universe ended up forming life on Mars instead of Earth and so on and so forth. The possibilities are endless.

On a more theological level I think there is an even greater problem. If one believes a Multiverse exists and that G-D exists as a single entity (meaning, there is only one G-D and an infinite amount of universes. Not one G-D per universe) how does G-D know what I am doing in each universe separately? Let me give an example for clarity. In a Multiverse setting, as explained in Scientific American, a new universe would exist every time I come to a point where I have to make a decision. Something as simple as should I go left or should I go right. That creates two separate universes, one in which I went left and another in which I went right. So, does G-D relate to me as a sinner or a righteous person? I ended up pursuing both, so does He punish me or does He reward me?

This problem is compounded when we think about other factors as well. Does each and every me, which ends up being in the millions if not billions, if not trillions because of all the choices I will make in my life, have a different Neshama (soul)? Do we each have a separate personality? 

It should come as no surprise to those who know me that I found the answer of whether a Multiverse can exist in Jewish though while reading the Ralbag's "Milchamos Hashem" (Wars of The Lord). In book 4 the Ralbag discusses divine providence. and how it works. He believes there are three options: 1) The theory of Aristotle that asserts divine providence does not reach individual members of the human species, but only the species in general. 2) The theory of most of the followers of the Torah that maintain divine providence reaches each and every individual human as an individual. 3) The theory of the outstanding scholars of our Torah who assert that divine providence reaches only some individuals on an individual level, but not all men (Referring to Rambam in The Guide 3:17,51 and Abraham Ibn Ezra in Exodus 23:25, 33:21). This is the basis for how we can understand if Jewish theology allows for a Multiverse.

According to the second approach it is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be a Multiverse. If G-D is "guiding" every aspect of your life, that means no matter which universe you are in, G-D is guiding you on the path He believes is best. The best way to describe this approach is that G-D knows what you are going to do before you do it. G-D knows whether you are going to go left or right. This appears to mean you have no free choice except how much you will fear G-D. I believe this is the Maharal's view throughout his writings, that you really have no free choice. (Obviously, this view existed well before the Maharal because the Ralbag, who lived 400 years before the Maharal, quotes this view.) G-D has already set up your path. You will make so much money your entire life, you will have so many children, you will have such and such a profession and so on. However, you do have the choice as to how much fear of heaven you will have. Will you be an earnest Jew or will you be a faker? This is what, I believe, the Maharal takes away from the Gemara in Brachos 33b "All is in the hands of heaven except fear of heaven." Anyway, back to the topic at hand, this approach leaves no room for a Multiverse since there can only be one path that G-D guides each and every single person down with his individual providence.

This, seemingly, allows us to claim that the third approach, by those outstanding scholars, allows for a Multiverse. However, this is a false claim. Divine providence excludes the second approach of most of the Jewish people from believing in a Multiverse, but that is not the only criteria. According to the Rambam (The Guide 3:20,16-21 are all relevent) G-D's providence only rests on the few that have reached a very high level, but that does not mean He doesn't know what everyone has, is and will be doing. G-D has foreknowledge of everything. This would also seem to exclude the possibility of a Multiverse, because if G-D knows what choice you will make, that means you will not choose anything else, hence no Multiverse.

It seems to me that the Ralbag has the only approach in Jewish theology that allows for a Multiverse (he also believes Abraham ibn Ezra agrees with him). In book four of The Wars of the Lord he discusses that the third approach of divine providence is the correct approach. However, he also states in book three a unique approach to divine knowledge that fits perfectly with the idea of a Multiverse. Ralbag is of the opinion that G-D does not know particular events as particulars, but only in a general sense. I know that sounds complicated and might not have much meaning, so I will explain. I don't want to go into why medieval thinkers needed to find a way that G-D's knowledge of the future never changed, but they believed G-D could acquire no new knowledge since He contains all knowledge that eixsts. Hence, Rambam concluded that G-D knows everything that has, is and will happen. The Ralbag came up with a much more original approach to prevent G-D from ever having to attain new knowledge. Ralbag explains that G-D knows every person's nature and what that nature, if uncontested by man's rationale, would lead him or her to do. Therefore, G-D knows I am going to eat the cheeseburger in the sense that He knows my nature inclines me to eat the cheeseburger. However, in actuality I may have not eaten the cheeseburger. G-D allows nature to run its course without interference, unless the person is extremely righteous and only in certain cases. That is all I want to say about that, it is a complicated subject and requires a separate post to discuss it.

This approach of the Ralbag allows for a Multiverse, because it does not require that G-D know the actual future. G-D knows a person's nature and what he or she may do, but He allows free choice. A person's rationale may override their nature and thereby a Multiverse can be formed from an orthodox Jewish perspective. How? Because, this approach leaves open the possibility that option a or b may happen and G-D does not prevent either from happening. This is only possible in the Ralbag's approach because according to the approach of most of the followers of the Torah, G-D would guide a person on one path and according to the Rambam G-D knows which path you chose.

