A little bit more on the topic of tachanun in the presence of a chassan:
There are two issues here. First, there is the question of whether a chassan should/can go to shul during sheva brachos week. Rambam writes (Ishus 12:10):
וכן תקנו חכמים שכל הנושא בתולה יהיה שמח עמה שבעת ימים. אינו עוסק במלאכתו ולא נושא ונותן בשוק אלא אוכל ושותה ושמח
According to Rambam a chassan is prohibited from going to work or doing business in the marketplace because he has to be misameiach his wife, not that he can't leave his house. However, other Rishonim (see Ran 2a on top in the RIF pages in Kesubos) go further and quote the Pirkei d"R Eliezar which writes that a chassan is like a king -- just like a king does not go out alone, so too a chassan should not go out alone. Shita MeKubetzet quotes the same aggadita as saying that just like a king does not leave his palace, so too a chassan should not leave his home. According to this view, the chassan may not leave his home even if the activity would not necessarily distract from his simcha.
Aside from the Pirkei d"R Eliezer, the gemara (Brachos 54b) writes that three things need shemira: a sick person, a chassan, and a kallah. A chassan or kallah should not be walking around or travelling alone because of the threat of mazikim.
Nafka minah: can a chassan go to shul if accompanied by someone else? My son wanted to be toleh this question on the reasons above. If the issue is mazikin, then shomer mitzvah lo yeida davar ra and there should be no problem going to shul. However, according to the Pirkei d"R Eliezer (which is quoted in Rama Eh"Z 62) that explains the din based on the chassan's status of a melech, he cannot go without an escort.
Be'er Heitev (Eh"Z 62) quotes Prisha that the minhag developed for chassanim not to go to shul because it was hard to find an escort. If a chassan were to find someone to accompany him, it sounds like there would be no problem.
The second issue is saying tachanun if a chassan does come to shul. Rama (OC 131) writes that only b'yom chupaso should tachanun be skipped. Taz read Rama to mean that even during sheva brachos week tachanun should be said in the chassan's presence, but most Achronim say that that was not the Rama's intent -- Rama simply meant to exclude skipping tachanun before the chuppah. (You can look around in the poskim how far to extend this, e.g. if there is a late afternoon wedding, according to Rama, should you say tachanun at shacharis that morning, or even at mincha?)
Taz paskens that tachanun is omitted in the chasan's presence the entire sheva brachos week and then adds that the chassan should avoid coming to shul so as to not cause the tzibur to have to do that.
Someone commented on last post why not just have the chassan go out of the shul when it is time to say tachanun. Some poskim do indeed say this, but it begs the question of why the Taz didn't think of this idea.
Earlier this year I quoted RYBS' chiddush that tachanun is an extension of shmoneh esrei. The Rambam in hil tefilah (ch 5) writes that one of the essential components of shmoneh esrei is השתחויה. Rambam then goes on to define the term: השתחויה כיצד אחר שמגביה ראשו מכריעה חמישית ישב לארץ ונופל על פניו ארצה ומתחנן בכל התחנונים שירצ. In other words, it is what we call tachanun, or nefilat apayim. Based on this logic, davening shmoneh esrei with the tzibur but then walking out for tachanun doesn't work. If the shmoneh esrei is not a shmoneh esrei which is chayav is nefilat apayim / השתחויה, you can't change that circumstance after the fact.
There is another point to this Taz that some take issue with which also came up in the comments. The reason we skip tachanun is because the tzibur has a mitzvah of gemilus chessed to be mesameiach chassan v'kallah. The chassan's simcha becomes our simcha. The Taz obviously held that saying tachanun is more important than affording others the opportunity to be mishtatef in the chassan's simcha. The Kaf haChaim (s"k 87), however, argues that the chassan **should** come to shul so that others may share in his joy, even if it means skipping tachanun as a result.
There are a lot of other details discussed in poskim -- this is just a quick overview.
You know how we find a tzad hashaveh by psuchos and stumos, and in that spirit, it seems to me that you could make everyone happy by having the Chosson only daven at, rachmona litzlan, another place where Tachanun is not said, and I don't mean by chasidim. This might be particularly appropriate for a baal mussar that is afraid to be too much b'simcha.
ReplyDeleteThe parallel is interesting, even though Ah"S says a lomdus to distinguish between the two cases:
Delete. וזה שכתבו דגם כשהחתן או המילה בבית הכנסת כולם פטורים, אין לשאול למה באבל אינו כן כמו שכתבתי. דלא דמי, דבאבל הפטור הוא מפני המת. ואף על פי שמת במקום אחר, מכל מקום בית האבל פטורו מפני ענין המת. ומה שייך זה להבית הכנסת? מה שאין כן החתן והמילה הפטור מחמת עצמם, ולכן בכל מקום שהם – הרי הם שם ונתפשטה השמחה על כולם (נראה לי).
The ptur is for davening in the beis ha'aveil; the ptur for the chassan follows the gavra.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNo, all I meant was that the chosson could have the best of both worlds. He could daven with a minyan in the Beis Haavel, because his presence would not cost them the tefilla of tachanun, because they're not saying tachanun anyway.
DeleteBut I do appreciate the cite to the Arhash, because I was thinking that a chosson and an aveil would cancel each other out, so the tzibbur could say tachanun, and that would bring us back to square one such that the chosson could not come to davening. But as you say, that's not true. In a shul, the aveil would not stop tachanun. In the aveil's house, it's a din in the house, so the presence of the chosson would not cancel out that ptur. I really don't think the התפשטות of the chosson's simcha would be a factor in the בית האבל.
by milah, the ptur is not just on the gavrei (the baalei habris), but by the house (like ha'aveil) too. let the chassan for one week join minyans all over town, wherever a >synagogue< is ptur due to a bris that day-- blame any cheit on the building, not on the man/men*!
Delete*la'adam chatah...?, first link, "the topic"
-- "a king does not leave his palace"
Shlomo ha'melech wasn't exactly in his palace during his tachanun, at Melachim I, 8:54 (or maybe he thought the Mikdash his?!)
-- "walking out for tachanun doesn't work"
Rambam says of "nefilat apayim" 'ein m'akvin' (5:1), it isn't strictly necessary...
and the baalei habris, what is their fix? each threesome (father, mohel, sandak) joins two like threesomes, +1 chassan(!), for minyan [workable in big cities perhaps...]
Delete{cancel the Rambam 'ein m'akvin' reply, as was addressed in the initially entangling sentence, "If the shmoneh esrei is not a shmonei esrei..."}
My friend Shimon Kalman Goldstein says that growing up in Williamsburg he davened in a shul where there was a special hook on the wall. Only chassanim would put their Shtreimel or whatever you call the fur hat on that hook, and it was so in order that the oilem should know not to say tachanun. Like מניפים בסודרין.
ReplyDeleteSimilar in Yekke shuls where they have a menorah mounted on the wall and turn on different amount of lights to signify different events (one of them being chasan in shul).
DeleteI never heard of that! Which shul did you see that done?
ReplyDeleteKhal Adas Yeshurun (Calvert Drive) in Monsey.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of petur tachanun bc of a chasson, Emes Leyaakov Ki Setsei 23:3 has a beautiful peshat ayin sham. (I've also heard a similar vort beshem Reb Nota Greenblatt shlita)
ReplyDeleteThank you.
DeleteWith or without Reb Yaakov's explanation, one thing is clearly true and requires a good explanation: בא בקהל השם comprises two elements: (1)Two Kosher Jews (2)getting married. Married but not kosher, no. Kosher but not married, no. (A mamzer can marry a bas mino, as can a Mitzri etc., and even if he marries kedas Moshe v'Yisrael, that is obviously not called בא בקהל השם.)