1) Shalom: Forbidden to fast. Rashi: this is Jewish sovereignty. Rabbenu Chananel: This is the Temple standing.
2) No "Shalom" but yes shmad: Required to fast.
3) No "Shalom" but no shmad: Optional to fast.
So they differ as to their definition of shmad. As noted in the first post, the Divrei Yatziv claims that a close reading of the gemara and Rashi yield the correct interpretation, which is in harmony with Rabbenu Chananel. He writes:
שו"ת דברי יציב חלק אורח חיים סימן רלד
תשעה באב בזמן בית שני
ב"ה, קרית צאנז, עיוהכ"פ תש"ל
אחדשת"ה קבלתי ברוב עונג הספר שהו"ל מהר"ז סופר, וביקשני שאשים עין עליו על מ"ש בסי' ג' בדברי הר"ח, ואם כי אין העת ללבלר לצאת בקולמוסו בכותבת הגסה מפאת היום הקדוש והנורא המתקרב ובא אלינו לטובה, מ"מ ליקרא דאורייתא לא אוכל לחשות ואבוא בשורותיים עכ"פ להראות אות כי חביבין עלי דברי דודים.
א) מ"ש להרבינו חננאל בר"ה דף י"ח ע"ב בזמן שיש שלום כלומר כל זמן שביהמ"ק קיים וכו'.
הנה למה לן לעשות פלוגתא בין רש"י והר"ח, די"ל דגם מ"ש רש"י שאין יד העכו"ם תקיפה על ישראל, היינו הך בזמן שבית המקדש קיים, והש"ס קאמר להדיא התם הני הוא דתלינהו רחמנא בבנין ביהמ"ק, וע"כ דהיינו הך שאין יד עכו"ם תקיפה, וכ"כ רש"י להדיא שם בד"ה אין שלום צום ואע"ג דבזמן הבית קרינהו מועדים טובים.
ומ"ש הר"ח שם בד"ה איתמר וכו' וראיה אלו ג' תעניות וכו' הני ג' צומות הוא דתלינהו רחמנא בבנין הבית וכו', לדעתי הכוונה, שמת"ב אין ראיה דבטלה מגילת תענית, דשאני ת"ב דהוכפלו בו הצרות כדאמר לעיל שם, ולכך נקט רק הנך ג' ודו"ק
This teshuva was written by the Divrei Yatziv, Rabbi Yekusiel Yehudah Halberstam, ztz"l, who passed away in 1994. He was the first Klausenberger Rebbe. He founded Kiryat Sanz in Netanya and later Kiryat Sanz in Jerusalem. He moved to Israel in 1960. He was also opposed to Zionism, and had disagreements with Hungarian Mizrachi leadership.
This teshuva is dated to Tisha BeAv, 1970, in Kiryat Sanz. Thus, he was in Israel, in an established State of Israel, which had Jewish sovereignty, when answering this. And if Rashi is read the standard way, at odds with Rabbenu Chananel, then as we established Rashi would say that it is forbidden to fast on this day. And this would be a very Zionist position to take.
That is not to declare that this was certainly what motivated him in harmonizing the positions. Firstly, there is a general desire to harmonize positions. And secondly, there are indeed interesting points he makes within the gemara that make his interpretation somewhat compelling. However, while these are the words of the Divrei Yatziv, we need to determine whether these words are "Divrei Nachon." And so, we shall have to go through the gemara, with Rashi, carefully.
However, I will state here the fact that Beis Yosef on Tur separates Rashi's position from that of Ramban and Tur strongly suggests to me that he viewed them as competing, rather than harmonious, readings of the gemara. (Though we should reexamine this as well.) The claim is that when Rashi defines "shalom" as "yad akum tekifa al yisrael," haynu hach, this is the same thing, as the Beis HaMikdash being built. And he has proofs from the gemara, and Rashi, a little lower on the same daf.
