THE FAST OF THE TENTH SHALL BE FOR THE HOUSE OF YEHUDA FOR JOY AND HAPPINESS

by Elitzur Segal

(originally published in Yibane HaMikdash, issue 75 -- for 10 Tevet 5754)

"And it came to pass in the ninth year of [Tzidkiyahu]'s reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, that Nebuchadnezzar King of Babel came, he, and all his hosts, against Jerusalem, and he camped against it; and they built a siege wall against it round about." (Melachim II 25:1)

"And in the ninth year, in the tenth month, on the tenth day of the month, the word of Hashem came to me saying, Son of man, write the name of the day, of this same day: the king of Babel has invested Jerusalem on this very day." (Yechezkel 24:1-2)

"And it came to pass in the fourth year of King Daryavesh, that the word of Hashem came to Zechariah on the fourth day of the ninth month, in Kislev; when Beit-El, Sharezer, and Regem-Melech, and his men had sent to entreat the favor of Hashem, and to speak to the Kohanim who were in the House of Hashem Tzeva--ot, and to the prophets, saying: Should I weep in the fifth month, separating myself, as I have done these so many years?" (Zechariah 7:1-3)

In order to understand the question, it is important to keep in mind that the beginning of the resumption of the building of the Second Temple after a long interruption was in Kislev of the second year of Daryavesh's reign, as explained in Ezra 4:24 and Haggai 2:18. The Temple was completed on 3 Adar of the sixth year of Daryavesh's reign.

The fourth year of Daryavesh's reign was when half the job was done, and the Babylonian Jews what was going on in Eretz Yisrael and therefore asked if they should continue to fast. The prophet's answer, after a long discourse, appears in Zechariah 8:19, "Thus says Hashem Tzeva--ot, the fast of the fourth month and the fast of the fifth and the fast of the seventh and the fast of the tenth shall be times of joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts to the House of Yehuda; therefore love truth and peace."

The Mishnah (Rosh HaShanna 1:3) states:

"The messengers go out on sixth months -- on Nisan for Pesach, on Av for the fast, on Ellul for Rosh HaShanna, on Tishrei for the holidays, on Kislev for Channuka, and on Adar for Purim. When the Beit HaMikdash was extant, they would *also* go out on Iyar for the Minor Pesach." (Some versions do not have the word "also".)

The Talmud (Rosh HaShanna 18a-b) states:

They should also go out on Tammuz and Tevet! It is as Rav Hana Bar Bizna stated in the name of Rabbi Shim'on Hasida: What is the meaning of the verse "Thus says Hashem, the fast of the fourth month and the fast of the fifth and the fast of the seventh and the fast of the tenth shall be times of joy and gladness ... to the House of Yehuda." They are called fasts and they are called times of joy and gladness! When there is peace, they will be for joy and gladness. If there is no peace, then they are fast days.

Rav Papa says: This is what he meant -- when there is peace, they will be for joy and gladness. When there are governmental edicts, we fast. When there are no edicts and there is no peace, if they want to, they fast, and if they do not want to, they do not fast. If so, the 9th of Av should be the same. Rav Papa says: The 9th of Av is different, since there have been a multitude of troubles, as we learned, On the 9th of Av the First and Second Temple were destroyed and Betar was captured, and Jerusalem was plowed over.

There are two essential points here:

1. What is the peace that will make these days of joy and gladness?

2. What does it mean that they fast "if they want to". Who is the "they" that determines to fast -- the individual, the community, or the entire Jewish People?

In this article, we will deal with the question of what peace the prophet is referring to.

According to all Rishonim, except for the Rambam, whose unique opinion we will deal with mainly in the next issue, hold that during the Second Temple period, they did not fast on the 9th of Av, since the Second Temple was a period of peace. The question is why the Second Temple period was considered a state of peace.

The first opinion is that of Rashi.

Rashi on the spot ("Sheyesh shalom") writes, "the nations do not have the upper hand of Israel."

The Meiri also writes, "What is a time of peace? When the nations do not have the upper hand on us, we do not fast even optionally, since it is stated about these days that they will be for the House of Yehuda for joy and gladness. There is no peace and no destruction means that the nations have the upper hand on us, but they do not make decrees to stop us from fulfilling the mitzvot."

The Ran also writes on page 2b of the Rif's pages, "This is what it means -- When there is peace, the days will be of joy and gladness, meaning that when the nations do not have the upper hand on Israel they will be for joy and gladness -- forbidden to eulogize or fast."

That is to say, that according to these Rishonim, the main reason for these days being of joy and gladness is that the nations of the world do not have the upper hand. It is important to note the purposely confusing expression. They do not write, "when Israel has the upper hand." Instead, they write, "when the gentiles do not have the upper hand." It is necessary to understand that this does not refer specifically to a situation of a totally independent state, and certainly not to a situation where Israel has world domination, just a lessening of the yoke of the gentiles, since when Zechariah prophecised, they were under Persian rule, and he nevertheless told them that these days turned into days of joy and gladness.

