Siman 568

It is stated in the Yerushalmi Nedarim (chapter eight): If one vowed to fast, and forgot and ate—he has lost his fast. And this is when he said "a day" without specification. But if he said "this day"—he fasts and completes it, meaning: for certainly on a day designated for a fast, such as any communal fast, or a fast for a dream, or a yahrzeit, which is the day his father or mother died when he is accustomed to fast; or those who fast on the eve of Rosh Chodesh, and the Monday, Thursday, and Monday after Pesach and Sukkot, or the Ten Days of Repentance, and the like, and he forgot and ate or even intentionally ate, even if he ate much—what he has done is done, and he shall bear his iniquity. And the rest of the day he fasts and completes it, for is it because he committed a transgression or stumbled inadvertently that it should be permitted for him to eat further?! (This is stated in wonder). And it is not relevant in this case to say that he lost his fast, and should eat and repay another day for this day, since the fast is designated for this day specifically.

But if this day is not designated for the fast, but rather he vowed to fast one day or two days, and he began to fast, and forgot and ate a kezayit within the time of eating a pras, or drank a revit or a mouthful (Magen Avraham subsection 2) – he has lost his fast, and he may eat further, and he is obligated to fast another day. And this is when he vowed generally to fast one day or two days. And likewise, when he vowed to fast two days and a night consecutively such that he would not eat during the night between them, and he forgot and ate during the night between them – he has lost his fast, and he may eat, and he shall fast others in their place.

But if he said, "I am hereby in a fast on this day," such as if he vowed during the mincha preceding it regarding the next day or regarding a certain day, and he forgot and ate or intentionally ate—he completes his fast. And it is not subject to a makeup day as on a day designated for fasting, for what does it matter to me if the day was designated from before or if he designated it—ultimately, this day is an obligation upon him to fast. This is the opinion of most of the poskim. However, the Ra'avad holds that "this day" is like an unspecified "day" and he has lost his fast, and he shall pay back another day if he wishes, and if he wishes he may complete his fast, and he is not obligated in a makeup day. This is the difference between an unspecified "day" and "this day": that regarding an unspecified "day," he is obligated in a makeup day against his will, and regarding "this day," it depends on his will (Kessef Mishneh from the Responsa of the Rashba brought in the Beit Yosef, see there). This is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1, and this is his wording: And there are those who are stringent that even if he vowed to fast "this day," that he is obligated to complete it, nevertheless they are stringent to fast another day. Thus far his words, meaning: that we place upon him the stringencies of both opinions: the stringency of the first opinion that he is obligated to complete it, and the stringency of the opinion of the Ra'avad that he can complete another day. And even though we explained that even according to the Ra'avad he is not compelled to do so, nevertheless, so that there should not be a punishment upon him for what he ate on the day of the fast—we place upon him this stringency, that he should fast another day in its stead. For in truth, even in a fixed fast, it is proper that he fast another day as an atonement for his eating. And it appears to me that if he ate intentionally—certainly it is proper to do so, so that he will have atonement. But not if it was unintentional.

We say in Taanit (12b): A person may borrow his fast and repay it. Our Rabbis explained that this is also the case when one vowed to fast a day or two or many days, and he began to fast on one of the days, and he was not compelled to fast specifically on this day, and a matter of a mitzvah occurred where it is proper to eat there; or an honorable person happened upon him, for whose honor it is appropriate that he eat; or he was a guest of an honorable person who requests that he eat; or he is suffering from fasting – behold, this person may eat, and he repays another day in its stead, for he did not fix the days at the beginning of the vow. And even though he accepted it upon himself at the preceding Mincha – nevertheless, he did not say to fast "tomorrow" or on "such-and-such a day," but rather to fast "one day." And according to the opinion of the Ra'avad, even if he said "tomorrow" or "on such-and-such a day" – he may also borrow. But we do not hold accordingly, as most of the poskim do not hold so. Therefore, if he did not accept upon himself to fast "one day," but rather to fast "tomorrow" or "on such-and-such a day" or on a Yahrtzeit, and certainly in a fixed public fast – he cannot borrow and repay another day in its stead. And so too a fast for a dream (Shabbat 11a), for the segulah is specifically that he fast the day following the dream. And so too one who vowed to fast Monday and Thursday the entire year – it is like "this day," and he cannot borrow, and similar to this. But if he vowed to fast a half-year on Monday and Thursday, and did not say "this year" – he may borrow. Therefore, one who vowed to fast such-and-such a total of fasts – he may postpone them until the winter days when the days are short, and he may borrow a long day and pay back a short day, for this and that are called a "day." And there is one who says that this is only for a short time, but for a long time we fear lest he die (Magen Avraham, subsection 13). But from the wording of the poskim it does not appear so. (And it is not similar to a vow which is a "rise and act" commandment, which one must do immediately when it comes to his hand. For a fast is "sit and do not act," that he shall not eat. And he may postpone them to whatever time he wishes, and if he dies – behold, he has not transgressed his vow. Examine this and you will find it simple.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2: However, the Monday, Thursday, and Monday fasts that are customarily fasted after Pesah and Sukkot, or even the Ten Days of Repentance, and a brit milah occurred—it is permitted to eat. And he does not require hatarah, for they did not practice the custom to fast in such a case. And specifically when they eat there, but if they send to him to his home—he may not eat. And if he accepted the fast upon himself at Mincha—he must fast. And some say that if he suffers greatly in his fast—he may redeem it with money, and the same law applies to another case of ones. And it appears specifically if he accepted upon himself a general fast, but if he accepted it by way of a neder—he must fulfill his neder. Thus far his words, and his words require clarification.

