Fasting on the 17th of Tammuz, pt viii

The previous version of this post got messed up in editing in Blogger, such that certain paragraphs dropped. I'll take this opportunity to revise it as well, with a certain anonymous commenter's comments in mind.

We now turn to discuss the position of Rabbenu Tam, as brought down in Magahot Maimoniot. Click on the image to the right to see it larger.

To translate:

"Rabbenu Tam permitted a yoledet to eat on Tzom Gedaliah, when it was eight days after she had given birth. And even though we say in perek Mefanin {in Shabbos, perek 18} that after seven days {from childbirth}, if she says 'I do not need,' we do not desecrate Shabbos on her behalf, and the fast of Gedaliah has the status of words of the Prophets {Divrei Kabbalah}, and the words of the prophets are like the words of Torah.."

To be continued in a moment. First, though, here is that gemara, Shabbos 129a:

אמרי נהרדעי חיה ג' ז' ול' ג' בין אמרה צריכה אני ובין אמרה לא צריכה אני מחללין עליה את השבת ז' אמרה צריכה אני מחללין עליה את השבת אמרה לא צריכה אני אין מחללין עליה את השבת ל' אפי' אמרה צריכה אני אין מחללין עליה את השבת אבל עושין ע"י ארמאי

The scholars of Nehardea said: A lying-in woman [has three periods: from] three [days after confinement], seven [days], and thirty [days]. From three [days], whether she says, 'I need it' or she says, 'I do not need it,' we desecrate the Sabbath for her. [From] seven [days], if she says 'I need it,' we desecrate the Sabbath for her; if she says, 'I do not need it,' we do not desecrate the Sabbath for her. [From] thirty days, even if she says, 'I need it,' we may not desecrate the Sabbath for her, yet we may do so by means of a gentile. Like Rav Ulla the son of Rabbi Illai, who said: All the requirements of a sick person may be done by means of a gentile on Shabbat, and as Rav Hamnuna, who said: In a matter entailing no danger [to life] {for a sick person}, one bids a gentile and he does it.

And now continuing the preceding. Even though it was Divrei Kabbalah, so how could we desecrate the fast for a woman eight days after birth?

even so, it is permitted, for we say in the first perek of Rosh haShanah that "he called it a fast day and he called it a joy, etc.," until "if they want, they fast and if they want, they do not fast." And therefore it is a reshut, and it is permitted for her to eat. Until here I {=Hagahot Maimoniot} found {in the teshuva from Rabbenu Tam}.

And it seems correct that even pregnant women and nursing women in general, who are in a great deal of pain, that they should be able to eat in all these fasts, with the exception of Tisha BeAv, from the fact that we said that "on Tisha BeAv, pregnant and nursing women fast and finish the fast on it, in the same way that they fast and finish the fast on Yom Kippur." Thus it is clear that the rest of the fasts, which are not so strict, they do not {need to} finish them."

I would note that Hagahot Maimoniyot extends to these two classes of women, and then restricts for Tisha BeAv. But he never explicitly restricted in terms of the yoledet 8 days after, in terms of Tisha BeAv. And indeed, looking at that gemara, she still has the status of a cholah, and if she says she needs it, we would ask a gentile to do a melacha. On the other hand, if he is equating these two to the first

Furthermore, this diyuk which Hagahot Maimoniyot makes from the words of Rava on Pesachim 54b, that Tisha BeAv is like Yom Kippur in terms of fasting and finishing, is his own diyuk. It may indeed make plenty of sense, but we don't know for certain that Rabbenu Tam would agree.

How could we say otherwise? I would simply point out a few points.

1) We see that one can say in the gemara in Rosh HaShanah that even Tisha BeAv is a reshut, but that they still sent messengers since everyone universally fasted, because of the doubling of the tzarot. That does not mean it is not a reshut, just that people did not take advantage of it. See Rambam on peirush haMishnayot, for example.

