The siyum that has come to define erev Pesach morning for firstborns across the Jewish world carries with it a surprisingly rich and contested halakhic history.
Understanding the role of the siyum on Ta'anit Bekhorot requires having some understanding of that day itself, which is of somewhat mysterious origins. The idea of firstborns fasting on erev Pesach is mentioned in the minor tractate Masekhet Soferim(21:3) but is not brought in the Babylonian Talmud. In the Talmud Yerushalmi (Pesachim 10:1), there is a passage that appears to both consider and reject the notion of erev Pesach being a time for firstborns to fast, although the passage is the subject of both variant texts and alternative interpretations. The Ra'avyah (#525) understands the Yerushalmi to be in conflict with Masekhet Soferim; see Ran, Pesachim16a in the pages of the Rif, s.v. yerushalmi, citing Nachmanides; Rosh 10:19 and Korban Netanel. The Meiri (Pesachim 107b) records a widespread "custom" of fasting that is "not at all compulsory" (ein bazeh srakh hekhrech klal). The Shulchan Arukh (OC 470:1) states simply that "the firstborns fast."
It is unclear why this should be, as the Jewish firstborns were saved during the final plague and would have no reason to treat the day as a sad one. There is even a suggestion in some writings that the text should be emended, and instead of ha-bekhorim mit'anin, the firstborns fast, it should read ha-bekhorim mit'angin, the firstborns enjoy themselves. (This reading is attributed to R. Zvi Hirsch of Zidotchov, cited in Resp. Minchat Yitzchak II, 93 and elsewhere. The Nimmukei Orach Chaim (470) is harshly critical of relying on such a suggestion as a basis for leniency.)
One particularly creative suggestion was put forward in recent generations by scholars who noted that the firstborn indeed have more of a reason to celebrate than others do, as they were saved from the plague in addition to the redemption from slavery, and all of that should presumably focus on Pesach night, not the day prior. Accordingly, they suggest that fasting on erev Pesach is actually an extension of the general restraint in eating, and complete abstention from matzah, that is expected from everyone on that day in order to increase the appetite and appreciation for the sedermeal. As beneficiaries of an expanded miracle, they are expected to intensify the commemorative experience. (R. Eliyahu Baruch Finkel, MiShulchan Rebbi Eliyahu Baruch, Mo'adim I, pp. 10–15; R. Shlomo Zalman Shmayah, Birkat Mo'adekha, Pesach-Shavuot #9; R. Eliyahu Levine, in the journal Orayta VI, 5759, pp. 91–92; R. Eliav Silverman, Meishiv Nefesh III, 65, cites this and discusses extensively the ramifications of whether the fast is functional or commemorative.)
R. Eliyahu Baruch Finkel notes a support for this position in the view of R. Yechiel, cited in the Mordechai (Pesachim 10:122), that allows light eating on this day, as opposed to a total restriction. (It is noteworthy that the above-mentioned passage from the Talmud Yerushalmi creates ambiguity here as well, with the Maharil, Resp. 157, citing it as a refutation of R. Yechiel and Bigdei Yesha, a commentary to the Mordechai, quoting it as support.) The Beit Yosefrecords that the practice is not in accordance with R. Yechiel, although the Mishnah Berurah (470:2 and Sha'ar HaTziyun 6) recommends the approach as an alternative for those who find the fast difficult or counterproductive. (See Darkei Shmuel: Halakhah U'Minhag, p. 252, n. 8, and the additional sources, positions, and explanations cited in R. Shlomo Schneider, Resp. Divrei Shlomo IV, p. 364.)
In any event, there is a tradition of efforts to avoid the fast, and of rabbinic disapproval of those efforts. R. Yechezkel Landau, the Noda B'Yehudah, in one responsum (Tinyana, YD, 167), is harshly critical of a practice that had developed to delay the brit of a newborn boy until erev Pesach so that the festive meal for that event could cancel the fast. (As for a britthat is appropriately held on erev Pesach, the Magen Avraham, OC 470:1, cites the view of Maharash HaLevi that it is permissible to eat, but also praiseworthy to be stringent, an attitude that, reports the Magen Avraham, prevailed in his locale.) While much of that opposition came from the unacceptable postponement of that mitzvah, R. Landau was also opposed to the siyum on that day, as reported by his student, R. Eliezer Fleckes (Resp. Teshuvah MeAhavahII, 281, and III, 376). Similar opposition has been relayed in the name of the Chatam Sofer (see Likutei Beit Ephraim #29; and Resp., CM, 148, where it is clear the expectation in his time was that a firstborn would fast on erev Pesach), and was echoed by his descendant R. Shimon Sofer (Resp. Hitorerut Teshuvah II, 245; note that the questioner does assume a siyum is effective for eating meat during the Nine Days, and the response does not note an objection to that).
