[Avodah] Fasting on YK

[Yitzhak Grossman]

[cc'ing Avodah]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:27:59 +0100 (GMT+01:00)
"chana at kolsassoon.org.uk" <chana at kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:

> RYG writes:
> 
> >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.
> 
> It is not just that the person is already in danger versus one who 
> will soon be in danger, but that once the person is already in danger, 
> there is a specific halacha vis a vis shabbas (or yom kippur) which 
> applies - namely that shabbas is doche.  That means that, cooking on 
> shabbas for the person who is already sufficiently sick is completely, 
> al pi halacha, mutar.  Going to get the food from the neighbour 
> therefore is a chumra, and we do not (at least according to RSZA) 
> impose a chumra in the case where it will cause tzar.

I'm maintaining that even before the woman is in danger, there's no
absolute requirement for her husband to undergo za'ar to prevent her
from needing to eat on YHK, since said eating will be perfectly
permitted, and I'm arguing that the reasoning of RSZA still
applies.

> The fact that this is true can  be seen from the very example 
> brought.  If a person is sufficiently sick so as to be a choleh sheyesh 
> bo sakana, it is highly unlikely that the cooking being done on shabbas 
> is being done by them.  It is almost certainly the case that the person 
> doing the cooking is somebody else - perhaps a spouse or family member, 
> perhaps a neighbour.  Perhaps even the neighbour whose food one might 
> otherwise have thought ought to be confiscated in order to feed the 
> sick person, or perhaps another neighbour.
> 
> So why does RSZA's concept of tzar not extend to them?  Why do we not 

Who said it does not?

> say that - well the spouse or family member or neighbour might well get 
> tzar from cooking on shabbas, which at least sort of feels like chillul 
> shabbas and assur, even if they know that it is really mutar, and why 
> do we not weigh their tzar against the tzar of the other neighbour with 
> the food, and conclude that tzar plus chillul shabbas should outweight 
> tzar without chillul shabbas?  And even further, why do we allow the 

Who said that we don't consider their za'ar?  If the neighbor will
(wrongly) feel great distress upon cooking on Shabbos for the sick
person, I assume that we would indeed not compel him to do so, provided
that there's an alternative means of obtaining food for the sick
person.  If the only two alternatives are either the cook's (misguided)
za'ar from cooking on Shabbos or the neighbor's za'ar from being
without food for Shabbos, then there would indeed be a tossup as to
which one should suffer.  RSZA may be assuming that the cook (rightly)
does not mind saving the life of the sick person; your suggestion that
he (mistakenly) might is speculative.

> person in question to cook at all?  Why is it not OK for the person to 
> say to the choleh sheyesh bo sakana, you go and cook, but I am not 
> putting my olah haba at stake for you? 

He certainly is entitled to say that, even out of simple
laziness, without any religious considerations, if the sick person is
himself capable of cooking.

> My understanding of the answer to these questions is because - if 
> there is a choleh sheyesh bo tzakana there - then it is perfectly mutar 
> for the person to cook for them.  The obligations of shabbas are pushed 
> aside vis a  vis the cook, whoever they may be.  For that person then 
> to refuse to cook is, again, a violation of lo sa'amod.  And to have 
> tzar about this is not real tzar, because the halacha dictates that one 
> ought to cook.  To refuse to cook in such circumstances is the classic 
> case of the chassid shoteh - I am being so frum and not looking or 
> touching the woman and hence letting her drown.  But to not have food 
> for one's shabbas meal is a real form of tzar.  And since there is 
> nothing wrong with cooking in the particular circumstance, and cooking 
> will solve the lo sa'amod problem, we are not require to put the 
> neighbour with the food into a state of real tzar.

An interesting distinction, but I don't see the need for it, as above.

> But in the case of the woman on Yom Kippur, she is not yet in a state 
> of choleh sheyesh bo sakana - so none of the specific halachos of  
> being doche Yom Kippur apply.  And there is no necessity for her to 
> ever get to the state, if the husband stays home, or pays for help or 
> whatever.  So, it seems to me, he would be in violation of lo sa'amod 
> if he did not seek to prevent it.

My position is that there's no lo sa'amod since there won't actually be
any danger, since she will eat and be fine.

> >Yitzhak
> 
> Regards
> 
> Chana

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