[Avodah] Fasting on YK

[Chana Luntz]

RYG writes:

> On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 08:10:04 +0200
> "Ilana Sober" <ilanasober at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> [context is an unwell woman fasting on YK]
> 
> > AFAIK, if no one else is available, the husband should also 
> stay home 
> > and take care of his wife and/or kids if that will enable 
> the wife to 
> > fast.
...

> These positions are attributed to RSZA, and see notes 166 and 
> 189. [My translation from the Hebrew edition.]
> 
> The principle is that I am not obligated to suffer in order 
> to prevent hilul Shabbos on behalf of a holeh she'yesh bo 
> sakkanah; one could therefor argue that a husband who really 
> minded missing YK prayers would not be obligated to miss them 
> in order to save his wife from the necessity of eating.  Of 
> course, the language (RSZA's?) contains the wording "za'ar 
> gadol" and "mi'dina", and RnIS's comment that the husband 
> "should also stay home" may still be true.

It seems to me that there is a major difference between the case
discussed by RSZA and the case here of a woman fasting on YK.  In the
case discussed by RSZA, the sick person is already in the matzav of
being a choleh sheyesh bo sakana, for which the standard rule is that
shabbas is docheh.  The only question is, if in fact one can, by
resorting to a neighbour, avoid the chillul shabbas that would otherwise
be automatic, at the cost of the neighbour enduring tzar.

But in the case RIS is bringing, the woman, at the start of Yom Kippur,
cannot be said to be in the situation of a choleh sheyesh bo sakana.
And, it would seem, if she does not run around after her children, she
will not find herself in that state.  So if the man stays home from shul
and instead does that running around after the children, he is
preventing the woman from ever getting into the position of a choleh she
yesh bo sakana, which would then force her to eat.  Only if he does not
stay home, and she runs around after the children, will she put herself
into the state in which she is then required to eat.  So is not this
case if anything more like the case of al tamod al dam re'echa?  If the
husband does not step in (or hire help, or whatever) he is letting his
wife slip into a situation of being a choleh she yesh bo sakana (with,
inter alia, the consequence that she will have to eat on yom kippur).
It seems to me that mere tzar in this latter case would not be enough to
allow the husband to patur himself from preventing such an occurrence -
in a similar way that if she was at risk of being put in the matzav of a
choleh she yesh bo sakana by a river or a rodef or whatever, mere tzar
on behalf of the neighbour or husband would not be enough to patur him
or them from acting.

> I also do not know if this view is accepted by other Poskim.
> 
> > - Ilana
> 
> Yitzhak

Regards 

Chana