Even for those who approved the siyum on erev Pesach, there were disputes over aspects of the event. A number of authorities asserted that while the one completing the tractate could eat, there was no justification to invite others who had not been a part of the study (see Resp. Teshuvah MeAhavah II, 266). Nonetheless, the contemporary custom is to invite others to the siyum, as acknowledged by the Mishnah Berurah and the Arukh HaShulchan. The Arukh HaShulchan assumes this to be a concession due to weakness. (Regarding the question of delaying a siyum so that it occurs on erev Pesach, there appear to be contradictions in the writings of R. Shlomo Kluger. In his Resp. HaElef Likha Shlomo (317), he disallows delaying a siyum until erev Pesach. However, later on (#387), he is more open to it, providing the learning accomplishment is significant enough. Compare also his statements in his Resp. Shenot Chaim (52, 173, 245), modifying an earlier statement in Sefer HaChaim, OC 581, where he suggests that pushing off a siyum to "a fast day" is actually an enhancement, in that it will increase one's appreciation for the siyum. See R. Yitzchak Tesler, in the journal Orayta XX, p. 170, and R. Yechiel Avraham Zilber, Birur Halakhah, telita'ah, p. 205. R. Yehudah Taiah Weill, in his responsa, OC 38, allows this delay.)
The Spirit of the Law
As far as the spirit of the law, one point to consider is a general mismatch between the fourteenth of Nissan and a fast day, and thus perhaps a greater readiness to see the fast overridden. In addition to the questionable appropriateness of a fast on erev Yom Tov, it is actually the case that the fourteenth has its own special status in its own right (see Mishneh L'Melekh, Hil. Klei HaMikdash 6:10). Further, to enter the seder in a compromised state due to fasting detracts from that obligation in a problematic fashion. (See Resp. HaElef Likha Shlomo, OC 316. Interestingly, he is stringent regarding this fast in not allowing the timing of a siyum to be manipulated to cancel it, but allows it to be abandoned by one who feels he is weak and it will interfere with the seder. Presumably, for such an individual, even an "artificial" siyum should improve the situation, especially if, as discussed below, the siyum offers some affirmative benefit. See also Resp. Ohr LeTziyon II, 12:1, who considers the concern for the seder a major component in justifying leniency, without which he advocates stringency.)
Also, the fact that this fast at most only applied to a small minority of the population plays a role as well. Accordingly, the spirit of the law of "the fourteenth of Nissan" may be a factor in the attitude here (see Pitchei Teshuvah to Orach Chaim 470:1, and the sources cited there). This is all combined with the fact, noted above, that both the origins of the fast and its binding nature are somewhat open to question. (See R. Yosef Mashash, Resp. Mayim Chaim 179; R. Yosef Shaul Nathanson, Yosef Da'at, YD 399, who invokes the combination of factors in explaining his own lenient practice; R. Moshe Shternbuch, Resp. Teshuvot V'Hanhagot II, 210, who assumes that it is only custom together with a lack of clear sourcing for the fast that can explain the lenient attitudes that prevail, noting that the objections of earlier authorities as well as conceptual analysis would have indicated otherwise, and who highlights in particular the allowance of a limited offering of cakes and fruit, rather than a genuine meal including bread, as reflective of this leniency. R. David Taharani, Resp. Divrei David III, 20, relies on this attitude to allow a siyum on Thursday when erev Pesach is on Shabbat, despite various logical inconsistencies noted by earlier authorities; regarding this issue, see Chidushim U'Biurim al HaShas of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, 15. A variation on the emphasis on the customary nature of the fast is not necessarily to see it as inherently less stringent, but rather to assume that the acceptance of the custom was predicated on excluding a seudat mitzvah from its scope; see Pri Chadash, OC 470:2; R. Ovadiah Yosef, Meor Yisrael, Pesachim 108a; and Ratz KaTzvi, Pesach/Shavuot 6:7.)
