When the fast of the 17th of Tammuz ends, in Kew Gardens Hills, New York, 2011

If you live elsewhere, you cannot simply rely on these times. You should go to the linked websites and check out the time for your particular zip code. Also note that this is for this particular year. It is not the same time, precisely, each year.

The Etz Chaim Bulletin has:
Fast of 17 Tammuz    begins 4:28 AM; ends 9:05 PM




















According to Chabad.org, it is the middle number here:

Shkiah (sunset)	8:23 pm
Fast Ends	8:55 pm
Tzeit Hakochovim (nightfall)	9:02 pm

And according to MyZmanim:

Fast Begins at 3:57 AM Dawn - Degrees or at 4:27 AM Dawn - Fixed Minutes Eating of a settled character - אכילת קבע - may not be started during the half hour immediately preceding dawn. Please consult your Rabbi for details.  Fast Ends R' Tukaccinsky The fast ends no later than the emergence of ג' כוכבים בינונים at - 8:58 PM R' Moshe Feinstein One who finds fasting difficult may eat at - 9:02 PM One who does not find fasting difficult should wait until the time for מוצאי שבת at - 9:11 PM ?מהיכא תיתי

(The time given for Rabbi Tukaccinsky is typically 3 minutes more than the Chabad time, for the following reason they give:

* 3 minutes have been added to compensate for the fact that the שקיעה times (for ירושלים) printed in ר' טוקצינסקי-'s luach, are 2 to 3 minutes later than the times for "sea level שקיעה". Definitions provided by other Poskim may also be subject to a similar translating.
)

I wonder whether the 9:05 given by the Etz Chaim bulletin is similarly a 3 minute shift to R' Moshe Feinstein's zman.

Now, I have given three times. Which one do we hold like? More importantly, which one do you hold like? Ask your parents, or your local Orthodox rabbi, to see how you hold in general.

What can I add? Oh, yes. Here is what gives me mild discomfort about the fast of the 17th of Tammuz, in particular. To cite Wikipedia regarding the Sumerian deity Tammuz -- the name of the month, Chazal tell us, was adopted by the Jews on their return from Bavel:

In Babylonia, the month Tammuz was established in honor of the eponymous god Tammuz, who originated as a Sumerian shepherd-god, Dumuzid or Dumuzi, the consort of Inanna and, in his Akkadian form, the parallel consort of Ishtar. The Levantine Adonis ("lord"), who was drawn into the Greek pantheon, was considered by Joseph Campbell among others to be another counterpart of Tammuz,^[1] son and consort. The Aramaic name "Tammuz" seems to have been derived from the Akkadian form Tammuzi, based on early Sumerian Damu-zid.^{[citation needed]}The later standard Sumerian form, Dumu-zid, in turn became Dumuzi in Akkadian.

Beginning with the summer solstice came a time of mourning in the Ancient Near East, as in the Aegean: the Babylonians marked the decline in daylight hours and the onset of killing summer heat and drought with a six-day "funeral" for the god. Recent discoveries reconfirm him as an annual life-death-rebirth deity: tablets discovered in 1963 show that Dumuzi was in fact consigned to the Underworld himself, in order to secure Inanna's release,^[2] though the recovered final line reveals that he is to revive for six months of each year (see below).

In cult practice, the dead Tammuz was widely mourned in the Ancient Near East. Locations associated in antiquity with the site of his death include both Harran and Byblos, among others. A Sumerian tablet from Nippur (Ni 4486) reads:

She can make the lament for you, my Dumuzid, the lament for you, the lament, the lamentation, reach the desert — she can make it reach the house Arali; she can make it reach Bad-tibira; she can make it reach Dul-šuba; she can make it reach the shepherding country, the sheepfold of Dumuzid

"O Dumuzid of the fair-spoken mouth, of the ever kind eyes," she sobs tearfully, "O you of the fair-spoken mouth, of the ever kind eyes," she sobs tearfully. "Lad, husband, lord, sweet as the date, [...] O Dumuzid!" she sobs, she sobs tearfully.^[3]

These mourning ceremonies were observed even at the very door of the Temple in Jerusalem to the horror of the Israelite prophet Ezekiel, whose Biblical prophecy expresses Yahweh's anger at His people's apostate worship of idols:

"Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz. Then said he unto to me, 'Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these." —Ezekiel 8:14-15

Ezekiel's testimony is the only direct mention of Tammuz in the Hebrew Bible.

Mourning for Tammuz is a cult practice, and one that even extended to the Jews, until the time of Churban Bayis Rishon. Yes, we have our own reason for fasting, but no explicit mention of a reason is given in Tanach. Rather, in Zecharia 8:19, it is referred to as 'the fast of the fourth month', and the gemara fills in the rest of the details.

Update: I'll add to this post some halachos of the fast, from the 5th Avenue Synagogue:

I. Nature of the Fast

The first questioner asked a series of questions: What is the nature of the obligation to fast on the Tenth of Tevet? Under what circumstances may one be lenient? For example, if a soldier is on standby or positioned on the border, though there is no danger right now, may he omit fasting because he could be called into action? Is there a difference between eating and drinking? May one shower?

A. Bathing

The answer said that Asara B’Tevet and the other minor fasts (Shiva Asar B’Tammuz and Tzom Gedaliah, with Ta’anit Esther in another category because it is not a mournful occasion) are not treated as strictly as Tisha B’Av, in that the only prohibition is eating and drinking, and the other afflictions (refraining from washing, anointing, leather shoes, and marital intimacy) are not observed. Some say that people of high religious spirit should be strict even on the minor fast days, citing the Bach, who said we do not see people bathe on the three minor fasts. R. Rabinovich concludes that this is not a proof, because the Bach lived in an era when it was uncommon for people to bathe other than on Erev Shabbat. Even according to the Bach, in years when Asara B’Tevet falls on Friday, one should bathe. In our era, when people are accustomed to a daily hot shower, we do not see people impose a stringency against bathing on the Tenth of Tevet. R. Rabinovich added that, especially for soldiers, whose exertions cause perspiration, to be stringent would be acting strangely. Finally, he cited the Aruch Hashulchan, who said that even according to the Bach one may wash in cold water or take a sauna.

Fasting on the 17th of Tammuz, part x (and when the fast ends today)

Note: According to the Etz Chaim bulletin, the fast of Tzom Gedaliah ends in Kew Gardens Hills, New York, in this year, 2008, at 7:17 PM.

I was reading through Sh"ut Maharil over Rosh Hashanah, and encountered a few interesting teshuvot. Here, in teshuva 45, is one which bears some relevance to an ongoing topic, which I put aside for a while (but is still a work in progress) -- the series on the obligation, or option, or else prohibition, of fasting nowadays during the four fasts (Tzom Gedaliah included -- see the label shivasar betammuz).

I was actually reading it in a critical edition of Maharil, which noted alternate readings from difference printings, such as who it was addressed to, etc.

