Bar-Ilan
University
's
Parashat
Hashavua
Study
Center
Parashat
Pinhas 5765/ July 23,
þ2
005
Lectures on the weekly Torah reading by the faculty of
Bar-
Ilan
University
in
Ramat
Gan
,
Israel
.
A project of the
Faculty of Jewish Studies, Paul and Helene Shulman Basic
Jewish Studies Center, and the Office of the Campus Rabbi.
Published on the Internet under the sponsorship of
Bar-
Ilan
University
's
International
Center
for Jewish
Identity.
Prepared for Internet Publication by the
Computer
Center
Staff at
Bar-
Ilan
University
.
Inquiries and comments to: Dr. Isaac
Gottlieb, Department of Bible,
gottlii@mail.biu.ac.il
The
17th of Tammuz (July 24)
Should
We Fast on Sunday?
Dr. Aviezer
Yisraeli
Advisor
to the Research Authority
The Four Fasts
When the First Temple
was destroyed, four fast days were established:
in the fourth month (17th of Tammuz), the fifth month (9th
of Ab), the seventh month
(Fast of Gedaliah on the 3rd of
Tishre), and in the tenth month (10th of
Tevet). All four are mentioned in the
book of Zechariah, when the people who had returned to Zion
after the Babylonian Exile (the Restoration Period) collectively asked the
prophet, “Shall I weep … in the fifth month?” (Zech. 7:3).
Fasting on the ninth of Ab
apparently was customary even when the Second Temple was built and functioning,
for the mishnah in Rosh ha-
Shanah (1, 3) tells of emissaries who would set out on
the first of Ab (during the time of the Second
Temple) to notify Jews in outlying areas about the new moon so that people
would know about the fast day. Indeed,
Maimonides notes this anomaly in his commentary on the
Mishnah. The
gemara distinguishes between the fast on the ninth
of Ab and the other fasts, so far as observing them
in times of relative tranquility, saying, “The ninth of Ab
is different [i.e. the fast is obligatory], since the misfortunes were
redoubled on that day” (Rosh ha-Shanah 18b).
Initially the halakhah
established these fast days as a custom only, as Maimonides
notes: “It was customary for all Israel
to practice abstinence at these times” (Hilkhot
Ta’aniyot 5.5). Without providing substantiation,
Magid Mishneh
adds the following note: “Now everyone
follows the custom as noted by our teacher, and they [the fast days] are
obligatory until such time as the Temple
shall be built” (loc. sit.).
Should They Still Be Obligatory?
With the establishment of the State of Israel, and even
more so after the liberation of Jerusalem
in the Six Day War, the subject of fasting these four fast days came up
again. There is no question regarding
the fast on the ninth of Ab because this day
symbolizes the destruction of the Temple,
which has not yet been rebuilt. Further, we have seen that even during the Second
Temple period people fasted on this
day and the gemara
noted the special nature of this day, which had multiple tragedies.
We should, however, examine whether in our
time one must fast on the other three days:
the 17th of Tammuz, the Fast of Gedaliah
and the tenth of Tevet. The question has
come up again, with the publication of Rabbi Joseph Tabori’s
book, Mo’adei Yisrael
be-Tekufat ha-Mishnah
ve-ha-Talmud, in which it is claimed that there is
no substantial proof of these three fast days actually being observed during
the Second Temple Period and the time of the amoraim
in Babylonia.
Maimonides writes, “During the Second Temple
fasting was not practiced either on the tenth of Tevet or the seventeenth of
Tammuz except by those who wished to fast” (commentary on the
Mishnah, Rosh ha-Shanah
1.3). Radbaz
also draws the same conclusion from the question brought by the people to
Zechariah, which referred only to the fast in Ab,
saying, “this means that they were not accustomed to observing the other fast
days” (Part II, par. 672).
