YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
TISHA B'AV 5758
*********************************************************
Contents:
1. Tisha Be-Av on Shabbat, by Rav Binyamin Tabory
2. Tisha Be-Av and Rebuilding the Temple, by Rav Shabtai
Rappaport
For more articles about the Three Weeks, see our webpage:
http://www.virtual.co.il/education/yhe/3weeks.htm
*****************************************************
TISHA
BE-AV ON SHABBAT
By Rav Binyamin Tabory
When the ninth of Av falls on Shabbat, the fast is
postponed until Sunday. There are, however, a number of
questions which must be considered:
1) Is Shabbat, the ninth of Av, considered to be a
day of mourning?
2) Does the fast on Sunday have the same status as
Tisha be-Av in a normal year?
3) One could combine these two questions into one:
Have Chazal canceled the fast of the ninth of Av and
instituted it instead on the tenth, or is the day of the
ninth still the day of mourning in principle, with the
actual fulfillment delayed to Sunday? It is
possible to distinguish between the two questions, though; Shabbat
may not be the day of the fast at all, but Sunday still
could have a more lenient character than the ninth
of Av in normal years. I shall discuss several halakhot which
are dependent on these
questions. Although
these questions are applicable to any fast which falls on
Shabbat, I shall refer only to Tisha be-Av.
A. The Week of Tisha be-Av
According to the Talmud, during the week in
which Tisha be-Av falls, it is prohibited
to wash clothes or cut one's hair. If Tisha be-Av falls on Sunday, this law
does not apply, as Sunday is the fast, and afterwards no
prohibitions remain. If Tisha be-Av falls
on Shabbat, the Shulchan Arukh (551,4) rules that this law does not
apply, just as if it fell on Sunday. This implies that
the day is completely displaced to Sunday; hence
there are no prohibitions in the preceding week. However, the
Shulchan Arukh quotes the opinion of the Smag and the
Smak, who ruled that the entire preceding week
is prohibited (with the exception of Thursday and Friday -
in honor of Shabbat). This opinion is clearly based on
the assumption that Shabbat is still considered to be
Tisha be-Av. In any event, the Rema rules that we follow
the custom of prohibiting haircuts
from the 17th of Tammuz and washing clothes from Rosh Chodesh, so that
there are no practical ramifications of this controversy.
B. Intimate Matters (devarim she-betzin'a) on Shabbat
The Tosefta (Ta'anit, ch. 3) states that if Tisha be-Av falls on Shabbat, "a man may
eat... and does
not refuse himself anything." Many commentators
(Rosh, Ramban, Meiri, R. Yerucham, etc.) infer from this that
even intimate matters (sexual relations) are permitted.
The Rema, however, cites the Or Zarua who prohibits
sexual relations, adding, "and this is the minhag."
The Ktav Sofer (Responsa OC 101) explains that this
controversy depends on our
question. If Shabbat
is considered in principle to be a day of mourning, then non-
public prohibitions are in force; however, if Chazal have
established Sunday (the tenth of Av) as the fast in this
year, there is no reason to abstain from devarim she-
betzin'a on Shabbat. The Ktav Sofer reinforced this
possibility by citing R. Yochanan (Ta'anit
29a), who stated that had it been up to him, he
would have preferred the tenth of
Av as the day of the fast in all
years (since, although the fire was started on the ninth,
most of the destruction took place on the tenth). While
in normal years the fast was in fact established on the
ninth, the fact that the tenth is also an appropriate
date supports the idea that in a year when the ninth is
Shabbat, the next day is the proper day and not merely a
delayed fulfillment. In fact, this appears to be the
opinion of the Rashba (Responsa 1, 508): "In my opinion,
no mourning applies (on Shabbat), since it
is written that he may arrange a feast as great as that of Shlomo.
This is because national mourning is different (than
personal mourning), especially since (Chazal)
have completely abrogated the ninth and reestablished it (on
the tenth), as there was always reason to establish it on
the tenth...."