But anyway, the teshuva, as printed to the right, captures most of the essence. It is not made absolutely clear what the she`eilah was. But it seems to me that the situation was similar to the case presented before Shlomo haMelech, though with only one woman. (Though this is only my best attempt at reconstruction. See below, in parens.)

That is, a woman who was found by her a child that died -- perhaps when she awoke, and the thought was that she rolled over and smothered it by accident. According to the Geonim, such an instance is not just a tragedy, but one for which the woman is responsible -- it is an accident close to meizid, deliberate, in that it was an act of negligence, perhaps. Nowadays, we may or may not agree with this assessment. (See this Wikipedia article on co-sleeping.)

It also seems that in such a case, they were machmirim. That is, they were stringent upon her to perform some kind of physical atonement, some practical suffering or self-affliction as a means of atoning for meizid or near-meizid. And this would involve fasting. (I wonder at the usefulness of such a practice. In general, today, we do not engage in such self-affliction. Here, it has the effect of making the woman feel guilty for this incidence of SIDS -- which they obviously felt she was, and perhaps she was. But giving a definite fixed course of approved action in which one beats oneself up and then is declared to have atoned may -- or may not -- have a positive psychological effect.)

In the expanded teshuva, the Maharil says "tzar li" on the incident. And as we see here, he explains that he is conflicted. On the one hand, the Geonim said what they said. On the other hand, the woman in question is pregnant, and he says that he is not able to be machmir upon a pregnant woman that she should fast, for there are some women who -- the critical edition brings printings which inject "from the many fastings" -- lose the pregnancy.

That, I would note, would of course double the tragedy, besides for the fact that just for penance we would not put a fetus at risk. So he says he would not be machmir upon her in such a case.

(As noted above, this was only my best attempt at reconstruction of the case. If you have an alternative reading, please drop me a comment. For example, perhaps it is not an accidentally smothered infant, but rather a miscarriage, and the question is if she is at fault, such that it is shogeg karov lemaizid. But perhaps we can fault fasting for this miscarriage, which is why he is generally not machmir? There are difficulties with this reading.)

This may bear relevance to a post which exists two posts ago in this series, in which I discussed possible justification for a modern rabbinic position stating that pregnant and nursing women should not fast on Tisha BeAv. This despite the fact that there is an explicit gemara in which Rava states that pregnant and nursing women should fast (and complete/compensate for the fast, on Tisha BeAv). The other three fasts, we saw justification for not fasting, and I elaborated on that and showed how a new assessment of the teva might raise their level to that of cholah, such that they should not fast. See there.

What this teshuva would contribute is a historical acknowledgment that fasting can cause miscarriage, and a resulting halachic reluctance to prescribe fasting. This could then provide halachic precedence (not that any such is needed) for such a scientific realization, a different appreciation of the metziut. On the other hand, there are those alternate girsaot which make clear that this is the result of many fasts -- just as some studies show an impact on premature labor from prolonged fasting, such as for Ramadan. But back on that first hand, if other studies were to show that there is indeed an impact from such a fast as Tisha BeAv, then the same justification may apply. And back to that second hand, one could possibly draw a distinction from imposing this optional fast of affliction for shogeg karov lemeizid, as opposed to a required fast such as Tisha BeAv. And back to the first hand, if there is indeed a real danger, one may easily argue that the same reasoning should apply.

I should stress, not halacha lemaaseh. But I thought that this teshuva of the Maharil brings something interesting to the table in terms of this discussion.

Fasting on the 17th of Tammuz, pt ix

I fully intend to continue this series. But before proceeding, I thought it important to establish the correct girsa of the Rambam. In an earlier post, I noted that Mechon Mamre's Mishna Torah, which is based on the majority of Yemenite manuscripts, had no leading vav in בשלשה עשר. And this had major relevance in terms of determining peshat in the Rambam. Namely, that he is not saying that all four fasts are minhag, as well as Taanis Esther, as Maggid Mishnah and Beis Yosef take it. Rather, only Taanis Esther is the topic.

Since then, I looked it up in the Frankel Rambam, and he notes that without the vav is what exists in the dfus rishonim and in the manuscripts. And from JNUL, I looked up such a manuscript. The relevant text begins six lines from the bottom of the image to the right, and indeed there is no leading vav. See it in context here, page 87. This text was from 1480.

Based on this, I believe that one would have to conclude that Maggid Mishnah is wrong. One is free to disagree with me on this, but from where I stand, it is fairly clear.

And so the Rambam never explicitly says that the reason we all fast nowadays is minhag. And this leaves it open -- it may indeed be because of minhag, but it may well be because the period of reshut only existed when the mikdash was standing, a position which seems clear from his peirush hamishnayot.

Bli neder, soon to come is a discussion of Rosh, how this may be a viable alternative to Ramban, and how this perhaps influences Tur.

Fasting on the 17th of Tammuz, pt viii

The previous version of this post got messed up in editing in Blogger, such that certain paragraphs dropped. I'll take this opportunity to revise it as well, with a certain anonymous commenter's comments in mind.

We now turn to discuss the position of Rabbenu Tam, as brought down in Magahot Maimoniot. Click on the image to the right to see it larger.

To translate:

"Rabbenu Tam permitted a yoledet to eat on Tzom Gedaliah, when it was eight days after she had given birth. And even though we say in perek Mefanin {in Shabbos, perek 18} that after seven days {from childbirth}, if she says 'I do not need,' we do not desecrate Shabbos on her behalf, and the fast of Gedaliah has the status of words of the Prophets {Divrei Kabbalah}, and the words of the prophets are like the words of Torah.."

To be continued in a moment. First, though, here is that gemara, Shabbos 129a:

אמרי נהרדעי חיה ג' ז' ול' ג' בין אמרה צריכה אני ובין אמרה לא צריכה אני מחללין עליה את השבת ז' אמרה צריכה אני מחללין עליה את השבת אמרה לא צריכה אני אין מחללין עליה את השבת ל' אפי' אמרה צריכה אני אין מחללין עליה את השבת אבל עושין ע"י ארמאי

The scholars of Nehardea said: A lying-in woman [has three periods: from] three [days after confinement], seven [days], and thirty [days]. From three [days], whether she says, 'I need it' or she says, 'I do not need it,' we desecrate the Sabbath for her. [From] seven [days], if she says 'I need it,' we desecrate the Sabbath for her; if she says, 'I do not need it,' we do not desecrate the Sabbath for her. [From] thirty days, even if she says, 'I need it,' we may not desecrate the Sabbath for her, yet we may do so by means of a gentile. Like Rav Ulla the son of Rabbi Illai, who said: All the requirements of a sick person may be done by means of a gentile on Shabbat, and as Rav Hamnuna, who said: In a matter entailing no danger [to life] {for a sick person}, one bids a gentile and he does it.

And now continuing the preceding. Even though it was Divrei Kabbalah, so how could we desecrate the fast for a woman eight days after birth?

even so, it is permitted, for we say in the first perek of Rosh haShanah that "he called it a fast day and he called it a joy, etc.," until "if they want, they fast and if they want, they do not fast." And therefore it is a reshut, and it is permitted for her to eat. Until here I {=Hagahot Maimoniot} found {in the teshuva from Rabbenu Tam}.

