[Avodah] Fasting on YK

[Yitzhak Grossman]

[cc'ing Avodah; let me know if you want the discussion taken off list]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:03:49 -0000 "Chana Luntz"
<chana at kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:

> 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.

An interesting distinction, but I stand by what I wrote; I don't see
why we should differentiate between one already in danger and one who
will soon be in danger.  In both cases there is a threat to life that
must be countered either by hilul shabbos, or by my sacrifice.  I don't
really see why the latter falls under the rubric of lo sa'a'mod any
more than does the former.

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

[responding to myself]

I notice that RSZA himself cites a dissenting view in n166.

> > 
> > > - Ilana
> > 
> > Yitzhak
> 
> Regards 
> 
> Chana

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat