Monday, August 04, 2014

some 9 Av thoughts

1)      Interesting Biur Halacha discussing those who must eat on 9 Av because there was a cholea outbreak (important to note that he is not talking about people who are actually ill, but rather about people who are not yet sick eating in order to maintain their health and not become sick).  He writes that the shiur which may be eaten is a k’koseves.  Lichorah that shiur applies only to Yom Kippur where the issur is one of inuy.  On a ta’anis the shiur achila is a k’zayis.

 2)      The gemara in a number of places writes that an aveil is chayav in all mitzvos except for tefillin (on the first day of aveilus).  All mitzvos?  Isn’t an aveil not allowed to engage in talmud Torah, asks the Ritva in Moed Katan (15)?  The Ritva gives two answers: 1) an aveil is exempt from talmud Torah and the gemara was just giving a general rule to which there are exceptions; 2) an aveil is chayav in talmud Torah and fulfills that obligation with the minimum of reciting shema.  According to the first answer, it seems that learning topics like aveilus and midrashim about the churban, which according to the Ritva are permissible both during aveilus and on 9 Av, is not done for the sake of fulfilling the chiyuv of talmud Torah – no such chiyuv exists.  Rather, these limudim are permissible as part and parcel of absorbing the message of the day and engaging in aveilus. 

Shu”T Divrei Yatziv (O.C. 240 here) writes that the reason we abstain from learning on 9 Av is to show that our mourning is not primarily about our loss of sovereignty – it’s about the bitul Torah caused by galus (see Chagigah 5b).  We ask Hashem to bring geulah so that the glory of Torah should be returned.  (I think you can say the same vort even if you don’t agree that bitul Torah is the primary focus of our mourning.)

3)      It’s not clear why the shir shel yom is pushed from shacharis to minchah on 9 Av.  Since you are allowed to say everything that is part of the normal seder of tefilah, why is the shir shel yom any different than, for example, korbanos? 

4)      The Navi promises that the fasts we have for the churban will one day become celebrations.  Tisha b’Av itself is called a “moed” and we skip tachanun (according to some views ironically an aveil may not daven for the amud on 9 Av because it is a moed).  B’shlama cancelling the aveilus and fasting, we understand that once there is a complete geulah there is no need to mourn, but why must these days gufa become transformed into yamim tovim? 

Hashem does not engage in destruction for the sake of destruction – every soseir is soseir al menas livnos.  What the Navi is telling us is that these difficult days themselves, which to us appear so filled with suffering, are in truth the building blocks of geulah.  The very same events which we look at as tragic today will one day become sources of celebration. 

12 comments:

  1. re 1. It's a quote from a halacha brought in Hilchos Yom Kippur, and tein le'chacham v'yechkam od. I agree he should have made it clearer that on TB the shiur is a kezayis.

    re 3. Rosh end of taanis has a whole thing about what is called seder hayom and what's not, including distinctions among korbanos according to some rishonim. Anyway, the Mateh Ephraim says the reason we do the yom before Shachris on Yom Kippur is to reinforce out awareness that this day is different.

    re 4. I talked at length about this on my site, and although I don't say anything different than you, I did it in ten paragraphs to your two. The reason I posted it was because a grandchild asked me exactly that question at the seuda on Shabbos.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Re 1: See also Shu"t Tzemach Tzedek Orach Chaim Siman 109-110 (in the new prints) - where he mentions koseves.
    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1609&st=&pgnum=178&hilite=

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So how do you understand that?

      Delete
  3. Issur achila is associated with tshuva; Tish'a B'Av also has din inuy associated with aveilus. If issur achila is nidcha, inuy is still in effect as much as possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where do you find an issur achila respect to aveilus? The braysa on Ta'anis 30 says there is an issur basar v'yayin because of aveilus, but that's it.

      Delete
    2. Inuy is only found, strictly, on Yom HaKippurim and Tish'a B'Av [although yesh l'hachmir on the other ta'anaisim]. Apparently, for whatever reason, Chazal felt inuy was appropriate for T.B. - I suggest the relationship is to aveilus.

      Whatever the reason, there is certainly a unique din of inuy as far as the other inuyim are concerned. I suggest that the din of inuy applies to achila also. It seems counter-logical to impose a din of inuy on sandal, rechitza, etc., and ignore achila, which is the primary inuy. Therefore, where the din c'zayis is nidcha, there still remains the din of inuy = k'koseves to deal with.

      Delete
    3. I'm not convinced. If 9 Av "borrows" the dinim of inuy from aveilus, than shouldn't those same dinim exist in hilchos aveilus gufa? Lo tehei the carry over more chamur than the ikar. I assume you have in mind the Brisker Rav by rechitza, but who says that just because an aveil has an issur rechitza and ne'ilas hasandal therefore all the other inuyim apply? You wouldn't say, for example, that kefiyas hamitah applies on Yom Kippur because it exists in aveilus which is inuy therefore it has to apply on Y.K. as well.

      Besides which, it doesn't fit the M.B. Why would he recommened ignoring the issur achila m'din ta'anis completely and only paying attention to the issur achila m'din inuy with respect to chatzi shiur?

      Delete
    4. Granted, the inuyim of TB may not borrow from aveilus, but they certainly borrow [are identical in form] from Yom HaKippurim. Therefore, I am not certain about the aveilus connection, and your counterargument is convincing. But, if all the other inuyim of Yom HaKippurim apply to TB, certainly the achila one should also.

      The difference in basic [non-emergency] halacha, of course, is that on Yom HaKippurim, there is only a din inuy, without a regular din ta'anis, as opposed to TB. So on YomHakippurim, halacha mentions k'koseves, whereas on TB, the stricter k'zayis is mentioned.

      I understood the MB and Tzemach Tzedek as saying that when there is no din issur achila at all, i.e., potential pikuach nefashos, one should still endeavor to keep the inuy if possible.

      Delete
    5. Why do you think potential pikuach nefesh not doche the din inuy but is doche the din ta'anis?
      By Y.K. - inuy -- there is a din of chinuch l'sha'os for a katan. Do you think the same applies to 9 Av? Makor?

      Delete
    6. If necessary, of course it is docheh everything. The poskim are bringing up the point that despite a person having to eat a k'zayis because of potential pikuach nefashos - which on the other ta'aneisim would terminate all issurei achila because the ta'anis has been nullified - on TB there is still a kiyum of inuy. IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.

      Practically, if a person eats a k'zayis on TB, there is a din of tashlumim, for the din ta'anis, even if they didn't eat a k'koseves.

      As far as chinuch, there is a distinction between YK and TB in two aspects: a) YK is d'oraysa and b) this TB will have been the last one which was a ta'anis, so there is no point of chinuch.

      The last point, I have heard, is the hanhaga of R' Moshe Feinstein.

      However, in the Igros, R' Moshe emphasizes the din of chinuch in not eating meat during the nine days. The apparent contradiction is bothersome - unless there is a chiluk between the other aveilus and achila.

      Delete
  4. As a follow-on: therefore, the din koseves would be irrelevant to the other ta'aneisim d'rabbonon.

    ReplyDelete
  5. By the taanios that were nigzar for lack of rain; is there any proof that the Shiur of issur was a kazayis? Lichora the sheim taanis comes from inui where the Shiur is koseves.

    ReplyDelete