The source that makes the distinction when a fast is in
force and when it is not is the Talmud, Tractate Rosh ha-Shanah
18b, which we cited partially above. The sugya
relates to the verse in Zechariah 8:19, “Thus said the Lord of Hosts:
The fast of the fourth month, the fast of the
fifth month, the fast of the seventh month, and the fast of the tenth month
shall become occasions for joy and gladness, happy festivals for the House of
Judah.” The
gemara cites Rav
Papa on this:
In peacetime, they
[the fastdays] will be for joy and gladness; in time
of a decree by the Empire, one fasts, but if there is
no decree by the Empire but neither is there peace, then those who wish to fast
do so and those who do not wish to fast need not fast.
A Time of Peace
Rashi was very definitive
regarding the interpretation of the word “peace,” saying that when “pagans do
not have the upper hand over Israel,” then “they [these days] will be for joy
and gladness, eulogies and fasting being forbidden.”
The gemara
does not make cancellation of the fasts
contingent upon rebuilding the
Temple
, and Rashi’s
interpretation is unequivocal that abrogation of these three fast days depends
on the political circumstances of the people of
Israel
. And while the Maggid Mishneh
makes abrogation of these fasts contingent on rebuilding the
Temple
, and Rabbi S.Y. Zevin
in his book Mo’adim ba-Halakhah
follows suit, both these sources do not base themselves on the plain sense of
the talmudic text.
According to Rabbenu
Hananel the state of peace with its attendant joy and
happiness depends on the Temple
standing, but not abrogation of the fast days.
He writes as follows:
In peacetime, that is, as long as the Temple
exists, the fast days will be times of joy and happiness.
If there are harsh decrees of a foreign
government, then there is to be fasting; if there is no decree but there is no
peace, such as now, at the present time [my emphasis], those who wish to
fast may fast, and those who wish not to fast need not fast.
Apparently, according to Rashi,
Rabbi Hananel, and Maimonides,
the gemara can also
be interpreted to mean that a state of joy and happiness pertains only when the
Temple exists and the people of Israel
have political independence. But whether
or not the fast applies depends solely on political independence and whether
there are harsh decrees against Israel.
Towards the end of the Second
Temple period the Temple
indeed still existed, but sovereignty was in the hands of the Romans and
therefore there a state of peace did not exist according to Rashi’s
definition. Therefore they continued to
fast on the ninth of Ab, and the other three fasts
were observed only by those who so wished, as explained by Maimonides
and Radbaz.
Rabbi Jacob son of Asher b. Jehiel
[the Rosh] wrote in his law codex, the Tur (
Orah Hayyim 550):
In these days (14th-century Spain),
when there is neither peace nor religious persecution (shmad),
those who wish to may fast and those who do not wish to, need not fast.
What is meant by ‘there not being peace’ is
that the Temple is in ruins, and by ‘there not being persecution’, in any
community known to the Jews; then if most of the Jews so desire and agree not
to fast, then they do not fast; and if most of the public so desires, they do
fast.
In contrast to others,
the Tur understands the Talmud to be saying
that a necessary condition for a state of peace is that the Temple
be standing. Be that as it may, even in
exile and without political independence, the fast depends only on the wishes
of the community.
An Extreme View
Rabbi (R. Judah the Prince) was definitely outspoken in his
position regarding abrogation of mourning on the 17th of
Tammuz. In Tractate Megillah
(5b) we find that “Rabbi … bathed in
Sepphoris
publicly on the 17th of Tammuz,” to show that bathing is permitted on
this day. Did he also abolish the
fast? According to Tosefot,
it is presumed that he did not abolish the fast, but in the opinion of Rabbi
Jacob Emdin, he did cancel the fast.
R. Emdin based
himself on the opinion of the Sages in Ta’anit
10b, that if someone does eat on a fast day, at least he should not be seen in
public to be enjoying himself: “And
since he permitted bathing”, deduced R. Emdin, then
all the more so eating and drinking, which everyone needs, he clearly
permitted.” Rabbi Jacob went on to
explain: “Since Rabbi lived in the time
of Antoninus, and enjoyed peace everywhere [the
Talmud relates that the two were friends], therefore he showed publicly that
even pleasures are permitted, because fasting is not called for.”
One should bear in mind that in 200 C.E. we
are dealing with a period of only partial autonomy, not full political
independence.