And it seems correct that even pregnant women and nursing women in general, who are in a great deal of pain, that they should be able to eat in all these fasts, with the exception of Tisha BeAv, from the fact that we said that "on Tisha BeAv, pregnant and nursing women fast and finish the fast on it, in the same way that they fast and finish the fast on Yom Kippur." Thus it is clear that the rest of the fasts, which are not so strict, they do not {need to} finish them."

I would note that Hagahot Maimoniyot extends to these two classes of women, and then restricts for Tisha BeAv. But he never explicitly restricted in terms of the yoledet 8 days after, in terms of Tisha BeAv. And indeed, looking at that gemara, she still has the status of a cholah, and if she says she needs it, we would ask a gentile to do a melacha. On the other hand, if he is equating these two to the first

Furthermore, this diyuk which Hagahot Maimoniyot makes from the words of Rava on Pesachim 54b, that Tisha BeAv is like Yom Kippur in terms of fasting and finishing, is his own diyuk. It may indeed make plenty of sense, but we don't know for certain that Rabbenu Tam would agree.

How could we say otherwise? I would simply point out a few points.

1) We see that one can say in the gemara in Rosh HaShanah that even Tisha BeAv is a reshut, but that they still sent messengers since everyone universally fasted, because of the doubling of the tzarot. That does not mean it is not a reshut, just that people did not take advantage of it. See Rambam on peirush haMishnayot, for example.

2) The perek in Pesachim this din appears is called Makom SheNahagu. Perhaps even if it is a reshut on the level of Divrei Kabbalah, since this was the standard practice in these places, to universally fast, this was also the accepted practice in which pregnant and nursing women should fast and finish, just as they did on Yom Kippur.

3) We can read it Rabbenu Tam, and Hagahot Maimoniyot, in two ways:

a) that Rabbenu Tam said that this woman who had given birth should not fast because it was a reshut. If so, it would theoretically apply to any person whatsoever.

b) But alternatively, he did not say that anyone could opt out. He perhaps is holding something like Ramban, or Rosh. That is, on the level of Divrei Kabbalah, as we have seen, it is reshut. However, people accepted it upon themselves (and we can read this into ratzu or into some post-Talmudic imposition). Thus, the average person has the chovah to fast. But vis a vis the Divrei Kabbalah, it is only a reshut. Therefore, one cannot ask from the gemara in Shabbos about being mechalel for a woman eight days after birth, because indeed, there is no such restriction. And in terms of minhag, which this is, Tzom Gedaliah can be overcome for someone who has this status of cholah.

This still would obviously not apply to a pregnant or nursing woman on Tisha BeAv. After all, the gemara itself (Pesachim 54b) states that Rava expounded that pregnant and nursing women fast and finish the fast on Tisha BeAv, just as they do on Yom Kippur. But it is quite possible that a woman 8 days after birth is of sufficient cholah status that it would overcome this, since in terms of the Divrei Kabbalah it only has the status of reshut.

The chiddush of this step would be to reduce the level of cholah required to be able to break the fast. Even without the chiddush, at a specific level of illness, a sick man or woman can break his or her fast. But if what I am suggesting is correct, we can move the threshold for Tisha BeAv to be more in accordance with that of Shiva Asar BeTammuz, even though of course a pregnant or nursing woman would still not be included, as we have that explicit gemara to the contrary.

Though the following are not the words of Rabbenu Tam, I believe this would be an appropriate place to discuss a pesak that was brought up on another blog, Divrei Chaim.

Apparently, Rabbi Nachum Rabinovitch of Yeshivat Ma'aleh Adumim as allowing pregnant (after 5th month) or nursing mother to eat on 9 Av because these women are categorically to be treated as cholos.

An anonymous commenter there questions this rav's right to be called Rabbi, which is an unfortunate trend. I can certainly understand why this pesak is questionable, as it goes against an explicit gemara.

I have not read his teshuva, so I do not know the particulars or his justification. However, I can well imagine what it might be, and while I do not issue pesak on this blog, on a theoretical level I think his position may very well be halachically sound.

Assume as we have assumed above, that even Tisha BeAv is a reshut, within the context of the Divrei Kabbalah. Then the threshold for cholah is lowered, but still does not include pregnant or nursing women. Or alternatively, do not assume as we have assumed above. Then, the threshold is still higher than for other fasts, but there is indeed some level at which we would say that one should not fast -- if it is harmful. Now, Rava was doresh -- that is, he expounded practically, how people should conduct themselves, by taking note of both the halachic principles and the physical metzius.

It could very well be that a pregnant or nursing woman in Rava's day was not considered to be a cholah. It is difficult for them to fast, sure, because they have a baby in their womb and need to eat for two, or have a suckling infant taking fluid out of their body. But in Judaism, just because something is difficult does not mean you do not have to do it. If for some reason, someone had to exert himself, such that fasting would be difficult, he would still presumably have to fast. (Or if they are considered cholot, not necessarily of a serious type.)

We perhaps see this treatment in the words of the Hagahot Maimoniot. He wrote (above):

And it seems correct that even pregnant women and nursing women in general, who are in a great deal of pain, that they should be able to eat in all these fasts, with the exception of Tisha BeAv...

The case before Rabbenu Tam was a woman 8 days after birth, who was a quasi-cholah. But these women, pregnant and nursing, are just going to suffer a lot in keeping the fast. And he would extend it to them, because it is a reshut, after all. But Tisha BeAv has that special exclusion in the gemara, in Rava's statement.

If in the time of the gemara they did not consider pregnant women to be an "invalid" of some sort, such that fasting could have a negative effect on them, that is not generally the case nowadays.

Here I will take pains to be clearer than I was in the previous version of this post. I am arguing here that this approach is halachically sound, rather than halachically correct. (It might be both.) By sound, I mean that one can take a set of axioms and set of ways to derive new facts, and derive the conclusion. But that does not mean that the axioms are correct -- one might argue with the scientific basis, or whether the interpretation of certain sources are the most compelling.

Nowadays, we understand that a woman who is pregnant is not just burdened by having to carry the baby, but there is a developing infant inside. And that that developing infant can be affected by hormonal changes in the mother, stress levels in the mother, nutrition of the mother, and so on. And if Chazal understood this (e.g. see how the manna could not taste like certain foods), we understand it at a better level.

In terms of pregnant women for certain, fasting can have an impact, by causing labor. Indeed, there is a spike in Jewish births immediately after Yom Kippur every year for precisely this reason. And I know of women who went into labor after fasting on Yom Kippur. And Rabbi Nachum Rabinovitch was speaking of pregnant women after the 5th month of pregnancy.

