and to travel; for the requirement of continuity is fundamental. Thus, if he resorts to a stratagem to evade it, even by means of something permitted by the Sacred Law, it is unlawful.
“A dangerous illness and the like, or if he breaks his fast forgetfully, under compulsion, or for an excuse that permits breaking the fast, does not interrupt the continuity, ...”
His statement, “a dangerous illness,” means an illness from which death is feared. The author mentions it as an example of a case in which breaking the fast is obligatory, because if a person has a dangerous illness and fears that he will die if he does not break his fast, then breaking it is obligatory for him. However, restricting this to a dangerous illness is questionable. The correct view is that any illness which permits breaking the fast—whether dangerous or not—is a valid excuse that waives the requirement of continuity.
His statement, “and the like,” means matters similar to these, in which breaking the fast is obligatory. An example is breaking one’s fast in order to save a drowning person: breaking the fast to save a protected life is obligatory. Thus, if he breaks his fast for this reason, the continuity is not interrupted.
Thirdly, his statement, “or if he breaks his fast forgetfully”: if he breaks his fast forgetfully, this does not interrupt the continuity. Yet this wording is clearly problematic, because forgetfulness does not entail breaking the fast. We have previously explained in the chapter on matters that invalidate the fast that whoever eats or drinks forgetfully should complete his fast and has not broken it, even according to the school’s position. They make only one exception, namely intercourse: if a person forgets and has intercourse with a woman other than the one concerning whom he pronounced zihār, then, according to the school’s position, he has broken his fast.
The correct view is that there is no difference between intercourse and anything else: whoever does something that invalidates the fast forgetfully has a valid fast. Accordingly, he has not broken his fast, and the continuity is not interrupted.
Likewise, if someone breaks his fast forgetfully, having forgotten that he is fasting as expiation and thinking that he is observing a voluntary fast, the correct view is that this does not interrupt the continuity, because