And it appears in my humble opinion that this is the explanation: for we have already explained at the beginning of siman 562 that a fast is not a vow but rather a rabbinic mitzvah. And one who conducted himself to fast several times—it was also explained in Yoreh Deah siman 214 that it is like a vow. And there we explained that despite all this, it is not in the category of a vow at all, see there. Therefore, even though during the fixed public fasts or when the public decreed a fast—it is forbidden to eat at any seudat mitzvah, nevertheless, during fasts in which some fast and the majority do not fast; and also those who fast do not do so based on vows of fasting but rather because they conducted themselves so, such as Monday and Thursday and Monday, and the Ten Days of Repentance, and Erev Rosh Chodesh, and a Yahrzeit—if a seudat mitzvah occurred, they may eat without any annulment at all. And we say that they did not conduct themselves with the intention of a matter of a mitzvah, since a fast of custom is very lenient, and on the contrary, it is a mitzvah to eat. Therefore, if on these days there occurred a brit milah, or a pidyon haben, or a siyum masekhta—he eats without any annulment at all. And for a pidyon haben that is not in its proper time he shall not eat, and they shall make the meal at night. (Magen Avraham subsection 10. And what he wrote in subsection 9, that if he knew before Rosh Hashanah that he would have a brit milah he should fast another day in its place, see there—it is a wondrous thing, and it seems to me that the custom is not so. And also what he wrote in subsection 5, that he should fast part of the day, see there—also the custom is not so. And what he wrote there to be lenient regarding a seudat mitzvah, even though he is not connected to it, see there—so they have conducted themselves in our times even on Erev Pesach regarding the firstborns. And what he wrote even for a social gathering, see there—it is a wondrous thing. And similarly what he brought from the Gemara: anyone who benefits from a meal that a Torah scholar is present within—it is as if he benefited from the radiance of the Shekhinah, see there, nevertheless it is difficult to consider it a seudat mitzvah. And we have not heard anyone who would rule so, see there. And examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

And these days in which they eat at seudot mitzvah – it is only when they invite him to eat there. But when they send portions to his house – he is not permitted to eat. And all this is regarding a mere custom. And even if he answered "Amen" to the blessing of Monday, Thursday, and Monday – nevertheless, it is not like an acceptance of a fast, for he is not obligated to fast by virtue of answering "Amen." Therefore, it is permitted to eat at a seudat mitzvah; and even if he accepted them during the Minchah prior – he accepted them according to the custom (Magen Avraham, subsection 11). But regarding another fast that he accepted explicitly during the Minchah prior – he is forbidden from eating at a seudat mitzvah, and he must fast. However, some say that since the acceptance of a fast is not like a neder, therefore if he suffers greatly in his fast he may redeem it with money, and so too in the case of another constraint, and we say that he did not accept it upon himself with such a case in mind – but nevertheless, this is when he accepted it upon himself only under the name of a mere fast. But if he accepted it with the language of a neder, even though this is not a complete neder without an issur cheftza, as I wrote at the beginning of siman 562, nevertheless since it is the language of a neder – he cannot redeem it with money. And how much the redemption money is has been explained above at the end of siman 334, see there (so it appears in my humble opinion in the explanation of the words of the Rema).