Now perhaps this is true only of women who have reached full term, as the anonymous commenter notes that the study concluded. I am not sure this is the only study on the subject. There are indeed many studies on the impact of fasting on developing infants. Here are a few:

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:UBuubi3SqJAJ:diglib.tums.ac.ir/pub/magmng/pdf/386.pdf+pregnant+woman+fast+study&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=863768

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/133/5/1709S

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6643131

http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/ajog/abstract.00000447-200108000-00024.htm;jsessionid=Lp7SLwGZm1VGXQLTG2s3wjN040cjJK3ZtZVFpbTZ2k6dLwqy6XJH!1805002056!181195629!8091!-1

According to the abstract for the third one, from nutrition.org,

"Epidemiological evidence suggests that maternal psychosocial stress, strenuous physical activity and fasting are independent risk factors for preterm birth and low birth weight."

Thus, fasting and stress can cause preterm birth and low birth weight. Other studies might contradict that. Fine. But then we have conflicting studies. Plus, there is the impact on the developing infant.

Ask most physicians nowadays if it is advisable for a pregnant or nursing woman to fast -- without subjecting them to pressure about the religious importance and significance of the fast -- and they will tell you "no". Perhaps this would raise pregnant or nursing women them to the level of cholah, particularly if we agree with the lowered threshold as defined above.

Or perhaps it is due to threat of dehydration, or other such factors that we know more about nowadays.

This may then be a case in which we can claim that the reality has changed (nishtaneh hateva). On a straightforward rendition, we can say that Rava was relying on ancient science, which was incorrect in assessing pregnant and nursing woman. Given a different knowledge of metzius, even Rava would have been doreish otherwise. We can "frum up" this claim as that the women nowadays are weaker than they were in the past, or that babies are different. We see this idea in legitimate halachic sources. Thus, we have some Rishonim (IIRC, Rosh) who discuss that a prohibition on drinking zugos do not apply, because that was only in those times in those geographical locations. And others say similar things as to the prohibition of eating fish with meat due to sakana -- that because of changing circumstance, it does not necessarily apply.

That does not mean that back then, they were acting incorrectly. They were not aware of the potential medical effects of fasting on nursing and pregnant women. And then we could apply "shomer petaim Hashem." But nowadays, it is inappropriate for a pregnant (or nursing) woman to fast on Tisha BeAv, as she is properly classified into the category of cholah.

Such could be, in my opinion, a potentially sound justification for this pesak. But I am not paskening, nor have I seen this pesak inside, so I do not know that it is the justification. And I still have many sources to go through, in order to see how this develops. E.g. how are pregnant or nursing women treated in other contexts, and how Rabbenu Tam's position is interpreted and developed.

Fasting on the 17th of Tammuz, pt vii

In this segment, we turn to the Rambam, in his peirush haMishnayos on Rosh Hashanah.

He writes:

"And during the Second Temple, the only one who fasted on the 10th of Tevet or the 17th of Tammuz as he who wanted to fast, but whoever did not want to fast would not fast. And because of this, they {the messengers} did not go out for Tevet or Tammuz.

Hashem, Yitbarach, said in Zechariah 8:

יט כֹּה-אָמַר ה צְבָאוֹת, צוֹם הָרְבִיעִי וְצוֹם הַחֲמִישִׁי וְצוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וְצוֹם הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה לְבֵית-יְהוּדָה לְשָׂשׂוֹן וּלְשִׂמְחָה, וּלְמֹעֲדִים, טוֹבִים; וְהָאֱמֶת וְהַשָּׁלוֹם, אֱהָבוּ. {פ}

19 'Thus saith 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, and cheerful seasons; therefore love ye truth and peace. {P}

It appears like that He gave in their hands the choice. If they want, they fast; if they want, they do not fast.

And the "fast of the fourth" is the 17th of Tammuz, for Tammuz is the fourth month. And the "fast of the fifth" is the 9th of Av, which falls out on the fifth month. And the "fast of the seventh" is the fast of Gedaliah. And the "fast of the tenth" is the tenth of Tevet, for it is in the tenth month.

And even though the permission was in their hands not to fast on the 9th month, as we mentioned, they fasted on it, because of the run of many types of mournful things that happened on it, as is explained in Taanit."

This ends the quote of the Rambam from perush haMishnayot.

We also have the Rambam in Mishneh Torah, the 5th perek of הלכות תענייות:

א יש שם ימים שכל ישראל מתענים בהם, מפני הצרות שאירעו בהן, כדי לעורר הלבבות, ולפתוח דרכי התשובה; ויהיה זה זיכרון למעשינו הרעים, ומעשה אבותינו שהיה כמעשינו עתה--עד שגרם להם ולנו אותן הצרות: שבזכרון דברים אלו, נשוב להיטיב, שנאמר "והתוודו את עוונם ואת עוון אבותם" (ויקרא כו,מ).

ב ואלו הן: יום שלושה בתשרי--שבו נהרג גדליה בן אחיקם, ונכבת גחלת ישראל הנשארה, וסיבב להתם גלותן; ועשירי בטבת--שבו סמך מלך בבל נבוכדנאצר הרשע על ירושלים, והביאה במצור ובמצוק; ושבעה עשר בתמוז, חמישה דברים אירעו בו--נשתברו הלוחות, ובטל התמיד מבית ראשון, והובקעה ירושלים בחורבן שני, ושרף אפוסטמוס הרשע ספר תורה, והעמיד צלם בהיכל.

ג ותשעה באב, חמישה דברים אירעו בו--נגזר על ישראל במדבר שלא ייכנסו לארץ; וחרב הבית בראשונה, ובשנייה; ונלכדה עיר גדולה ובית תור היה שמה והיו בה אלפים ורבבות מישראל, והיה להם מלך גדול ודימו כל ישראל וגדולי החכמים שהוא המלך המשיח, ונפל ביד גויים ונהרגו כולם, והייתה צרה גדולה כמו חורבן המקדש; ובו ביום המוכן לפורענות, חרש טורנוסרופוס הרשע ממלכי אדום את ההיכל ואת סביביו, לקיים "ציון שדה תיחרש" (ירמיהו כו,יח; מיכה ג,יב).

ד וארבעת ימי הצומות האלו--הרי הן מפורשין בקבלה, "צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי וצום העשירי" (זכריה ח,יט): צום הרביעי--זה שבעה עשר בתמוז, שהוא בחודש הרביעי; וצום החמישי--זה תשעה באב, שהוא בחודש החמישי; וצום השביעי--זה שלושה בתשרי, שהוא בחודש השביעי; וצום העשירי--זה עשרה בטבת, שהוא בחודש העשירי

ה ונהגו כל ישראל בזמנים אלו, להתענות בשלושה עשר באדר, זכר לתענית שנתענו בימי המן, שנאמר "דברי הצומות, וזעקתם" (אסתר ט,לא.

...