Therefore, if a Multiverse does exist it seems like only the Ralbag's approach is correct. This would mean all the questions running through your brain about this approach need to be answered. Hopefully, I will get a chance to explain how G-D can give rewards and punishment, how He relates to prophets and so on. I'll let you in on one secret though, prophecy for the Ralbag is basically the same as for the Rambam.

For anyone who tries to call the Ralbag an Apikores or the like, I just want to state that the Ralbag makes sure to explain every one of his views that can be misconstrued as to why it agrees with other great scholars. He almost always shows why the Rambam would agree that his approach is acceptable. With regards to this approach of divine knowledge, the Ralbag quotes the Rambam in The Guide (3:20), "Some thinkers have been inclined to say that G-D's knowledge refers to the species and uniformly encompasses all members of the species. This is the view of any believer in a revealed religion who is guided by the necessity of reason." The Ralbag says that this clearly shows that the Rambam thought this approach was congruent with the view of the Torah. He also quotes the Ibn Ezra (Breishis 18:21) as agreeing with his approach, "The truth is that He knows every particular generally, not as a particular."

I hope you found this post enjoyable and intriguing. 

Rambam- Yisdoei HaTorah Perek 7 Halacha 3: Examples of Parables That Were Given to Prophets

הדברים שמודיעים לנביא במראה הנבואה דרך משל מודיעין לו ומיד יחקק בלבו פתרון המשל במראה הנבואה וידע מה הוא. כמו הסולם שראה יעקב אבינו ומלאכים עולים ויורדים בו והוא היה משל למלכיות ושעבודן. וכמו החיות שראה יחזקאל והסיר נפוח ומקל שקד שראה ירמיה והמגלה שראה יחזקאל והאיפה שראה זכריה. וכן שאר הנביאים. מהם אומרים המשל ופתרונו כמו אלו. ויש שהן אומרים הפתרון בלבד. ופעמים אומרים המשל בלבד בלא פתרון כמקצת דברי יחזקאל וזכריה וכולן במשל ודרך חידה הם מתנבאים: 

The things that are made known to a prophet in a prophetic vision are made known to him (or her) through a parable. Immediately, the interpretation of the parable is given in the prophetic vision and [the prophet] knows [the interpretation.] For example, the ladder that Yaakov, our forefather, saw and the angels were ascending and descending on it and it was a parable for kingship and servitude (Bereishis 27:10-15). More examples are the beasts that Ezekiel saw (Ezekiel:1), the bubbling pot and staff [made from] an almond tree that Jeremiah saw (Jeremiah 1:11-14), the scroll that Ezekiel saw (Ezekiel 2:9), and the Ephah (Rashi says this is a large measuring vessel) that Zechariah saw (Zechariah 5:6). Also, by other prophets some would relate the parable and the interpretation like these [previously mentioned prophets] and some would relate the interpretation alone. There are times prophets would only relate the parable without the interpretation like some of the words of Ezekiel and Zechariah. All [the prophets] had prophecies through parables and puzzles (except Moshe as will be discussed at the end of this section in the Rambam).              

 This is a description of how prophecy is given over. G-D does not just talk to man, He relates ideas to man through imagery that can then be understood as a particular message. Yaakov understood the ideas that G-D was trying to convey only through the imagery of angels ascending and descending. G-D did not (could not?) communicate with Yaakov directly and say, "Hey Yaakov, just wanted you to know that your kids are going to have a glorious kingdom, but then be scattered throughout the world in servitude." As we will see later, that only happened (was only possible?) with Moshe.

Update and Apology

First, I would like to say how sorry I am for not posting. Even if no one who read or reads this blog cares, I still feel like I have failed. This past year has been a whirlwind and after a lot of interviews I have gotten a residency in the field of pathology in NY. Yes, you guessed it, it is a shomer shabbos residency.

For the next couple of months I think I will be posting again on various topics with my thoughts. I hope that I will be able to find a few people that are willing to discuss my thoughts and divrei torah in the future. Thanks

Past Suffering Versus Current Suffering and Rabbinic Leadership

On Tisha Bi'av we say many Kinot, but there is only one kina that anyone says (many do not say it) that has to do with recent suffering. The majority of kinot refer to suffering that happened hundreds if not thousands of years ago. And you can forget about any kina with regards to the suffering that occurs in the State of Israel. Is this appropriate? It seems like this is an incorrect approach based on the Gemara in Brachos 12b-13a where it says:

It has been taught: Ben Zoma said to the Sages: Will the Exodus from Egypt be
mentioned in the days of the Messiah? Was it not long ago said: Therefore behold the days come,
saith the Lord, that they shall no more say: As the Lord liveth that brought up the children of Israel
out of the land of Egypt; but, As the Lord liveth that brought up and that led the seed of the house of
Israel out of the north country and from all the countries whither I had driven them? They replied:
This does not mean that the mention of the exodus from Egypt shall be obliterated, but that the
[deliverance from] subjection to the other kingdoms shall take the first place and the exodus from
Egypt shall become secondary.....  A parable: To what is this like? To a man who was travelling on the road when he encountered a wolf and escaped from it, and he went along relating the affair of the wolf. He then encountered a lion and escaped from it, and went along relating the affair of the lion. He then encountered a snake and escaped from it, whereupon he forgot the two previous incidents and went along relating the affair of the snake. So with Israel: the later troubles make them forget the earlier ones.