An attitude that de-emphasizes the importance of the fast may be evident in some rulings regarding the question of listening to a siyum over the telephone. From the perspective of the internal logic of the concept, it is difficult to permit this. (R. Yisrael David Harfenes, Resp. Mekadesh Yisrael, Pesach II, 256, does not permit this.) Separate and apart from the debate regarding the status of mitzvot performed over electronic media, this is not a commandment based on "hearing"; it would seem that actual, physical participation in the meal is the only basis to consider one a part of the celebration. (This position is expressed by R. Yisrael Belsky, Resp. Shulchan HaLevi13:1; see the discussion in Resp. Maharam Brisk I, 133, and the contrasting views brought in Ma'adanei Yom Tov IV, p. 581.) In fact, in the context of a siyumduring the Nine Days, meat and wine are not only limited to the siyum meal, but to the physical location of the meal (Mishnah Berurah 551:75; see also Rama, OC 565:2). Nonetheless, regarding the Ta'anit Bekhorim siyum, many authorities have allowed telephonic participation. (See R. Asher Bush, Shoel B'Shlomo (5778), 44. R. Noach Isaac Oehlbaum, Resp. Minchat Chen III, 30, recommended relying on this opinion in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, when gathering in person for a siyum was prohibitively dangerous; if no siyum at all was available, he advocated not fasting under those circumstances.)
Reflective of this general approach, the Arukh HaShulchan (OC 470:4) records that for many generations already it has been the practice to be extremely lenient with this fast, and to conduct a siyum in which not only the one who learned the text can eat, but all the firstborns are invited, and that this practice is widespread, and that it is unclear why this attitude of leniency has been accepted, although it is indeed the case that great rabbis have not objected. (See also Resp. Teshuvot V'Hanhagot II, 210, who notes other leniencies as well that have become associated with this fast; and Resp. Even Pinah I, 33.) In fact, some contemporary authorities assume that the attitude of negation towards the fast has taken on the status of an accepted custom, and accordingly, even a mourner in the middle of the shivah period who may not attend a siyum still does not fast, although he should make a charitable donation in its place. (See Nitei Gavriel 43:19 and Resp. D'var Yehoshua II, 81; see also Ratz K'Tzvi, Pesach-Shavuot 6, and his discussion as to the impact of a siyum on other customary fasts throughout the year. The D'var Yehoshua actually assumes that the custom to fast has been abandoned in favor of the alternative commemoration of a siyum, which therefore does not override the fast through its performance but simply replaces it. Accordingly, one who is unable to attend a siyum is nonetheless not obligated to fast. He also indicates that the siyum does not require a joint meal, but rather allows for the participants to go home and eat separately; see also Resp. Avnei Derekh I, 76. Compare Resp. Pri HaSadeh IV, 57, who forbids a mourner from attending a siyum and does not permit him outright to eat nonetheless unless he is particularly weak. Regarding the general question of a mourner and attending siyumim, see also R. Eliyahu Bakshi Doron, Resp. Binyan Av V, 54.)
What may also be relevant is the question of the spirit of the fast itself. If, indeed, the day does not merit a practice reflecting sadness, it may be that the fast has a different purpose. A number of commentaries see the fast as a zekher l'neis (Tur, OC 570, from Masekhet Soferim; see also Meiri to Pesachim 107b) or a publicizing of it, pirsumei nisa (see Birkei Yosef). In one later formulation, it is understood as a reenactment of the original event, in the sense that at that point, the Jewish firstborns had to establish their worthiness to be spared (R. Yehudah Greenwald, Resp. Zikhron Yehudah 133; Darkei Shmuel: Halakhah U'Minhag, p. 251, n. 4, notes the contrary implication of Resp. Maharil #110, who states that since the miracle happened at midnight of the fifteenth, observance of the fast on the fourteenth is a concession to necessity and only commemorative; see also R. Shlomo Schneider, Divrei Shlomo V, 1129). This would thus be comparable to Ta'anit Esther, the day before Purim, when a fast is observed to commemorate the fast and prayers undertaken to thwart the plot of Haman (see Chatam Sofer, chiddushim to Pesachim 108b, and note the critique of Birkhat Mo'adekha ibid.). Similarly, contemporary firstborns fast to evoke the repentance and prayer of their ancient counterparts. (See R. Yosef Tzvi Salant, Be'er Yosef II, inyanei Pesach, pp. 329–333, for an elaborate version of this approach; see also the addendum from the son of the author, pp. 333–342.)
