Friday 4 October 2019

Fasting and Affliction


Introduction

Yom Kippur is unique in many ways. The aspect that I would like to discuss here is the idea of physical self-affliction, something that elsewhere in the Torah we only find in a negative way (as in the prohibitions against self-mutilation and leaving bald patches as a sign of mourning), or as something that a person can voluntarily take upon himself (as in the case of the nazir).

What is the idea behind fasting and other forms of self-deprivation? The prophet Yeshayahu tells us that the ultimate goal of fasting is 'untying the knots of wickedness' and 'releasing the crushed to freedom,' rather than merely 'bending ones head like a fish-hook' and displaying sackcloth.[1] However, the question remains as to what the actual fasting is supposed to achieve. Could we not have days of repentance without fasting, perhaps enabling some to concentrate more effectively on their prayers and self-improvement?

Furthermore, if the only imaginable purpose of fasting is to lead a person to repentance, what exactly did those who 'bent their heads like fish-hooks' think they were achieving? It is hard to believe that all of these actions were only meant as a show for others – if the general population were impressed by pretences like these, taking it as sincere worship, this would at least have meant that the majority were not worthy of the wrath of Yeshayahu.[2]

Thus, to me it is clear that these people believed that there is an inherent value to self-affliction, even without any improvement in their conduct. They were mistaken, but how mistaken is not entirely clear. The question is whether or not there is an inherent value to self-affliction for one who does meet the prerequisite of examining his ways.

Purifying the soul

The Chovos Halvavos writes that there are two levels of abstinence. The basic level is the control of one's physical desires in a manner designed to preserve physical health. Hashem intentionally made man and many animals in this way, 'causing the soul to suffer and be tested' in this world in order to purify it and 'be of the form of the angels.'[3]

There is also a unique level of abstinence, which has the purpose of 'fixing our souls' for Olam Haba. After quoting several opinions as to what this abstinence consists of, his favoured definition is abstinence from all physical relaxation and pleasure, besides what a person cannot naturally live without.[4]

Although this view did not become the mainstream in Spain, where the author of the Chovos Halvavos (Rabbeinu Bachya ibn Pakuda) lived in the 11th century, the Chasidei Ashkenaz of the 12th and 13th centuries did adopt many practices based on a similar philosophy. One example relevant to the days we are in now is the concept of 'Teshuvas HaMishkal' – its proponents say that if one had any forbidden physical pleasure, he should cause himself an equivalent level of pain.[5]

One who learns the Shulchan Aruch and its commentators in depth should see that the Chasidei Ashkenaz had a significant influence on the accepted halacha in Ashkenazi communities.[6] To this day, many say the Tefila Zaka prayer before Kol Nidrei at the start of Yom Kippur.[7] One of the more overlooked sections of this prayer contains the statement that we are 'obligated' to atone for our sins through Teshuvas HaMishkal, however we ask for mercy as we lack the strength to do so.

According to this view, Yom Kippur is the day that all of us rise to the level we would ideally be on the entire year, those unable to repeat this on a regular basis praying that this one day of self-affliction should suffice to purify our souls and prepare them for Olam Haba. It won't work without teshuva, but equally teshuva can only be complete with an element of physical suffering.[8]

The opposing view

This way of life was rejected entirely by R' Saadya Gaon (born 882 in Egypt). He criticises a group of people who distance themselves from the world in an extreme way, detailing how impractical and dangerous this way of life is. He then argues that abstinence should only be practiced in its correct place, which is when something forbidden is presented to a person.[9]

Similar criticism can be found in the words of the Kuzari[10] and the Rambam.[11] In the case of the Rambam, rejection of the idea of purification through physical suffering is fundamental – the physical can never be elevated to a different inherent state and will always have the limitations we know of.[12]

According to this, there is no inherent value to self-affliction and the people Yeshayahu was criticising had missed the point entirely. Why then do we fast on Yom Kippur? The Rambam explains that it is in order to fix our minds on repentance and complete worship of G-d, without being distracted by physical needs. Work is forbidden for the same reason.[13]

Affliction and Cessation

According to both views, it is important to pay attention to the language that the Torah uses when telling us to fast. The usual translation of the term עינוי נפש, 'affliction of the soul,' can be misleading. One thing is certain – at no time is there any mitzvah or praiseworthy practice of actively causing oneself pain.[14] The term עינוי refers to the holding back of something usually wanted, rather than to active affliction.[15] The debate is whether one purpose of this passive affliction is to cause 'active' suffering, or merely to be a preventative measure.

However, Chazal infer that another verb used in reference to Yom Kippur also relates to abstinence. The gemara learns from the extra word 'Shabbaton' that not just food and drink are forbidden – washing, rubbing oil on oneself, wearing shoes and marital relations must also be refrained from.[16]

As 'Shabbaton' means rest, or cessation, this would appear to indicate that the purpose is indeed the avoidance of distraction, rather than any inherent value to suffering. Presumably all would agree that this aspect exists on Yom Kippur, even if it is not the only reason for fasting.

