In advance of Tisha B’Av, the most somber day of the Jewish year, we consider the well-known position of the Conservative/Masorti movement declaring it permissible to end one’s fast on that day following the minḥah (afternoon) service. By ” minḥah” is meant minḥah g’dolah, the earliest time the service may be prayed. (The time for minḥah g’dolah in Jerusalem this year on Tisha B’Av – August 1, 2017 – begins at 1:19 pm.) The position is set forth in a t’shuvah of the Vaad Halakhah, or Law Committee, of the Israel branch of the Rabbinical Assembly (RA). The opinion, which expresses the Committee’s majority view, was authored by Rabbi Tuvia Friedman; Rabbi David Golinkin dissents, arguing that the full-day fast be maintained. (See here, in Volume One of the Vaad’s t’shuvot, for English summaries.) While the majority bases its argument upon a number of different considerations, we want to look here at the central part of its halakhic argument, found in section 4 of the responsum, “The Talmud and Its Commentators on Tisha B’Av.”
Rabbi Friedman identifies “the principal textual source” on the contemporary observance of Tisha B’Av as B. Rosh Hashanah 18b:
דאמר רב חנא בר ביזנא אמר רב שמעון חסידא: מאי דכתיב כה אמר ה’ צבאות צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי וצום העשירי יהיה לבית יהודה לששון ולשמחה. קרי להו צום, וקרי להו ששון ושמחה, בזמן שיש שלום – יהיו לששון ולשמחה, אין שלום – צום. אמר רב פפא: הכי קאמר: בזמן שיש שלום – יהיו לששון ולשמחה, יש שמד – צום, אין שמד ואין שלום, רצו – מתענין, רצו – אין מתענין
Hannah b. Bizna has said in the name of R. Simeon Ḥasida: “What is the meaning of the verse (Zecharia 8:19): ‘Thus had said the Lord of Hosts: ‘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 to the house of Judah joy and gladness’? The prophet calls these days both days of fasting and days of joy, signifying that when there is peace they shall be for joy and gladness, but if there is not peace they shall be fast days.”
Rav Papa replied: “It means that when there is peace they shall be for joy and gladness; if there is persecution, they shall be fast days; if there is no persecution but yet not peace, then those who desire may fast and those who desire need not fast.”
The fasts mentioned here are “Rabbinic,” decreed by ancient authorities in memory of historical disasters in the life of the nation. The Talmud identifies “the fast of the fifth month” as Tisha B’Av (Av being the fifth month of the year according to the Biblical order of the months that begins with Nisan).[1] This raises the possibility that in a time of peace (b’z’man sheyesh shalom) Tisha B’Av will cease to be a day of fasting and mourning. The key question, then, is how we define “peace.” While the standard approach associates the term shalom with an era in which the Temple is standing,[2] some authorities hold that it refers to a time when Israel dwells upon its land (שישראל שרויין על אדמתן).[3] Add to this the observation of Maimonides that “a time when Israel dwells upon its land” is “a time when Israel enjoys sovereignty (מלכות),”[4] and you can see where all this is going. Today, as Rabbi Friedman notes, with the establishment of the state of Israel, the Jewish people “dwells upon its land” in a condition of national sovereignty. And along with the t’shuvah‘s other halakhic considerations,[5] this transformative fact of Jewish life leads to the conclusion that the fast of Tisha B’Av may be ended at the time of minḥah g’dolah.
Rabbi Friedman’s p’sak (ruling) rests largely upon the particular story that it tells about contemporary Jewish history. In this narrative, the creation of a Jewish state ushers in a new and quite different era in our people’s history. The very existence of the state – even in the absence of the Temple, the Messiah, or the other traditional symbols of Redemption (g’ulah) – is a matter of religious as well as national significance. Have we not added important dates in the State’s history, such as Yom Ha’atzma’ut (Independence Day) and Yom Hazikaron (Memorial Day) to our ritual and synagogue calendars? It is no surprise, then, that the existence of the state should affect the way we observe other days that mark moments in our history.