I will start by noting that there are two separate quotes from Zechariah that are relevant, and they are cited in different contexts. The first is in Zechariah 7, where the prophet Zechariah is explicitly asked whether to fast now (that the mikdash had been built), and he says no. Those pesukim read:
This is not the source for the derasha in the gemara about the prohibition vs. requirement to fast. (Or in Rav Pappa's recasting, the prohibition vs. option vs. requirement.) Rather, it is a pasuk in the next perek, in Zechariah 8:
kayam? Or is this something else entirely? Is the derasha for the days of Bayis Sheni, or are all parts of the derasha for after the churban habayis? That is the question, and we will try to find answers. Rabbenu Chananel defines "shalom" as the Temple standing, so I think it is safe to assume that he sees this pasuk as an echo of the previous perek, and the derasha as referring to during the Bayis vs. after the destruction (vs. perhaps or presumably after the Third Bayis is built). But let us read through the gemara with Rashi, carefully, to see how he takes it.
The gemara:
דף יח, א משנה על ששה חדשים השלוחין יוצאין על ניסן מפני הפסח על אב מפני התענית על אלול מפני ר"ה על תשרי מפני תקנת המועדות על כסליו מפני חנוכה ועל אדר מפני הפורים וכשהיה בהמ"ק קיים יוצאין אף על אייר מפני פסח קטן:
דף יח, א גמרא וליפקו נמי אתמוז וטבת
דף יח, ב גמרא דאמר רב חנא בר ביזנא אמר ר"ש חסידא מאי דכתיב (זכריה ח) כה אמר ה' צבאות צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי וצום העשירי יהיה לבית יהודה לששון ולשמחה קרי להו צום וקרי להו ששון ושמחה בזמן שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה אין שלום צום
אמר רב פפא הכי קאמר בזמן שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה יש [גזרת המלכות] {שמד} צום אין [גזרת המלכות] {שמד} ואין שלום רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין
The first thing to focus on is וליפקו נמי אתמוז וטבת דאמר רב חנא בר ביזנא אמר ר"ש חסידא מאי דכתיב (זכריה ח) כה אמר ה' צבאות צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי וצום העשירי יהיה לבית יהודה לששון ולשמחה קרי להו צום וקרי להו ששון ושמחה בזמן שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה אין שלום צום. Why should they go out to announce Rosh Chodesh during these two times? The first Rashi on the page explains: "for all of them are days of fast bizman hazeh in which the Temple is not standing, and our Mishna is also speaking bizman hazeh, for that same Mishna on Rosh HaShana 18a states וכשהיה בהמ"ק קיים יוצאין אף על אייר מפני פסח קטן."Thus, there is an assumption of fast days, because the Beis HaMikdash is not kayam. Is this reading already into the derasha of Rav Chana bar Bizna? There are two possibilities.
The first possibility is that he is within Rav Chana bar Bizna's derasha, and in saying that the Temple is not standing, he is reading this as the second state of Rav Chana bar Bizna's two states. This seems forced because as we will see, when given the opportunity to define "shalom," he does not simply say that the Temple is standing. Rather, he gives a lengthier and different definition, about Jewish sovereignty, and makes no mention of the Temple.
The second possibility is that he knows that Rav Chana bar Bizna's derasha of the pasuk in Zechariah 8 only applies after the Temple was destroyed. During the full length of the Second Temple, there is nothing to talk about, because of Zechariah 7. Indeed, as we will see, Rashi will make this point, that there was no fasting during Bayis Sheni, based specifically on that perek, perek 7, a bit later on. (I am overstating the distinction between the two sources here, for rhetotical effect. In truth, we can probably take the Second Temple period as a time of shalom, because of the Jewish sovereignty.) Thus, Rashi is explaining the gemara's question. The Mishna was not talking about during Bayis Sheni, but afterwards. If so, these are fast days. For according to Rav Chana bar Bizna's derasha, there are only two states after the churban. One is "shalom" and the other is "no shalom." And since Rashi goes on to define "shalom" as Jewish sovereignty, and we see that after the churban the Romans did not allow the Jews total sovereignty -- he would require fasts. And so the Mishna should relate that they sent out agents during those months.
A third possibility is that Rashi is being inconsistent.
I much prefer the second possibility, and so far it looks much more plausible.
The gemara states: בזמן שיש שלום. Rashi defines this as "the hand of the gentiles is not strong on Israel." The idea being Jewish sovereignty. Why not mention the Temple? According to the first possibility, this is difficult. According to the second, it works out perfectly.
And the gemara, and Rashi, proceed as before, defining the three states according to Rav Pappa, with the new intermediate states of shmad vs. no shmad, and the optionality of the fast.