יט כל הצומות האלו, עתידים ליבטל לימות המשיח; ולא עוד, אלא שהם עתידים להיות ימים טובים וימי ששון ושמחה, שנאמר "כה אמר ה' צבאות, צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי וצום העשירי יהיה לבית יהודה לששון ולשמחה, ולמועדים, טובים; והאמת והשלום, אהבו" (זכריה ח,יט

But there is an extremely important girsological variant in the fifth paragraph to have a period after the word להתענות and a vav in ובשלושה עשר באדר, the importance of which we will describe later, but basically is whether the "minhag Yisrael" is said about the four fasts, or rather about Taanis Esther, which is a fast not mentioned in the gemara and is indeed a fast whose entire basis is that of minhag Yisrael. We will eventually come to discuss this. The text we use above is from Mechon Mamre, and in determining their text, they use the majority of Yemenite manuscripts.

We will examine supercommentaries later, but for now let us try to hammer out a peshat out for ourselves. As a result, this is my own speculative peshat. We will starting with the perush haMishnayos and carry it over to the Mishneh Torah, if we can:

1) One immediately noticeable point was that all of the optionality of רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין was in play during Second Temple times. In this commentary on the Mishna, he does not mention whether it was also in play after the Temple was destroyed, but the implication, which will be borne out, is that it was not in play.

This also means that Rambam could presumably does not define shalom as the Temple being built, for the gemara talks about no shalom + no shmad as being this example of reshut. This is then another Rishon against this explanation of shalom as the Beis HaMikdash, even though that would not necessarily mean that Rambam would hold we should not fast today. (Indeed, it is likely that he holds that we should.)

Where does Rambam get the idea that the fast vs. feast vs. option is based on the built or ruined state of the Temple, if that is not how he renders "shalom"? It would seem to come from a statement later on in the same daf of gemara, in a dispute as to whether Megillat Taanit was nullified:

רבי יוחנן ורבי יהושע בן לוי אמרי לא בטלה מגילת תענית הני הוא דתלינהו רחמנא בבנין בהמ"ק אבל הנך כדקיימי קיימי

Thus, the All-Merciful tied their status as moed to the state of the Beis Hamikdash. However, as Rashi elaborated (as we discussed earlier), this means that it was established as a fast day at the destruction of the first Temple, and established as a moed at the building of the second Temple. And after the destruction, it is not necessarily a moed, but can depend on various states of shalom, gezeira, etc. But those in Megillat Taanit were not initially tied in to the state of the Beit HaMikdash, and so at its destruction we would not be compelled to say they are moed such that fasting would be forbidden on these days.

But this is apparently not how Rambam is taking it. Rather, it would appear that he holds that any permission to eat and not fast -- and thus treat it as a moed -- is based on the state of the Beis HaMikdash. Thus, during the time the Second Temple stood, one could eat. And afterwards, one cannot. We will see this in the Mishneh Torah later, when we get to it.

2) In terms of רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין, does he think this means the entire global Jewish community, or its majority? Or does he think it refers to the individual? That is, does he subscribe to Ran's parsing, or Ramban's? Well, he writes מי שהיה רוצה מתענה and ומי שלא היה רוצה לא היה מתענה. Thus, it is safe to assume he subscribes to Ran's parsing (which is the correct one). Parsing is not the same as assuming different eras, though, as we shall see.

3) In terms of whether Tisha BeAv is also a reshut, when he stated

"And even though the permission was in their hands not to fast on the 9th month, as we mentioned, they fasted on it, because of the run of many types of mournful things that happened on it, as is explained in Taanit."

Rambam made clear that it is indeed a reshut, and the fact that there were many mournful things affected their decision whether or not to fast, rather than the basic status of reshut vs. chovah.

4) However, there are some major difficulties reading this peirush haRambam into the Mishnah and into the gemara. This is important because if the Rambam is against the gemara -- if he misread the gemara, or if his reading is extremely awkward -- we should rule in accordance with the gemara and against the Rambam (and in line with mefarshim such as Ran and Rashi).

Firstly, he assumes that רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין is the state throughout the entire Second Temple period. Looking at the gemara, this means that the second Temple period was then no shalom + no gezeirah.

But Rav Pappa sets up a situation where there are three states. What is the case of shalom? And what is the case of no shalom + yes gezeirah?

One could posit that Rambam thinks all three states occurred in Second Temple times. But it is not very convincing. By writing what he wrote, and only what he wrote, that the navi was in effect establishing it as a reshut, rather than claiming he was establishing it as a moed, Rambam is pretty clearly saying that specifically there, during Bayit Sheni, the status was one of reshut.

Instead, by examining what he writes here and comparing with what he writes in Mishneh Torah, I believe the answer is that Rambam defines the three states as follows:

I - shalom -- this is during Messianic times, when it is established once and for all as only a moed. See Mishneh Torah, seif 19, for where Rambam effectively says this. Thus, in stating this, Zechariah was making a prediction for future messianic times.

II - no shalom, but also no gezeira -- this is the Second Temple times. During this time, it was a reshut. See his peirush haMishnayot for this idea.

III - no shalom, and yes gezeira -- this is from the destruction of the Second Temple until the present day, and will be the continuing state until messianic times. This is why Rambam not not mention post-Churban in the peirush haMishnayos about reshus, and why he does not mention the concept of reshus at all in the Mishneh Torah.

It is slightly awkward in how he decides to define post-churban an no shalom + yes gezeira, but in terms of reading Rambam into the gemara, I believe this is the correct approach. (We will see Maggid Mishnah later.)

5) However, this would mean that Rambam is claiming that there was no reshut during post-Churban for such fasts as the 17th of Tammuz. Rather, it is a case of chovah. There are some difficulties with this peshat.

The first difficulty which comes to mind is the gemara in Taanis 11b that אין תענית ציבור בבבל אלא תשעה באב בלבד. We can say, as per Tosafot, that this is because they had lots of rain and no reason to fast for rain. But why is the 17th of Tammuz not a public, required fast day, just like Tisha BeAv. One could presumably come up with a valid reinterpretation of this gemara.

The second difficulty is Rashi's diyuk into the Mishna. The Mishna stated:

דף יח, א משנה על ששה חדשים השלוחין יוצאין על ניסן מפני הפסח על אב מפני התענית על אלול מפני ר"ה על תשרי מפני תקנת המועדות על כסליו מפני חנוכה ועל אדר מפני הפורים וכשהיה בהמ"ק קיים יוצאין אף על אייר מפני פסח קטן

and Rashi takes note of the words וכשהיה בהמ"ק קיים יוצאין אף על אייר מפני פסח קטן. This shows that the Mishna was written after the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash. And so everything in the first part of the Mishna was sent out post-destruction. But post-destruction, when Rambam holds it is a chovah to fast, why shouldn't they send out messengers for the 17th of Tammuz?

And to echo the Ran, it does not make sense to say that even when fasting was a chovah, they did not send out messengers, merely because initially, during Bayis Sheini, it was a reshus.

Perhaps we can suggest that the way the Mishnah is structured it that the first portion gives a list of the intersection of Binyan Bayis and Churban, and thus only lists things which were both during the Bayis as well as after. And the purpose of the last portion is to add something which was only during the Binyan Bayis. Still, it does seem quite awkward to omit these.

The third difficulty is Rav Pappa's statement why they opted to fast on Tisha BeAv despite its status as reshut:

אמר רב פפא שאני ט' באב הואיל והוכפלו בו צרות
דאמר מר בט' באב חרב הבית בראשונה ובשניה ונלכדה ביתר ונחרשה העיר

The thing is that Rav Pappa says והוכפלו בו צרות. Most literally, this would mean "doubled." And indeed, Tosafot (on the daf) appears to make that diyuk -- that it is not only the four events, but also that the identical tzarah happened twice. And that would be the destruction of the second Temple.

But another issue is that of the items helpfully listed by the gemara, two of the four happened at the destruction of the second Temple. That is:

חרב הבית בראשונה ובשניה -- one is the destruction of the first Temple and the other is the destruction of the second
ונלכדה ביתר -- this was second Temple
ונחרשה העיר -- the razing of the walls of Jerusalem happened in the first Temple.

That is how many explain it. But Rambam himself in Mishneh Torah explains this as referring to the destruction of the second Temple:
ובו ביום המוכן לפורענות, חרש טורנוסרופוס הרשע ממלכי אדום את ההיכל ואת סביביו, לקיים "ציון שדה תיחרש" א

And an additional one, mentioned in Taanit but somehow not here (and Rambam knows about, as he makes reference to Taanis in this regard):

נגזר על אבותינו שלא יכנסו לארץ -- which was in the midbar at the sin of the spies, well before the first Temple stood.

But for Rambam, this has to be a reason that people during second Temple times, before its destruction, decided universally to fast. This is answerable extremely awkwardly, in that one can just focus on the two of the five -- the destruction of the Temple and the decree in the midbar that they would not enter the last. Still, it is awkward within the flow of the gemara, and would read better if all the events listed caused them to decide to fast. But that could only be true if the reshus existed post-churban.

Perhaps this is why Rambam in peirush haMishnayos diverges from the language of the statement of Rav Pappa and from the reasons listed in the gemara. Ramban states מפני תכיפת מיני האבל שאירעו בו כמו שיתבאר בתענית. Why does Rambam write מפני תכיפת מיני האבל שאירעו בו rather than Rav Pappa's language of הואיל והוכפלו בו צרות?

Also, while Rambam says תכיפת מיני האבל, perhaps we should substitute a ק to make it תקיפת מיני האבל, which is a point Tosafot makes about the severity of the events that occurred.

I would conclude that Rambam's peshat is sustainable, but is on quite shaky ground. I would prefer Rashi and Ran's peshat -- and even Ramban's peshat! -- over this.

6) However, the peshat I gave in Rambam above is not at all how Maggid Mishnah, Don Vidal of Tolosa, explains it. Rather, he either equates Rambam with Ramban, or else reads it as a post-Talmudic acceptance of the reshus as a chovah, mitaam minhag.

Maggid Mishnah writes what is pictured to the right. One of the most important points here is the text he quotes. Specifically, he leads off with ונהגו כל ישראל וכו, on the topic of the four fasts. But in the text above, we do not have such a text. Furthermore, see the word at the bottom of the image, ובשלשה, and know that this is giving you the preface of his commentary on the next page, where it is the beginning of the dibbur hamatchil which reads ובשלשה עשר וכו, and is going on Taanis Esther. This is the girsological issue I mentioned briefly earlier.

Our text, taken from Mechon Mamre, where they go by the majority of Yemenite manuscripts, reads:

ד וארבעת ימי הצומות האלו--הרי הן מפורשין בקבלה, "צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי וצום העשירי" (זכריה ח,יט): צום הרביעי--זה שבעה עשר בתמוז, שהוא בחודש הרביעי; וצום החמישי--זה תשעה באב, שהוא בחודש החמישי; וצום השביעי--זה שלושה בתשרי, שהוא בחודש השביעי; וצום העשירי--זה עשרה בטבת, שהוא בחודש העשירי

ה ונהגו כל ישראל בזמנים אלו, להתענות בשלושה עשר באדר, זכר לתענית שנתענו בימי המן, שנאמר "דברי הצומות, וזעקתם" (אסתר ט,לא.

As we have it, the words ונהגו כל ישראל בזמנים אלו להתענות have absolutely nothing to do with the four fast. Zemanim Eilu do not mean "these times" of the year. Rather, it is the equivalent of bizman hazeh, in our days. The point is that the gemara makes absolutely no mention of Taanis Esther, but in our days people have adopted this Taanis.

In contrast, Maggid Mishnah has an extra vav on בשלשה, such that he has ובשלשה. His text thus reads:

ונהגו כל ישראל בזמנים אלו להתענות ובשלושה עשר באדר

Thus, this would appear to mean "and all of Israel is accustomed to fast during these times {=the four fasts} as well as on the 13th of Adar."

A slightly more awkward alternative would be "and all of Israel is accustomed to fast nowadays {during these fasts}, as well as on the 13th of Adar."

In terms of the meaning of the term בזמנים אלו, Rambam uses it two other times in Mishnah Torah, and I believe in both cases it means bizman hazeh. See here and here. If so, we would be forced into the more awkward alternative.

However, once we remove the extra vav, in accordance with the majority of Yemenite manuscripts, it becomes clear that the topic was never the four fasts.

Having processed the dibbur hamatchil, we can now turn to the content of the commentary. It would seem that besides being misled by an inaccurate manuscript, Maggid Mishnah did not have before him the Rambam's peirush haMishnayos. He perhaps explains it as parallel to Ramban's commentary in Toras HaAdam (but perhaps not).

To translate: "And all of Israel is accustomed, etc.": Rabbenu {Rambam} hangs our matter on custom {minhag}, in accordance with what is explained in the gemara there {in Rosh HaShanah 18b}, that in the time that there is peace, which is when the Temple is built, it will be for joy and happiness. Where there is no peace and there is no known decree on all of Israel, if they want they fast and if they want they do not fast. Except for the fast of Tisha BeAv, since the tzaros were doubled. And now, all have the custom to fast, just as Rabbenu has written, and so behold it is an obligation {chovah} upon all of Israel until the building of the Temple."

Thus, Maggid Mishnah states that this is in accordance with what is written in the gemara. There are two ways of reading him.

First, he could be saying that this is in accordance with the gemara, in that based on the rules there, it is entirely reshus. But nowadays, people accepted it as minhag, and that transforms it into chovah. This is the same way that Maariv was defined as a reshus by the gemara in its conclusion, yet widespread acceptance and practice has transformed it into a chovah.

Second, he could be saying that this is in accordance with the gemara, in that nowadays it is based on רצו, and if we take רצו as Ramban did, then the universal custom establishes a רצו מתענין such that it is a chovah.

If the former, then he is only off on two counts -- he states that Ramban would treat the time of the Bayis Sheni as shalom, when we see in perush haMishnayos that he did not; and secondly, that Rambam does not actually ascribe the four fasts to minhag -- that is a faulty girsa. (Indeed, our peshat was that Rambam held it was chovah after the mikdash because it was no shalom + yes gezeira.)

If the latter, then he would be off on more counts. For Ramban would hold that רצו מתענין is a function of the consensus of the global majority, and that is where minhag would tie in, while Rambam explicitly defines the רצו as the act of an individual; and Rambam also only defines the period in which it is subject to this optionality as during Second Temple times.

We will assume that he meant the former peshat in the Rambam, patterned after Maariv. I believe that one can ask about the applicability of this to this particular case of fasts -- and perhaps I will elaborate in a subsequent post. But it does not really matter, because as we have seen, that is not what Rambam really said.

Although perhaps we could construct an explanation of the Rambam in line with what Maggid Mishnah says. Thus, Rambam says in his perush haMishnayot that the individual reshut was during the second Temple, but perhaps we could claim (more than somewhat awkwardly, IMHO) that he meant the second Temple and onwards. And furthermore, when speaking about Tisha BeAv and the multiple events that occurred there, such that they universally decided to fast, we could even suggest that he was talking about after the churban haBayit (even though he never mentioned it). This would then resolve many of the difficulties presented above. This status of reshut would then continue indefinitely, and is no longer in force purely because of minhag which overrode the status of reshut, even though Rambam never mentioned that. And since it is patterned after Maariv, as an entirely post-Talmudic restriction, we do not need to say Ramban's peshat in ratzu, which we saw was extremely difficult to say, and furthermore goes against Rambam's definition of reshut as on an indvidual level. We would have to say this bizman hazeh even though Rambam does not explicitly say it is because of minhag (because that is not the correct girsa in the Rambam), and even though we could potentially ask Ran's question. This is possible to construct, but I am not convinced that it accurately portrays Rambam's position.

Fasting on the 17th of Tammuz, pt vi

In the previous segment, we began to discuss Ramban's position on fasting on the 17th of Tammuz and on the 9th of Av. We carefully analyzed his words, and suggested that did not mean that shalom meant that the Temple was standing, but rather that this happened to be the time that shalom was extant. If so, nowadays, we could claim, as with Rashi, that we have shalom without the Temple yet standing.

But there is more to analyze in this Ramban. Specifically, his unique understanding and parsing of רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין. To this end, I provide once again the translation of the excerpt taken from Ramban's Toras HaAdam. We resume discussion after the translation.

{First a paraphrase[?] of the gemara}:
Rav Pappa said: At a time that there is peace, it is made into joy. At a time that there is tzara, it is made into a fast-day. And nowadays {ha`idna} {by this, he refers to the "nowadays" of Rav Pappa, rather than the present day in the time of the Ramban}, that there is no peace and there is no tzara, if they want they fast, and if they want they do not fast. If so, Tisha BeAv as well {why should they send out}? Why does the Mishna state "upon six months the messengers go out -- on Av, because of the fast day? Rav Pappa said: Tisha BeAv is different, since the tzarot were doubled on it.

{Now he gives interjections into the preceding text.}
The explanation of:
"there is peace" -- this was in the time that the Temple was standing.

"there is no peace" -- such as {kegon} at the time of the destruction.

"and there is no tzara" -- in {any} known place in Yisrael.

"if they want" -- most of Israel, and they have a consensus

"not to fast" -- we do not bother them to fast, and messengers do not go out.

"if they want" -- most of of the community {here he uses the word tzibbur}

"to fast, they fast" -- and nowadays {veAchshav -- and here, Ramban means in Ramban's day, or perhaps in earlier generations of post-Talmudic times, but certainly not in Rav Pappa's day}, the majority of the community {tzibbur} wants {ratzu}, and is accustomed, to fast, and they have accepted it upon themselves. Therefore, it is forbidden for an individual {yachid} to breach their fence.

And all the more so in these generations, for behold, because of our sins, tzaros have increased in Israel, and there is no peace. Therefore, all are obligated to fast, from the words of kabbalah {=Neviim} and the institution of Neviim. {For it is not that middle ground Rav Pappa laid out.}

End excerpt of the Ramban.

There is a decided difference between the parse of the Ran and the parse of the Ramban. To remind you of Ran -- he felt that in Rav Pappa's days, even though in general everyone fasted, it had the status of reshut. In the phrase רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין, though he does not state so explicitly, he takes the phrase as a whole. Thus, ratzu mis'anin means the same thing as ratzu ein mitanin. If you choose to, you may fast. If you choose to, you may not fast. They are flip sides of the same coin. Taken as a whole, the entire phrase translates to reshus. As Ran says in his commentary on the side of the Rif:

מתענין רצו אין מתענין. פירוש וכיון דרשות הוא לא מטרחינן שלוחין עלייהו

Thus, the entire state in Rav Pappa's day was defined as a reshut. Even though in general, the consensus was to fast, this fasting was optional, and so an individual could bow out. And the same would therefore be true nowadays, he writes.

In contrast, Ramban takes the phrase into its parts. That is, there are not three states but rather four. In רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין, there is the state of רצו מתענין, and there is the state of רצו אין .מתענין In Rav Pappa's day, the state was רצו אין מתענין, because the general consensus of people was not to fast. And רצו means the majority of the nation of Israel. And it was specifically because of this they they did not impose the fast on everyone by sending out messengers.

However, Rav Pappa was already speaking of a potential time (in the future) where the consensus of the global Jewish majority was to fast. In such a case, of רצו מתענין, it is an obligation to fast, and an individual must go along and not be poreitz the geder they would establish. In such times, presumably, they would indeed have sent out messengers.

Ran objected to this interpretation on the practical grounds that it seemed from the gemara's question why not to send out in Tammuz that the general consensus of practice was indeed to fast.

I believe that on literary grounds, we can also discriminate between these two options. That is, regardless of the widespread practice in the time of the gemara, and Rav Pappa, what are the merits, from a linguistic perspective, of reading רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין as a single statement meaning reshus? And what are the merits of reading רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין as two separate states?

After reading the gemara over several times both ways, my sense is that Ran's rendition of the phrase is more compelling, and plausible, and that Ramban's rendition is less compelling, and somewhat awkward. As such, if I were ruling {but note that this is all not intended halacha lemaaseh}, I would rule in favor of Ran over Ramban. Therefore, even today, it is a reshut, and someone can opt out of fasting on the 17th of Tammuz. (If we do not say, as we said before, that nowadays it is forbidden to fast.)

Note that I am not necessarily convinced that it was widespread practice to fast in Rav Pappa's days. In fact, I think it is quite possible that in Mishnaic, post-Temple times, people did not generally choose to fast on the 17th of Tammuz. Even so, there should be no change in its state as reshut (unless we go the route that Maariv took).