Support for the approach of Rabbi Jacob Emdin
can be found in the responsa of
Tashbetz [Shimon b. Tzemah Duran]
(Part II, par. 271, s.v.
ain safek).
According to Tashbetz,
the four fasts were established by the prophets, upon the destruction of the First
Temple, and have applied since
then. The prophets’ regulation did not
distinguish between the severity of the fast on the ninth of
Ab and the other three fasts.
This is what he writes:
“Rabbi bathed publicly in Sepphoris
on the 17th of Tammuz,” which is to say that he permitted something
which had been forbidden by custom; and the same applies to the other
restrictions. Furthermore,
Tashbetz says, in the days of the tannaim
there were times of decrees against the Jews and times without decrees, and the
obligation to fast applied only in the times when there were decrees.
He adds that when there were decrees in the Land
of Israel there were no decrees in Babylonia
and therefore there was no obligation to observe a day of abstinence in Babylonia.
The gemara
(Megillah 5b) recounts how Rabbi “wished to do
away with the ninth of Ab, but they did go along with
him.” This passage is also found in the
Jerusalem Talmud. In the Babylonian
Talmud it is recounted by Rabbi Eleazar, and in the
Jerusalem Talmud by Rabbi Abba bar Zavda.
In both places a colleague of the rabbi who
presents the story responds, “That is not how it was; rather, it was a question
of the ninth of Ab falling on the Sabbath [Rabbi
wished to cancel the fast in that year alone, since it had already been
postponed to Sunday], and the Sages did not go along him.”
Tosafot (loc.
sit.,
s.v. u-bikkesh)
are surprised at the idea that Rabbi sought to cancel the fast of the ninth of
Ab altogether for two reasons.
First, because of the saying in Tractate
Ta’anit that whoever eats or drinks on the ninth of
Ab will not see Jerusalem
comforted. Second, because of the
principle that one bet din cannot overrule the decision of another bet
din unless it is greater in wisdom and numbers. If the Sages established
that the ninth of Ab is a fast day, how could Rabbi
cancel what they had established? The
first reason applies only to the fast of the ninth of Ab,
but the second reason holds also for the other three fasts; hence one must ask
how Rabbi could cancel them.
The Original Custom
An answer can be found in the commentary
Korban ha-Edah on
the Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Megillah (1,
4): “Rabbi sought to do away with the
ninth of Ab.”
“It would seem that he wished to do away with it entirely; for if there
is neither oppression nor peace, then fasting is practiced only if one desires
to. That being the case, this is not a
cancellation of the ruling of the bet din that established the fast of
the ninth of Ab, since this stipulation was made from
the outset.” In other words, the
cancellation of the fast by Rabbi was valid since it was not cancellation of a
regulation established by a previous rabbinical court (bet din), insofar
as the regulation was made conditional from the outset, and if the stipulated
conditions do not pertain, then the cancellation is in effect.
Therefore, insofar as the obligation to fast originates
with the prophets (Mishnah
Berurah, Orah
Hayyim 549), it follows that the conditions for
canceling the fast of the month of Tammuz in time of peace were stipulated by
the prophets, and according to the interpretation of Rashi
and others, peace means political independence; and what authority do we have
that can match up to the words of the prophets?
Thus it follows that even in times of partial
autonomy, the three minor fasts were not observed.
Since the destruction of the Temple
the Jewish people had not enjoyed political independence, and apparently, the
ancient literature did not anticipate that there would ever be political
independence without the coming of the Messiah.Therefore
they did not interpret the gemara
according to its plain sense, as Rashi did.
Today, now that we have political
independence, it seems there is no reason to make fasting obligatory on these
days, both according to the approach of those who say that the State of Israel
is the beginning of our Redemption and according to the approach of those who
have reservations about this statement.
The fact is that Israel
has political independence and that pagan powers do not rule over Israel,
nor are there decrees against the Jews; therefore, in my humble opinion, it
seems that Rashi’s words should be applied to the 17th
of Tammuz, and “fasting and eulogizing should be forbidden.”