R. Zvi Hirsch Frimer, the Kozhaglover Rav, drew on this notion to explain a distinction between the fast of the firstborn and the Nine Days regarding the siyum, in that in the former case, following the siyum, the fast is abandoned, while in the latter case, meat and wine can only be consumed during the siyum itself. He posited that this is a function of Ta'anit Bekhorim not being a standard fast day, but rather a reenactment of the original event.
To complete the explanation, it may be suggested that the purpose of the observance is to highlight the need for the Jewish people to earn the survival of their firstborns through merit, not merely as recipients of Divine favor. The initial path to do that is through prayer and penitential fasting. However, perhaps there is an alternative, maybe even a superior route: embracing the new mission of the Jewish people, the study of the Torah, and in fact doing so with enthusiasm. (R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, quoted in the journal Mevakshei Torah, Pesachim II, p. 562, notes that the firstborn were sanctified to serve in the Temple on the night of the Exodus, but later lost that privilege due to the sin of the golden calf. Accordingly, that day approaching Pesach night has taken on an aspect of sadness for the firstborn. Similarly, R. Moshe Shternbuch, Mo'adim U'Zmannim VII, 69, suggests that for this reason it has become a day of fasting and repentance. R. Auerbach posits that since Torah study is even greater than the priestly service, the practice developed to study Torah and joyously commemorate that study on that day, as a comfort to the firstborn.
R. Moshe Greenwald, in his Resp. Arugat HaBosem, OC 139, in the middle of a paragraph where he is actually harshly critical of attendance at an erev Pesach siyum by those who have no connection to the scholar or to learning in general, makes a fascinating statement that can also be incorporated into the above perspective. Addressing a comment of the Magen Avraham that in his day they were lenient to eat on erev Pesach for a siyum but not for a brit milah, he offers a novel suggestion to explain the distinction. A brit, which generally must be at a set time, would conceal the existence of Ta'anit Bekhorim, were people to be eating then. By contrast, the siyum has no inherent need to take place at that time. The fact that one is being arranged at that specific time will itself serve the purpose of publicizing the occasion, and thus is, apparently, more in harmony with the spirit and intent of Ta'anit Bekhorim. See also the objection of Resp. Maharam Brisk I, 133.) In such a manner, it could be suggested that minhag yisrael has developed to see the siyum on Ta'anit Bekhorim as a more appropriate reflection of the theme of the day, given all the elements, than fasting would be.
It should be noted that according to the view cited above, that the purpose of the fast is to intensify the experience of eating matzah later that night for the firstborns who owe increased gratitude, an exemption due to participating in a siyum is particularly difficult to understand. Unlike a day of sadness, which may yield in its atmosphere to the mitzvah meal, in this case the fast comes from a practical consideration to preserve appetite. R. Eliyahu Baruch Finkel, one of the proponents of the "appetite" theory, suggests that the fast for this purpose is observed as an enhancement (hiddur) of the mitzvah, undertaken as a general policy to preserve preparation for the later mitzvah. As such, a meal that is itself a mitzvah is understandably excluded from this policy (MiShulchan Rebbi Eliyahu Baruch, ibid., pp. 14–15; see there also for his explanation as to why this mitzvah meal cancels the fast for the rest of the day that follows as well).
More broadly compatible with the theories mentioned above, his understanding is that this effort to intensify the mitzvah of matzah serves as an additional merit for the firstborns. As such, the siyum meal, together with the learning that prompts it, is effective as an alternate, perhaps even preferable, source of merit. Similarly, R. Velvel Soloveitchik of Brisk was asked regarding a father who was fasting on erev Pesach on behalf of his minor son who was a firstborn. The son, however, completed a tractate that day, although the father did not attend the siyum. R. Soloveitchik responded that the father need not fast in this instance (cited in Haggadah MiBeit Levi). Apparently, the goal is to provide a source of merit as a protection, and the scholarship of the son is as effective as the fast of the father.
The history of this unusual fast day, and the perspectives of those who have considered and addressed it throughout the ages, suggest that the siyum may be less a workaround than a crystallization of what the day has always been about. The halakhic instinct of the Jewish people, the “sons of prophets”, has taken the message of this day and applied it in a fashion that it reaches out to all of us, inspiring and elevating us to aspire to ever greater heights.
R' Feldman