C. Leniencies on a Postponed Fast
The Shulchan Arukh (559,9) rules that if there is a
berit mila on a postponed Tisha be-Av, the father does
not complete the fast, as it is considered a private
holiday. The Magen Avraham (ibid.), after a lengthy
discussion, concludes that this law applies
only to a postponed fast, including the other three (on Ta'anit
Esther the father doesn't complete the fast even if it is
not postponed; see OC 686,1). The Gra disagrees and
maintains that on other fasts, the father does
not complete the fast even if it is not a
postponed day; only on Tisha be-Av should he complete the fast in a regular
year. In any event, they both agree that on a postponed
Tisha be-Av, as opposed to a regular one, the father does
not complete the fast, implying that the day is not
completely equivalent to the regular Tisha be-Av.
In fact, we do not follow this ruling. The
Arukh HaShulchan reports that the custom
is that in all fasts, even when postponed, the father should complete the fast.
Nonetheless, even though the law is not in force, it
still indicates that in principle a postponed Tisha be-Av
is not the equivalent of a regular one. (It is quite
conceivable that the Rashba quoted above would disagree
with this ruling.) Based on this, R.
Akiva
Eiger (Shulchan Arukh, ibid.) rules that on a postponed fast, a
person who is slightly sick or a pregnant woman should
eat.
D. Bar Mitzva on the Tenth of Av
This question is not mentioned in
the Shulchan Arukh, but is widely discussed
by the Achronim. The basic point should now be obvious. If the tenth
is properly the day of the fast, as implied by the Rashba,
the boy is an adult when the obligation
comes into force and must fast. If, however, Shabbat is a day of mourning
(and devarim she-betzin'a are prohibited), and Sunday is
a delayed fulfillment of the obligation of
Shabbat, it would appear that the boy is not obligated to fast, since
on Shabbat (when the obligation originally came into
existence) he was still a minor.
E. Summation
According to the Rashba, Shabbat the ninth of Av is
not a day of mourning, no prohibitions apply to Shabbat,
and it is reasonable to conclude that Sunday the tenth is
the proper day of the fast and no leniencies should
apply.
According to the Shulchan Arukh, Sunday is not
in principle the proper day of
mourning; hence, a father of a berit mila does not complete the fast. It is possible
that Shabbat is considered to be a day of mourning,
engendering a prohibition on devarim
she-betzin'a (two opinions in the Shulchan Arukh), and perhaps defining the
previous week as "the week in which Tisha be-Av falls"
(two opinions in the Shulchan Arukh).
May we merit that God turn these days into days of
joy and happiness, that we
may ascend to the
Beit HaMikdash and celebrate its rebuilding.
*****************************************************
The Ninth of Av and Rebuilding the Temple
Based on a Shiur by Rav Shabtai Hakohen Rappaport
Translated and adapted by Rav Eliezer Kwass
Tisha Be-Av and the rest
of the fast days commemorating the destruction of
the Temple are not permanent fixtures on the Jewish calendar. At some point
in the process of the redemption, the prophet Zekharia
(8:19) tells us, "The fast of the fourth
[month] (17th of Tamuz) and the fast of the fifth [month] (9th of Av) and
the fast of the seventh [month] (Tzom Gedalia) and the
fast of the tenth [month] (10th of Tevet) will
become for the House of Judah [days of] joy and rejoicing
and holidays ..."
When will this occur? When,
according to the halakha, will we no longer be
obligated to keep the fast days mourning the destruction of the Temple? We will, in
this article, explore Rashi's approach to the passage in
the Talmud (Rosh Hashana 18a-b) that is the key source on
this issue.
WHEN THERE IS PEACE
The mishna (Rosh Hashana 18a) teaches that when the
Jewish calendar was determined by a monthly codecision,
messengers were to be sent out to the communities of the
Exile on six Rosh Chodesh days. It lists: "Nisan because
of Pesach ... and on Av because of the fast day."