However, there is a later gemara, and Rashi, as well, which I did not cite before. A bit lower on the same amud, we have:
Or in plain text:
איתמר רב ורבי חנינא אמרי בטלה מגילת תענית
רבי יוחנן וריב"ל אמרי לא בטלה מגילת תענית
רב ורבי חנינא אמרי בטלה מגילת תענית הכי קאמר בזמן שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה אין שלום צום והנך נמי כי הני
רבי יוחנן ורבי יהושע בן לוי אמרי לא בטלה מגילת תענית הני הוא דתלינהו רחמנא בבנין בהמ"ק אבל הנך כדקיימי קיימי
רבי יוחנן וריב"ל אמרי לא בטלה מגילת תענית
רב ורבי חנינא אמרי בטלה מגילת תענית הכי קאמר בזמן שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה אין שלום צום והנך נמי כי הני
רבי יוחנן ורבי יהושע בן לוי אמרי לא בטלה מגילת תענית הני הוא דתלינהו רחמנא בבנין בהמ"ק אבל הנך כדקיימי קיימי
Thus, there was a scroll full of dates on which it was not permitted to fast. And that scroll was either annulled after the destruction of the Second Temple, or maintained. This is a matter of dispute between various first generation Amoraim. Interestingly, Rav and Rabbi Chanina were Amoraim of Bavel who came to Eretz Yisrael, while Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi were natives of the land of Israel. At any rate, the setama digmara explains the dispute between them as to whether they equate megillat Taanit with the four fasts discussed above.
Rav and Rabbi Chanina say that the scroll was nullified, such that any day was fair game for fasting. And they equate it with the rules for the four fasts as established in the derasha of Rav Chana bar Bizna.
Rashi now offers explanations which appear to have a lot more in line with "shalom" being the Temple standing. He now writes on אין שלום צום as follows: "and even though in the time of the Temple they were called moadim Tovim." This would seem to imply that the dichotomy is: shalom=bayit is when they are moadim Tovim; vs. no shalom=no bayit and therefore fast days. This ignores Rav Pappa's refinement of the statement, but so what? We see a definition within Rashi, in accordance with Rabbenu Chananel. However, as stated above, this would make the earlier Rashis somewhat awkward, for the reason given.
I believe we should focus on what Rashi does not say, as well as what he does say and upon what words he said it. I still believe we can salvage our earlier peshat. Note that Rashi did not say on yesh shalom that this is when the Temple is built. He also did not state that the definition of ain shalom is that the Temple is no longer standing.
Indeed, the point the gemara is trying to make here is the connection between megillat Taanit and these cancelled fasts. The days listed in megillat Taanit were days which were moadim Tovim of sorts, such that one could not fast or eulogize on them, during Bayit Sheni. But, so these two Amoraim theorize, after the destruction of the Temple, those moadim no longer stand in restricting fasting. So the proper thing to show is that another thing was instituted as a moed during the Second Temple period no longer holds, and it is permitted to fast. The connection is not full. Thus, no one would say that where there is no shalom, it is required to fast on these days in megillat Taanit {or in Rav Pappa's extension, it is required in times of shmad}. Nor are they trying to say, according to Rashi, that in times where there is "shalom," fasting would be forbidden on the days listed in megillat Taanit. It is extremely restricted -- show that something which was a moed during the second Temple can be a fast day, if one wants.
Now look again at what Rashi says on אין שלום צום. All that he says is "and even though in the time of the Temple they were called moadim Tovim." He means that this is the precedent we need from the 17th of Tammuz and the other four days, for a moed in Second Temple times being subject to a potential fast after the destruction of the Temple. The condition for the fast is "no shalom." But he does not define "no shalom" as the destruction of the Temple.
This is then no reversal of what was said before. And this goes to show how important it is to read the sources with due deliberation.
The gemara continues.
Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say that the megillat Taanit was not nullified. And the setama digmara again interjects to supply a reason for their position -- a reason they do not agree with Rav and Rabbi Chanina. The suggested answer: הני הוא דתלינהו רחמנא בבנין בהמ"ק אבל הנך כדקיימי קיימי.