Here is a point I do not want to lose, so I will stick it in here. What about the 9th of Av? Does reshut apply there? I could read the gemara in two ways. When we have in the gemara in Rosh haShana:

אי הכי ט"ב נמי אמר רב פפא שאני ט"ב הואיל והוכפלו בו צרות

, do we understand אי הכי ט"ב נמי as "if so, Tisha BeAv should also be a reshut, and by extension from this, they should not have sent messengers in Av?" Or do we understand it as "since Tisha BeAv is indeed also a reshut, they should not have sent messengers in Av?" If the former, then by answering שאני ט"ב הואיל והוכפלו בו צרות, Rav Pappa would be giving a reason it is not a reshut. If the latter, he could be explaining why they in fact sent out messengers -- despite the fact that it was a reshut, because הוכפלו בו צרות, in general people kept it, and so it was worth it to trouble the messengers to go out. (Other gemaras would then be imposed on top of that.) This would tie in to the question of general practice on the 17th of Tammuz in the days of the Mishna and in the days of Rav Pappa, which is why I saw fit to put this digression here.

At any rate, forgetting this digression, let us return to the two parses of רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין, as either a single statement (Ran), or a composite statement of two (Ramban).

This might be determinable by analyzing how the phrase Ratzu X Ratzu Y is used in general throughout the gemara. I do not believe that the weight in general is on the word ratzu, to mean widespread acceptance. Rather, when we have Ratzu X Ratzu Y, there is an either/or choice before people, and they are free to choose either X or Y. If so, this would be further evidence that Ran is correct and Ramban is incorrect.

But we need to go through each of these cases.

One excellent case occurs in Sanhedrin 11a. The speaker in this case is none other than Rav Pappa, the same speaker as in Rosh Hashana. In Sanhedrin 11a, we find:

מיתיבי כמה עיבור השנה שלשים יום רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר חדש אמר רב פפא רצו חדש רצו שלשים יום

Or, taking the Soncino translation:

An objection was raised: How long a period was intercalated in the year? Thirty days. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: A month {which is equal to 29 days}? — R. Papa said: [The matter is left to the judgment of the intercalary court:] if they wish, they may add a month; or if they wish thirty days.

The idea is not that there is some consensus of all of Israel, and then one of the choices is compelled, consistently. Rather, in the construction ratzu X ratzu Y, as used by Rav Papa himself, it means that when they come to intercalate, they can either choose to add 29 days or 30 days, and it is up to them at that point in time.

I believe this gemara in Sanhedrin is sufficient by itself to favor Ran over Ramban in their respective parses, but we may continue.

In Zevachim 103b, in terms of the behavior of the kohanim vis a vis the hides of certain korbanot which are gifts to the kohanim:

חטאת ואשם וזבחי שלמי ציבור מתנה לכהן רצו מפשיטין אותן לא רצו אוכלין אותן ע"ג עורן

This is not based on minhag, such that subsequently one behavior is required. Rather, the point is that they may either opt for X (flaying them) or Y (eating them upon their hide). This is slightly different because it is ratzu, X, lo ratzu, Y. This is indeed a somewhat different construction, and perhaps we should not extrapolate from it.

But we have Sanhedrin 34b:

דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב שלשה שנכנסו לבקר את החולה רצו כותבין רצו עושין דין שנים כותבין ואין עושין דין

Or in Soncino's translation:

Rab Judah said in Rab's name, viz.: If three [persons] come to visit a sick man, they may, according to their desire, either record [his bequest] {as witnesses}, or render a judicial ruling {as a bet din, since they are three}. In case of two, however, they may write it down, but not render a judicial ruling.

The idea here is that they may choose either X or Y, at their own discretion. We should understand it similarly in our gemara about fasting, and not grant special weight to the former or the latter clause. (The same gemara occurs in Bava Kamma 113b.)

Another occurrence of the pattern Ratzu X Ratzu Y in Gittin 58b:

מיתיבי זו משנה ראשונה ב"ד של אחריהן אמרו הלוקח מן הסיקריקון נותן לבעלים רביע ויד בעלים על העליונה רצו בקרקע נוטלין רצו במעות נוטלין

Or using Soncino's translation:

This was the first Mishnah. The succeeding Beth din laid down that one who purchases from the sicaricon gives to the original owner a fourth, the latter having his choice of taking the payment either in land or in money.

Once again, the idea of Ratzu X Ratzu Y is that at the present moment, there is an option before someone, who can choose either one or the other.

The next example is not strictly of the pattern of Ratzu X Ratzu Y, because the second Ratzu is missing. However, this may still be exceptionally relevant because it occurs in Rosh haShanah 19b, which is just one daf after our gemara in Rosh HaShanah, 18b. Furthermore, it is about a calendrical institution by, among others, Zechariah the prophet.

רב נחמן בר חסדא העיד רבי סימאי משום חגי זכריה ומלאכי על שני אדרים שאם רצו לעשותן שניהן מלאין עושין שניהן חסרין עושין אחד מלא ואחד חסר עושין וכך היו נוהגין בגולה

Perhaps the second ratzu was omitted because of the length of each option, or alternatively because there are three options instead of only two. But the idea is that whatever they choose of these three options, in terms of making the first and the second month of Adar malei or chaser, they may do.

One final example, in Eruvin 59b:

תורת פתח עליו בסולם שבין שתי חצירות רצו אחד מערב רצו שנים מערבין

Depending on the desires of the residents of the two adjoining courtyards, they can either make a separate or joint eruv. Thus, they are free to choose either option X or option Y.

Given all this precedent, it is, IMHO, extremely difficult to read our gemara in Rosh HaShanah differently, in a way which is also more awkward. I would say at this point "tiyuvta deRamban tiyuvta."

While we are at it, I might as well throw in that Rabbenu Chananel clearly parses רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין in accord with Ran and against Ramban. (Click on the picture to see him larger.) Rabbenu Chananel writes: "if there is no gezeira and no shalom -- like now, bizman hazeh -- if they want they fast, if they want, they do not fast. And since if they wanted to not fast on them, there is no obligation upon them, therefore, the messengers do not go out on them."

It is clear that he reads the entire phrase as a single phrase. And he assumes that they were indeed fasting, but the status was reshut. And were they to choose, they could opt out. And this was why they did not send out the messengers. Furthermore, he defines it as kemo ata, bizman hazeh. This indicates that he considers Rav Pappa's time to be halachically equivalent to our time, in accordance with Ran, and against Ramban.

In terms of Rashi, he could theoretically be read either way, because when he says "reshut," the dibbur hamatchil is only on ain mitananin. Still, I think Rashi's point is that since if they want, they need not fast, therefore, as he writes, they do not bother to send out the messengers. This would be like Rabbenu Chananel just said. Further, there is a slight divergence in Ramban. He does not say that they did not bother to send out messengers, or bother the messengers. Rather, he says that we are not matriach the people to cause them to fast. Rashi does not say this. Rashi seems to be in the same camp as Rabbenu Chananel and Ran. Furthermore, as we shall see, Rambam also parses the phrase in the same way as Ran.

I think at this point we do not need to be choshesh for the Ramban's position. (Of course, this is not halacha lemaaseh.) But Ran earlier equated Rambam with Ramban, and least in terms of conclusion.This position will have to be salvaged by going another route, as we will see. And so, in the next segment I will discuss Rambam.