In Yoreh Deah siman 228 it has been explained that one does not annul any vow until the vow takes effect. For example, if one vowed not to eat meat from Rosh Chodesh Iyar onwards, and he wishes to annul his vow – one does not annul it for him before Iyar. And even ex post facto it is not effective, see there. Therefore, one who vows to fast for one year on Monday, Thursday, and Monday – one does not annul it for him if he wishes to annul his vow until Monday arrives. And so too, one who vows to fast every Erev Rosh Chodesh, or the Ten Days of Repentance, or the Monday, Thursday, and Monday after Pesach and Sukkot, and wishes to annul his vow – they shall not annul it for him until the day of Erev Rosh Chodesh arrives, or the first day of Selichot which is considered part of the Ten Days of Repentance, or the first Monday of the days of Monday, Thursday, and Monday. And so too regarding anything similar to this. And one who is fasting, and forgot and recited a blessing over some fruit, and after the blessing he remembered – he should conclude with "teach me Your statutes." And if he is eating and drinking because he imagines that it is night, and they told him that the dawn has already risen – he should spit it out from his mouth (see Sha'arei Teshuva).

The early authorities wrote that two consecutive days and two nights—one should equate them to forty days that are not consecutive. And some say that for a weak person, two consecutive days are sufficient, but for a healthy person, three consecutive days are required. And this is not at all a matter for one who vowed to fast, but rather for the matter of "penance of equal weight" for penitents who wish to take upon themselves repentance and atonement—this is like that, for this suffering is like that. And regarding this as well, they wrote that it is better that they be scattered, so that at all times his heart will be humbled, and his sins will be before him always (Magen Avraham, subsection 6). And due to our sins in our times, because of the weakness of the generations—we have not heard of anyone who fasts two consecutive days, such that he does not eat during the night between them.

But one who vowed to fast forty days must fulfill what he vowed. For it is no less than "this day," regarding which one may not borrow and repay. And even according to the Ra'avad, who maintains that even regarding "this day" one may borrow and repay, as I have written, here he concedes that one must fulfill his vow. For there we say that he did not take it upon himself with the intention that he should suffer, and therefore he may borrow; this is not the case here, for ultimately he will suffer, therefore he must fulfill what he took upon himself (ibid. subsection 16). And all the more so regarding the forty days before Yom Kippur, when they begin to fast after the fifteenth of Av and do not fast on Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh (ibid. subsection 17), and they fast in memory of the ascent of Moshe Rabbeinu to Mount Sinai; that one who took them upon himself, there is no restitution for them in two or three consecutive days, and even if he did not take it upon himself by way of a vow but rather in the language of a mere fast—one may not borrow. And all the more so to repay in their stead two or three days.

Above in siman 288 it was explained that one may fast a fast for a dream even on Shabbat. And he must observe a fast for his fast, as an atonement for having fasted on Shabbat, see there. And the same law applies to one who fasts a fast for a dream on Yom Tov or on Chol HaMoed or on Rosh Chodesh, that he must observe a fast for his fast. And so too on Chanukah and Purim and Erev Yom Kippur – he also must observe a fast for his fast. But one who fasts a fast for a dream on the fifteenth of Av or Shevat, or Isru Chag, and Lag BaOmer – he does not need to observe a fast for his fast, and so too during the three days of Hagbalah. And there is one who says that also on Rosh Chodesh Nisan or on Rosh Chodesh Av he does not need to observe a fast for his fast, because some say it is a mitzvah to fast on them, as I wrote in siman 580 (there, subsection 19).

We hold that there is no fast of the community in the diaspora regarding the requirement to cease eating while it is still day, and with all its stringencies, and to forbid work – except for Tisha B'Av alone. Therefore, an individual who accepted a fast – we are not concerned that he accepted a fast of the community upon himself, and he is permitted in all of them. Nevertheless, it is good ab initio to say at the time of accepting the fast, "Behold I am on an individual fast tomorrow." And if he said, "Behold I am on a fast of the community tomorrow," he must perforce cease eating while it is still day, until he annuls his vow. And we have already written this.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 7: When the day on which his father or mother died occurs in Adar, and the year is a leap year – he shall fast in the second Adar. Thus far his words, and his words are perplexing: for he explicitly wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 220 that this is according to the Rambam; but most of the poskim disagree with him, and they hold that "Adar" without specification is the first Adar. Therefore, our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding him: And there are those who say that he fasts in the first, unless they died during a leap year in the second Adar, for then it is the custom to fast in the second. And such is the custom to fast in the first, however there are those who are stringent to fast in both of them. Thus far his words. And in Yoreh Deah siman 402 he ruled simply to fast in the first Adar, and did not mention fasting in both of them, see there. And in truth it is a wonder: is there a Torah prohibition or a rabbinic prohibition in this? For it is merely a custom, and how do stringencies apply to this? And since in the opinion of most of our teachers the primary one is the first Adar – such is the halacha. And only one who began the practice of fasting in both of them requires hatarah.