On the other hand, those who deny any inherent value to self-affliction have difficulty explaining what the two different verbs used by the Torah (affliction and cessation) represent. The Rambam uses the two terms interchangeably, and it would appear that he understands that the Torah only described the 'Shabbaton' as an 'affliction' in order to clarify what it is we are supposed to rest from.[17]

Conclusion

Personally, here I have a conflict between the view that appears to be slightly better supported by the sources (that of the Chovos Halvavos and the Chasidei Ashkenaz) and the position that makes more sense to me philosophically (that of the Rambam). As this is ostensibly a non-halachic (or meta-halachic) issue, my aim on Yom Kippur (and the rest of the year where possible) is to achieve the right frame of mind rather than a physical purge from impurity.

Wishing all Klal Yisrael a Yom Kippur used in the appropriate way (whatever that is!) and a Gmar Chasima Tova.


[1] See Yeshaya 58:5-6 (and the rest of that section), read as the Haftarah for Yom Kippur in the morning.
[2] There is a possibility that people fasted in accordance with the practices of their ancestors, without any real thought as to why they were doing so (such a phenomenon exists today as well among the non-religious, traditional community, who tend to fast on Yom Kippur). However, the castigation of Yeshayahu implies that people attached real value to what they were doing, not just sentimental or cultural value.
[3] Chovos Halevavos, Sha'ar HaPerishus, chapter 1.
[4] Ibid. chapter 2. He goes on to explain the details of this at length in the rest of Sha'ar HaPerishus.
[5] See Rokeach (R' Elazar of Worms), Hilchos Teshuva, siman 6 onwards. This idea is one offshoot of the broader philosophy of the Chasidei Ashkenaz - the mitzvos of the Torah that obligate all only consist of the bare minimum of what Hashem expects of us. Thus they wrote extensively about additional recommended practices that are not found in the Torah or even in the words of Chazal.
[6] Although the group ceased to exist after the passing of the Rokeach, many of the talmidim of the Rokeach and their talmidim (e.g. the Or Zarua, Maharam MiRotenburg and the Rosh) were the primary Ashkenazi poskim together with the Ba'alei HaTosfos. This is likely at least one of the reasons that the Rema tends to be more stringent than the Shulchan Aruch in his rulings.
[7] This tefila was authored by R' Avraham Danzig (1748-1820, Eastern Europe), the author of the Chayei Adam, who was not known as a mystic.
[8] A possible precedent to this view in Chazal could be the practice of R' Tzadok, who fasted for 40 years in an attempt to prevent the destruction of Yerushalayim (Gittin 56a).
[9] HaEmunos v'HaDeyos, Ma'amar 10. However, it is not entirely clear from R' Saadya's words whether this rejection is for practical reasons alone, or because of something more fundamental. For similar reasons it is hard to find a concrete proof from the words of Chazal for this view – although there is plenty of criticism of self-affliction, this may be merely for practical reasons.
[10] Kuzari 2:50; 3:1.
[11] Hilchos Deyos 3:1; Introduction to Avos (Shmona Prakim) chapter 4. However, the Rambam does not share R' Saadya's view that abstinence should be only from the forbidden – see Lust - permitted  and forbidden. The common denominator between them is that physical pleasure is only negative insofar as it distracts from constructive pursuits.
[12] See Moreh Nevuchim 3:12. This is also why Olam Haba has to be free from physicality according to the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 8:2).
[13] Moreh Nevuchim 3:43. See also Chinuch, mitzvah 313, who adds that it would not be fitting for a servant to come to judgement in front of his master whilst under the effects of food and drink, thinking about physical things. However, against this one could argue that fasting may have the opposite effect, diverting the attention of some to their physical hunger.
[14] On the contrary, active self-harm is forbidden. See Devarim 14:1 (where this is the most explicit in the Torah) and Bava Kama 90b.
[15] Thus the same term is used by the Torah to describe nedarim, personal undertakings to abstain from certain things (Bamidbar 30:14). The same verb is used by Lavan when warning Ya'akov not to mistreat his daughters (Bereishis 31:50), and this is understood by Chazal to be referring to the withholding of marital obligations (Yoma 77a). See also Yoma 74b, where Chazal interpret this term similarly regarding the Egyptians' treatment of Bnei Yisra'el.
[16] Yoma 74a. The rishonim debate whether or not these prohibitions are Biblical or Rabbinic, but even if they are entirely Rabbinic, one can see from the word used what Chazal's intentions were when making these restrictions.
[17] Hilchos Shevisas Asor 1:4-6