Similarly, the Rashba writes on the spot, "the meaning of 'peace' is when Israel dwells on their land." He writes later, "'no massacre and no peace' is when Israel is in enemy territory, but there are no massacres." Meaning that, according to his opinion, Jewish settlement in Eretz Yisrael in and of itself, even without the breaking of the hand of the nations, is enough to turn these days into days of joy and gladness.

This opinion is nevertheless perplexing, since on that very same page in the Talmud, it says regarding these fasts, G-d made these fasts dependent on the rebuilding of the Beit HaMikdash. Rashi on the spot explains that the fast depend on the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash because they were established as a holiday because of the destruction, and when the second Temple was built, the Jews of the Diaspora asked, "should I continue to cry on the fifth month? Shall I abstain, as I have done several years from the day of the destruction?" as it is stated there, that "you have fasted in the fifth and seventh month seventy years ..." from now on the days will be for joy and gladness and happy holidays. It is stated explicitly in that Talmudic passage that the fast days depend on the building of the Beit HaMikdash. Perhaps those Rishonim did not have in their versions of the Talmud "the building of the Beit HaMikdash", but just "the building", as Rashi and the Meiri quote, from the "time of the destruction", and it would not specifically mean the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash, but the destruction of the land and the nation ...

The second opinion is that of Rabeinu Hananel.

Rabeinu Hananel on the spot writes, "when there is peace, meaning that the Beit HaMikdash is standing."

Similarly, the Ritva writes, "peace, meaning that Israel dwells on their land, and the Beit HaMikdash is standing."

The Ramban also writes in "Torat HaAdam, Torat Avelut Yeshana", (p. 343 Chevel edition), "The meaning of 'there is peace' is when the Beit HaMikdash is extant."

Similarly, in the Tur (Orach Chaim 503), it is stated, "when there is peace and no persecution, e.g. when the Beit HaMikdash is standing." It is stated later, "when there is no peace -- that the Beit HaMikdash is destroyed."

It is difficult to hold that according to Rashi and the similar opinions that in a situation where the gentiles do not have the upper hand, or like the Rashba "that Israel dwells on their land", but there is no Beit Mikdash, that we would not fast. It would therefore appear that the difference between them is more theoretical than practical. According to Rashi, the essence of peace is that the gentiles do not have the upper hand, and you could say they are "state" Zionists. According to the Rashba, the essence of peace is that Israel is on their land, and you could call him a "practical" Zionist. According to Rabeinu Hananel, the essence of peace is that there is a Beit Mikdash, and you could call them "spiritual" Zionists.

The common denominator is that they all hold that during the Second Temple Period, they did not fast on the Ninth of Av because it was a period of peace.

The Rambam disagrees.

The Rambam writes in the commentary on Mishnayot on the Mishnah discussed above, "During the Second Temple Period, they would not fast on the Tenth of Tevet or the Seventeenth of Tammuz but one could optionally fast or not fast, so the messengers would not go out on Tevet or Tammuz. 'Thus says Hashem, the fast of the fourth and the fast of the fifth and the fast of the seventh and the fast of the tenth ...' For those days, they were given the choice of whether to fast or not ... And they would fast on the Ninth of Av, even though it was optional because of the multiple tragedies."

We see that according to the Rambam, the Second Temple Period is defined as a state of no peace and no edicts. It is therefore clear that in a state of full exile, it is obligatory to fast, since it is certainly a state of decrees. He therefore rules in Hilchot Ta'aniyot 5:1, "There are days when all of Israel fast because of the troubles that occurred, in order to awaken the hearts and open the ways of penitence ..." He specifies the fast days and does not mention dependence on will or persecution, just that we are obligated to fast.

The Rambam is forced into such an opinion because of his version of the Mishnah, "When the Temple was standing, they would go out *also" on Iyar." -- meaning that when the Temple was standing, they would go out on all the months listed, including Av because the Ninth of Av was observed as a fast, and Iyar was in addition to all the months mentioned. The answer of the prophet is therefore to be understood that in the future these days will be for joy and gladness, but still in the time of the Second Temple, the fasts were optional. As previously mentioned, in several manuscripts and in the Ritva and Meiri, the word "also" ("af") is missing, so it is clear that when the Beit HaMikdash was standing, the messengers did not go out on Av because they did not fast.

• Mikdash-Build Index of Issues
• Mikdash-Build Next Issue
• Mikdash-Build Mail list

HaTenu'ah LeChinun HaMikdash

Gathering en masse to arouse consciousness among the People, its rabbis, and its leaders to rebuild the Beit HaMikdash and return the Kohanim to their Service

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page