And I saw one who disagrees with our teacher, the Rema, and holds that the primary ruling is to fast on both of them, on the grounds that all commandments practiced in the second—are practiced in the first (the Gra). And I wonder: Are these then commandments? Is it not merely a custom! And I wonder even more: For regarding the dead we have learned that the judgment of the wicked in Gehenna is twelve months, and if so, if he died in a plain Adar—behold his twelve months are completed in the first Adar. And according to the custom that we cease saying kaddish a month prior—behold we cease in Shevat. And if so, it follows automatically that the yahrtzeit is in the first Adar, and this has no relevance at all to other matters. Therefore, it appears in my humble opinion that the primary ruling is according to the words of our teacher, the Rema, and one fasts only in the first Adar alone. (And the Magen Avraham in subsection 20 brought a proof from Taanit 18b, where Abaye said: It was only necessary for a leap month. And his intention is according to the first explanation of Rashi, see there. And it is difficult: For the Adar adjacent to Nisan is always deficient. Unless you would say that the moon was not seen until the thirtieth, if so, why is there a need for two Adars? Furthermore: He should have said for a leap year. Furthermore: Even according to the first explanation, joining redemption to redemption is preferable, like the reading of the Megillah, and what is its relevance to a yahrtzeit? And the second proof from the day of Trajan and Nicanor, and his intention is that he would answer that it refers to a leap year. I wonder: Does it not teach it without specification? And if it is because there is a practical difference regarding a leap year, it refers to an unspecified Adar. Furthermore: Joining redemption to redemption is preferable, as I wrote. Therefore, the primary ruling is like the Rema; and also the conclusion of the Magen Avraham is so, as I wrote in the name of the Rash Halevi, see there. And so ruled the Eliyah Rabbah in siman 685, subsection 6, see there.)

One need only fast on the day of the death of his father and mother, and not on the day of burial, even in the first year. And some say that if the day of the death of his father and mother occurred on Shabbat or Rosh Chodesh—it should be postponed until the next day. But we do not practice accordingly; rather, one does not fast at all. And so too on other days when Tachanun is not said. And regarding Cheshvan and Kislev, which are sometimes full and sometimes lacking—one follows the name of the day. For example, if he died on Rosh Chodesh Kislev and it was then one day of Rosh Chodesh, and the following year there are two days of Rosh Chodesh—the yahrtzeit is on the second day of Rosh Chodesh. And if it is the opposite, that he died on the first day of Rosh Chodesh, and the following year Rosh Chodesh is one day—nevertheless, the yahrtzeit is on Rosh Chodesh and not on Erev Rosh Chodesh. And even though the first day of Rosh Chodesh is the thirtieth of the preceding month—nevertheless, the name of Rosh Chodesh is upon it (see Taz at the end of subsection 4 who did not write thus, and they have already wondered at him), and so too in all similar cases (and also regarding the words of the Magen Avraham subsection 20, the Pri Megadim wondered, as the Machatzit HaShekel wrote). And so too if he died in a leap year on the first day of Rosh Chodesh Adar Sheni, and the following year is a regular year—he should fast on the first day of Rosh Chodesh Adar (Magen Avraham ibid., and there is a printing error there as the Machatzit HaShekel wrote, see there). And so too in all similar cases.

One who vows to go to the graves of the righteous in a certain place, and was delayed for many days, and afterwards it occurred that they hired him to go there—this going suffices. And so too regarding anything similar to this. However, if he vowed that he would spend such and such expenses on this journey—he has not fulfilled his obligation until he gives the expenses to tzedakah (see Magen Avraham, subsection 21, and examine it and you will find it simple). And so too one who vows to fast a number of consecutive days, and a mandatory fast occurred during them—they count for him. And so too one who fasts for a dream, or who fasts a fast for his fast, and on that day it was a mandatory fast—it counts for him. (And regarding two vows—one does not count for the other, as the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 22. And see in Yoreh Deah siman 239.)

Anyone who is observing a fast, whether he was fasting over his own distress or over his dream, or whether he was fasting with the community over their distress—behold, he should not conduct himself with luxuries. That is to say: that he should not indulge in any type of pleasure. And he should not act with lightheadedness, nor should he be joyful and of good heart. And likewise, he should guard himself from anger and from disputes and quarrels, but rather he should be anxious and mourning, as in the matter that is stated, "Why should a living man mourn...".