And for this reason, it is also no surprise that a very different story lies at the root of Rabbi Golinkin’s dissent. As he sees it (conclusion, p. 47): “We cannot say that we have entered an era of ‘peace,’ for there is no Temple, we are still subjugated to Gentile authority (יד העכו”ם עדיין תקיפה על ישראל), and there is no real peace in the land of Israel.” The story Golinkin tells (in detail at pp. 45-46) is, to be sure, the one favored by most traditional authorities, and it is coherent with the narrative of Jewish history familiar to many readers. Most poskim in fact identify shalom in this context with the existence of the Temple. We do remain “subjugated to Gentile authority,” so long as we accept Golinkin’s controversial definition of this state of affairs as the persistence of antisemitism, hostility toward the state of Israel, and oppression of Jews in countries around the world. And, of course, the state of Israel has not enjoyed even one day of true “peace” since its founding. In Rabbi Golinkin’s narrative, then, the establishment of the state of Israel hardly “transformed” the situation of the Jewish people from that which it has been for lo these past two thousand years: a despised and persecuted minority, hoping for Divine deliverance while trembling at the wrath of the nations. Meanwhile, according to the narrative favored by the committee’s majority, the existence of a sovereign Jewish state in the land of Israel heralds a radical shift in the Jewish condition even if true shalom must await the final redemption. “Subjugated” no more, the nation now stands on its sovereign feet, able to determine its course in the manner of all other nations and to advocate for the rights of Jews around the world from a position of strength and pride.
Again, the halakhic issues involved in this question are varied and complex. But when you get right down to it, the maḥloket between the majority and minority opinions of the Vaad Halakhah reflects the choice that all observant Jews in our day must make. We must choose, that is, between the available and competing narrative visions of contemporary Jewish history; we must decide which story we tell about ourselves. That choice will do much to determine whether we abstain from eating and drinking on Tisha B’Av and, if we do, just when we decide to conclude our fast.
Tzom kal – and good storytelling – to all.
___________________________________________________________
Good points, but we would note that the language you’re speaking here – “pagan superstition… to ensure protection from demonic attack on a day they already believed a previous tragedy had occurred” is the language of religious anthropology. That is to say, your explanation for why Jews fast on days such as Tisha B’Av is precisely the kind of thing that the anthropologist/sociologist/historian of religion would say. Don’t misunderstand: this doesn’t mean you’re wrong! But halakhah is not social science; it’s a discourse all its own. It makes sense of the universe by way of its own ideas, principles, precedents, and patterns of argument. Perhaps Jews began to fast of Tisha B’Av for the reasons you suggest. But in the language (=narrative) of halakhah, Jews fast on that day because according to the Rabbis (or the Sanhedrin, or the n’vi’im rishonim) decreed that observance. The question for halakhic discourse is not whether the Rabbis could have come up with a better way of “remembering” the tragedies marked on the Ninth of Av, but whether the ideas, principles, precedents, and argumentative patterns of the halakhah itself, read in a consciously progressive fashion, can support other interpretations.
Nice article. And helpful.
I was googling simply to remind myself when the partial fast ended (Minkha, thanks!).
But I appreciate your point of view, the difference of halakhic opinions reflects a personal choice about how to understand current events.
Personally, I want to see our Temple standing again. I feel a kind of pain while it is absent. I feel the visceral experience of Jews participating in pilgrimages to make Temple offerings − at a gut level without words − can unite us as the family of Yisrael, in ways that competing ideologies cannot. I agree with Rambam, these offerings will be grain only and no longer animals. (Except, I want the Pesakh lamb to remain.)
At the same time, I view the founding of the State of Yisrael to be a foundational milestone in the timeline of the kin of Yisrael − analogous to the founding of the monarchy of King David, and the founding of the monarchy of the Khashmonaim. So, I want to recognize at least this partial joy!