9th of Av – a Radical TaNaKh Interpretation

The Fasts which are outside of Yom HaKippurim are observed widely across Rabbinic Orthodoxy and Karaite Orthodoxy.

Nevertheless, these are not prescribed in the Torah, and do not have status of a Torah commandment.

Furthermore, there is some discussion in the Book of Zechariah regarding the nature and status of these fasts.

Let us start with the problem – there are 4 fasts, plus the additional fast of Esther (which is not addressed by Zechariah, presumably because it had not been instituted in his day).

Ch.7 of Zechariah describes a Judaism that is unfamiliar to any practicing Jew of today, especially Rabbinic Orthodoxy.

2 When Bethel-sarezer, and Regem-melech and his men, had sent to entreat the favour of the LORD,

3 and to speak unto the priests of the house of the LORD of hosts, and to the prophets, saying: 'Should I weep in the fifth month, separating myself, as I have done these so many years?'

Contrary to the Rabbinic myth of the Sanhedrin, there is no Sanhedrin or collection of Rabbinic sages who are asked a legal / practical halachic question. The question is asked of the Kohanim הַכֹּהֲנִים and the Prophets. There are no Rabbis or Sanhedrin Sages. This is because the Sanhedrin is a Greco-Roman institution, and not part of the TaNaKh. There was no Oral Law, but Divine inspiration, the Kohanim and the prophets would consult to receive Divine inspiration -

4 Then came the word of the LORD of hosts unto me, saying:

5 'Speak unto all the people of the land, and to the priests, saying: When ye fasted and mourned in the fifth and in the seventh month, even these seventy years, did ye at all fast unto Me, even to Me?

This flies in the face of the Rabbinic myth, which is most widely distributed in the famous story of the Oven of Akhnai. In that myth, the rabbis attack Rabbi Eliezer for getting Divine answers to legal questions, and they propel the new concept of “Not in heaven” regarding the Torah. The rabbinic concept of majority is introduced as the means of achieving legal truth. There is no evidence for it in the TaNaKh, and is refuted by our very own chapter 7 of Zechariah.

In any case, the Prophet answers Bethel-Sarezer and Regem-melech, asking whether in fact they fasted for God? This was the 70 years without the Temple. That is an important distinction, since

some would argue that in post 2^nd temple times, the fasts would still apply. However, this is clearly questioned by Zechariah, and is in fact refuted. These fasts have not record of being instituted by Prophets. It is important to reiterate that it was the prophets and the Kohanim who were arbiters of the Law and not a Rabbinic Sanhedrin type institution.

Contrary to the false practice of Bethel-Sarezer et al, Zechariah says:

7 Should ye not hearken to the words which the LORD hath proclaimed by the former prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and in prosperity, and the cities thereof round about her, and the South and the Lowland were inhabited?'

This is because the response to the destruction of the temple was incorrect – instead of listening to the prophets of the previous generation, e.g. Jeremiah, they instituted fasts and self-mortification, which was not part of the Torah. Indeed, one of the greatest Rabbinical commentators , Ibn Ezra, remarks on v.5 “ did ye at all fast unto Me” , “I did not command”, i.e. God did not command these man made fasts.

So, according to this interpretation of Zechariah, the fasts were never valid, and are not valid today.

The response to the temple's destruction is to see where the underlying error was. Fasting will rectify nothing.

The question of why the Temple was destroyed, remains the topic of further discussion.