2) The perek in Pesachim this din appears is called Makom SheNahagu. Perhaps even if it is a reshut on the level of Divrei Kabbalah, since this was the standard practice in these places, to universally fast, this was also the accepted practice in which pregnant and nursing women should fast and finish, just as they did on Yom Kippur.

3) We can read it Rabbenu Tam, and Hagahot Maimoniyot, in two ways:

a) that Rabbenu Tam said that this woman who had given birth should not fast because it was a reshut. If so, it would theoretically apply to any person whatsoever.

b) But alternatively, he did not say that anyone could opt out. He perhaps is holding something like Ramban, or Rosh. That is, on the level of Divrei Kabbalah, as we have seen, it is reshut. However, people accepted it upon themselves (and we can read this into ratzu or into some post-Talmudic imposition). Thus, the average person has the chovah to fast. But vis a vis the Divrei Kabbalah, it is only a reshut. Therefore, one cannot ask from the gemara in Shabbos about being mechalel for a woman eight days after birth, because indeed, there is no such restriction. And in terms of minhag, which this is, Tzom Gedaliah can be overcome for someone who has this status of cholah.

This still would obviously not apply to a pregnant or nursing woman on Tisha BeAv. After all, the gemara itself (Pesachim 54b) states that Rava expounded that pregnant and nursing women fast and finish the fast on Tisha BeAv, just as they do on Yom Kippur. But it is quite possible that a woman 8 days after birth is of sufficient cholah status that it would overcome this, since in terms of the Divrei Kabbalah it only has the status of reshut.

The chiddush of this step would be to reduce the level of cholah required to be able to break the fast. Even without the chiddush, at a specific level of illness, a sick man or woman can break his or her fast. But if what I am suggesting is correct, we can move the threshold for Tisha BeAv to be more in accordance with that of Shiva Asar BeTammuz, even though of course a pregnant or nursing woman would still not be included, as we have that explicit gemara to the contrary.

Though the following are not the words of Rabbenu Tam, I believe this would be an appropriate place to discuss a pesak that was brought up on another blog, Divrei Chaim.

Apparently, Rabbi Nachum Rabinovitch of Yeshivat Ma'aleh Adumim as allowing pregnant (after 5th month) or nursing mother to eat on 9 Av because these women are categorically to be treated as cholos.

An anonymous commenter there questions this rav's right to be called Rabbi, which is an unfortunate trend. I can certainly understand why this pesak is questionable, as it goes against an explicit gemara.

I have not read his teshuva, so I do not know the particulars or his justification. However, I can well imagine what it might be, and while I do not issue pesak on this blog, on a theoretical level I think his position may very well be halachically sound.

Assume as we have assumed above, that even Tisha BeAv is a reshut, within the context of the Divrei Kabbalah. Then the threshold for cholah is lowered, but still does not include pregnant or nursing women. Or alternatively, do not assume as we have assumed above. Then, the threshold is still higher than for other fasts, but there is indeed some level at which we would say that one should not fast -- if it is harmful. Now, Rava was doresh -- that is, he expounded practically, how people should conduct themselves, by taking note of both the halachic principles and the physical metzius.

It could very well be that a pregnant or nursing woman in Rava's day was not considered to be a cholah. It is difficult for them to fast, sure, because they have a baby in their womb and need to eat for two, or have a suckling infant taking fluid out of their body. But in Judaism, just because something is difficult does not mean you do not have to do it. If for some reason, someone had to exert himself, such that fasting would be difficult, he would still presumably have to fast. (Or if they are considered cholot, not necessarily of a serious type.)

We perhaps see this treatment in the words of the Hagahot Maimoniot. He wrote (above):

And it seems correct that even pregnant women and nursing women in general, who are in a great deal of pain, that they should be able to eat in all these fasts, with the exception of Tisha BeAv...

The case before Rabbenu Tam was a woman 8 days after birth, who was a quasi-cholah. But these women, pregnant and nursing, are just going to suffer a lot in keeping the fast. And he would extend it to them, because it is a reshut, after all. But Tisha BeAv has that special exclusion in the gemara, in Rava's statement.