Apparently, we no longer have the character traits of the children of Israel that the Gemara speaks. We are stuck on the destruction that occurred hundreds and thousands of years ago (excluding the loss of the Beis Hamikdash) in a, seemingly, inappropriate way. The Gemara is telling us that the tragedies that should be our focus are the more recent tragedies. The holocaust should definitely play a larger role on Tisha Bi'av. ONE KINA??? Are you kidding me? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Why are we focusing on destruction of small communities in Europe? Who connects to that nowadays? Also, why is there nothing about the attacks on Israel? Surely all the attacks on Israel are just as important, or tragic, as the pogroms of the middle ages. However, the attacks in Israel are more recent and as the Gemara says, "the later troubles make them forget the earlier ones." 

This lack of commemorating anything in Israel or barely commemorating the Holocaust got me thinking, "What is the cause of this?" Then, someone mentioned to me that it is amazing that we have all these kinot for different communities and different suffering throughout Europe, but hardly anything for the Holocaust or anything bad that has happened to Israel. The Rabbis of previous generations clearly were much greater than any Rabbis alive today.

It is not just that the Rabbis were greater back in the day, it is that they commanded respect and people actually listened to them. They did not say what the community wanted to hear, but they said what the community NEEDED to hear.

This brings me to a Gemara that I was reading over Shabbos, Sanhedrin 97a. It says there that "The face of the generation [of the Moshiach] will be like the face of a dog." Now, there are several explanations, but Rav Elchonon Wasserman in Ikvasa DiMishicha cites a great explanation from Rabbi Yisroel Salanter. He says that "The face of the generation" refers to the leaders of the generation. The behavior of the leaders of the generation will resemble that of a dog. When a dog walks ahead of its master it gives the illusion that it is actually leading the master, but in reality it is being lead by its master. So too the leaders in the time of the Moshiach will appear to be leading, but in reality they will just be following the will of the masses.

This is what seems to be going on here by kinot, as well as in many other situations. The Rabbinic leaders may want to institute new Kinot that do commemorate the more recent suffering that is most appropriate for us to mention. However, the masses do not want it because it is not "FRUM," or whatever other reason they want to give. Why shouldn't the leaders of our generation get together and say, "You know what, we really should give a larger commemoration to the death of 6 million Jews and the suffering of many more millions. We should commemorate the constant struggle that the Jews in Israel go through and the suffering of those on the front lines." But no, that does not happen. Apparently, we are very close to the days of Moshiach, because our leaders are more of a "yes man" to the whims of the masses (or the kinayim) than they are actual leaders.

This is not speaking of all leaders, but it does seem to be very common nowadays.    

Daf Yomi Question Daf 2b

I started Daf yomi on Friday, probably like a lot of people, and came up with a question that I could not find an answer to. If you have any ideas let me know. Here is my question, I have not come up with a satisfactory answer. 

Rashi says close to the top of 2b that a poor person does not have a candle and that is why, we originally think, he eats his meal before the stars come out. (This makes it that the time a poor person eats is before the time the Kohanim, or priests, can eat terumah.) However, as the Gemara continues we learn that the poor person actually eats his meal when the stars come out (same time as the Kohanim can eat terumah). And even further in the Gemara at the bottom of 2b we learn that the poor person actually eats his meal AFTER the stars come out.

This is very odd to me. Rashi seems to say that it is obvious that the poor person eats his meal before the stars come out because he has no candle. If this is true, then how can the Gemara claim that the poor person actually eats his meal well after the stars have come out? The poor person either has a candle or not. According to Rashi, the poor person would not eat his meal after dark. The Mesoras Hashas in the Oz Vehadar also links this claim to a Gemara in Yuma 74b that says "You cannot compare one who sees what he eats with one who does not see what he is eating" implying someone who does not see what he is eating enjoys it less since the Gemara continues on and says "R. Joseph said: This is an allusion to [the reason] why blind people eat on without becoming satisfied. Abaye said: Therefore let him who has a meal eat only in daylight."

So, my question is this: What does Rashi think is happening with the poor person's meal? Rashi holds that a poor person has no candle, therefore, they must eat before dark. However, the Gemara comes to teach us that really a poor person eats well after the stars have come out.