What does this mean? That these days, such as the 17th of Tammuz and the other three days had the status of moed in Second Temple times, and not necessarily after, because the All-Merciful tied them into the building of the Temple. Which Temple? The second Temple, as Rashi will explain. Thus, after the destruction of the Temple, Rav Chana bar Bizna's derasha about shalom vs. not shalom, and Rav Pappa's extension of shmad vs. no shmad, could apply. Such that even some days would be prohibited from fasting, because there was shalom after the bayit. But other days not so. The point is, they no longer had the unquestioned status of moed they had during Second Temple times. In contrast, those days listed in megillat Taanit were not tied into the building of the Second Temple, so after its destruction, they maintain their status of moed, and one cannot fast on them. Again, nothing to do with shalom or no shalom, but rather, whether the status of moed was lifted universally after the churban.
This all makes sense as peshat in the gemara, but that does not mean that Rashi says it. We now need to examine Rashi's words.
On d"h "detalinhu bevinyan," Rashi explains
"that via the destruction they were established as a fast and via the building they were established as a Yom Tov. For when the Second Temple was built, the residents of the exile sent and asked {as we see in perek 7 of Zechariah} הַאֶבְכֶּה, בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַחֲמִשִׁי--הִנָּזֵר, כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי זֶה כַּמֶּה שָׁנִים? 'Should I weep in the fifth month, separating myself, as I have done these so many years?' And Hashem replied {in the same perek} כִּי-צַמְתֶּם וְסָפוֹד בַּחֲמִישִׁי וּבַשְּׁבִיעִי, וְזֶה שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה--הֲצוֹם צַמְתֻּנִי, אָנִי, 'When ye fasted and mourned in the fifth and in the seventh month, even these seventy years, did ye at all fast unto Me, even to Me?' And from then and on, it should be {and now Rashi channels and/or cites the pasuk in perek 8} לְשָׂשׂוֹן וּלְשִׂמְחָה, וּלְמֹעֲדִים, טוֹבִים, " joy and gladness, and cheerful seasons." "Does this cement the idea that "shalom" means the building of the Mikdash? Not really. When Rashi says "that via the destruction they were established as a fast" he does not mean that via the destruction of the second Temple they were established as a fast. If he had meant that, that would have been a definition of ain shalom as churban habayit. Instead, Rashi meant that via the destruction of the first Temple these four fasts were established as fasts. And this is obvious, and the gemara explains how these came to be. Then, these particular fasts were turned into moed during the second Temple period specifically because of the Temple's construction. He cites the pasuk in perek 8, and this is unfortunate, because it can throw us off. On a peshat level, he is absolutely correct. This is likely what Zechariah meant in perek 8, that from now on, because of the Temple's construction, they would be moadim tovim. And thus, once the Temple is gone, this status of moed might well disappear, and then the full derasha of Rav Chana bar Bizna or Rav Pappa on that pasuk in Zechariah 8 would apply, such that there were times it would still be sasson besimcha, times it would be reshut, and times it would be chovah to fast. However, those days in megillat Taanit did not have this genesis.
But we can maintain a consistent reading throughout the gemara and Rashi, in which he only defines ain shalom as yad haAkum tekifah al yisrael, and not churban habayit. And thus I am not persuaded by the teshuva of the Divrei Yatziv. And so Rashi still means what he meant, with all the potential halachic ramifications.
Next up, Ran and Ramban.
2 comments:
If Rashi's peshat is jewish sovereignty, why does the navi asser fasting after the Temple was built? They did not have jewish sovereignty.
I would suppose that Rashi felt they had sufficient sovereignty for it to be called "ain yad akum tekifah al Yisrael." Perhaps the king's empowering of Ezra and Nechemiah to do as he saw fit was sufficient. That is, it is a threshold. (We would need to explain the difference between that and what existed post-Churban.) Either that or (as suggested above), there are two different dinim -- one, based on peshat in Zechariah 7 (and also Zechariah 8) in which the fast was nullified and replaced with moed throughout Bayis Sheni, which is based on the rebuilding of the Temple; and the other, based on a derasha on the pasuk Zechariah 8, which is based on Jewish sovereignty.
Regardless, I do believe that however one translates "yad akum tekifah al Yisrael," what we have in Israel now is it, and exceeds what they had during Bayis Sheni. How would you translate it?
Kol Tuv,
Josh
Post a Comment