If in the time of the gemara they did not consider pregnant women to be an "invalid" of some sort, such that fasting could have a negative effect on them, that is not generally the case nowadays.

Here I will take pains to be clearer than I was in the previous version of this post. I am arguing here that this approach is halachically sound, rather than halachically correct. (It might be both.) By sound, I mean that one can take a set of axioms and set of ways to derive new facts, and derive the conclusion. But that does not mean that the axioms are correct -- one might argue with the scientific basis, or whether the interpretation of certain sources are the most compelling.

Nowadays, we understand that a woman who is pregnant is not just burdened by having to carry the baby, but there is a developing infant inside. And that that developing infant can be affected by hormonal changes in the mother, stress levels in the mother, nutrition of the mother, and so on. And if Chazal understood this (e.g. see how the manna could not taste like certain foods), we understand it at a better level.

In terms of pregnant women for certain, fasting can have an impact, by causing labor. Indeed, there is a spike in Jewish births immediately after Yom Kippur every year for precisely this reason. And I know of women who went into labor after fasting on Yom Kippur. And Rabbi Nachum Rabinovitch was speaking of pregnant women after the 5th month of pregnancy.

Now perhaps this is true only of women who have reached full term, as the anonymous commenter notes that the study concluded. I am not sure this is the only study on the subject. There are indeed many studies on the impact of fasting on developing infants. Here are a few:

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:UBuubi3SqJAJ:diglib.tums.ac.ir/pub/magmng/pdf/386.pdf+pregnant+woman+fast+study&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=863768

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/133/5/1709S

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6643131

http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/ajog/abstract.00000447-200108000-00024.htm;jsessionid=Lp7SLwGZm1VGXQLTG2s3wjN040cjJK3ZtZVFpbTZ2k6dLwqy6XJH!1805002056!181195629!8091!-1

According to the abstract for the third one, from nutrition.org,

"Epidemiological evidence suggests that maternal psychosocial stress, strenuous physical activity and fasting are independent risk factors for preterm birth and low birth weight."

Thus, fasting and stress can cause preterm birth and low birth weight. Other studies might contradict that. Fine. But then we have conflicting studies. Plus, there is the impact on the developing infant.

Ask most physicians nowadays if it is advisable for a pregnant or nursing woman to fast -- without subjecting them to pressure about the religious importance and significance of the fast -- and they will tell you "no". Perhaps this would raise pregnant or nursing women them to the level of cholah, particularly if we agree with the lowered threshold as defined above.

Or perhaps it is due to threat of dehydration, or other such factors that we know more about nowadays.

This may then be a case in which we can claim that the reality has changed (nishtaneh hateva). On a straightforward rendition, we can say that Rava was relying on ancient science, which was incorrect in assessing pregnant and nursing woman. Given a different knowledge of metzius, even Rava would have been doreish otherwise. We can "frum up" this claim as that the women nowadays are weaker than they were in the past, or that babies are different. We see this idea in legitimate halachic sources. Thus, we have some Rishonim (IIRC, Rosh) who discuss that a prohibition on drinking zugos do not apply, because that was only in those times in those geographical locations. And others say similar things as to the prohibition of eating fish with meat due to sakana -- that because of changing circumstance, it does not necessarily apply.

That does not mean that back then, they were acting incorrectly. They were not aware of the potential medical effects of fasting on nursing and pregnant women. And then we could apply "shomer petaim Hashem." But nowadays, it is inappropriate for a pregnant (or nursing) woman to fast on Tisha BeAv, as she is properly classified into the category of cholah.

Such could be, in my opinion, a potentially sound justification for this pesak. But I am not paskening, nor have I seen this pesak inside, so I do not know that it is the justification. And I still have many sources to go through, in order to see how this develops. E.g. how are pregnant or nursing women treated in other contexts, and how Rabbenu Tam's position is interpreted and developed.