The gemara asks: "Why were messengers not sent
out for the months of Tamuz
and Tevet?" After all, all four fast days applied at the time this mishna was formulated.
Rav Chana son of Bizna in the name of Rav Shimon Chasida
learns this from the fact that these days are referred to
in the above-cited verse (Zekharia 8:19) both as fasts
and as days of joy. He concludes, "When there is peace,
they will be days of joy and rejoicing; when there is not
peace, they are fast days." In other words, in times
that are not "peaceful" the four fasts all apply.
Rav Pappa replies that there are
really three national situations: 1. when
there is
government persecution ("gezeirat malkhut") - all fasts
must continue;
2. when there is peace - they do not; and 3.
when there is no persecution, but nor is
there peace - people may fast or not fast, according to
their preference. The
mishna refers to this third situation and therefore the sages did not deem it necessary to
send out messengers for the months of Tevet and Tamuz.
If that is the case, asks the gemara, why did they
send out messengers in the
month of Av? Rav
Pappa answers that since so many calamities took place on Tisha
Be-av, it is to be observed even in this third situation.
Only "when there is peace" will Tisha Be-av no longer be
observed.
RASHI: WHAT IS "PEACE"?
Rashi, commenting on the gemara's original question,
says:
"All of these fasts are to be observed nowadays when
the Temple is no longer standing. The mishna refers to
this period, as the text of the mishna implies, 'When
the Temple WAS standing ...' 'When there is peace' means when idol worshippers do
not rule over us."
These comments pose a number of difficulties: A. Rashi's definitions of "peace" and
"lack of
peace" seem incongruent. He defines "peace" as the lack
of foreign domination; yet, his first comment implies that
"the lack of peace" means when the
Temple is no longer standing. The Ramban, in contrast, explains "peace" as
when the Temple is standing and "lack of peace" as when
the Temple is destroyed (see the chapter in Torat Ha-adam
on Tisha Be-av). Why doesn't Rashi give a similarly
symmetrical explanation? B. Why do we continue to observe Tisha Be-av today? If
even Tisha Be-av is to be discontinued when there is a
state of peace, today's Jewish independence - defined by
Rashi as "peace" - should be enough to discontinue the
fast. The Talmud clearly refers to Jewish independence
in Israel; Jews in the diaspora
always lived
under gentile governments. Based on Rashi's explanation of
"joy and rejoicing" - "eulogies
and fasting are prohibited" - it should be PROHIBITED to fast on
Tisha Be- av! Many other questions can also be raised regarding this
interpretation by Rashi.
RESOLVING RASHI
It seems that Rashi, for all practical
purposes, IDENTIFIED Jewish sovereignty
with building the Temple. If there is true Jewish sovereignty, the Jews
will rebuild
the Temple - or at least start the process of
rebuilding it. "When there is peace"
includes both
Jewish sovereignty and the Temple being rebuilt.
We are still left with one question: Why
doesn't Rashi sound consistent? Why
does he explain "lack of peace" to mean when the Temple is not standing,
and "peace" to mean when there is Jewish sovereignty?
RASHI'S VISION OF THE THIRD TEMPLE
Rashi's comments on Rosh Hashana 30a have been cited
to demonstrate that he believes that the third Temple
will be divinely built. Among the decrees of Rabban
Yochanan ben Zakkai, the mishna lists that using new
grain ("chadash") is forbidden
the whole day that the omer sacrifice was offered ("yom haneif" - the day of
waving), the sixteenth of Nisan. The Torah forbids using
the year's new grain before offering the
omer sacrifice, the first reaping of the barley harvest. When the Temple
was standing, the moment the sacrifice was actually
brought - as the Torah says, "When you bring
it" - new grain was permitted. On a biblical level, when
the Temple was no longer standing and the sacrifice was not
brought, the new grain should be permitted at dawn - as
the Torah says, "on that day." Rabban
Yochanan benZakkai decreed that new
grain should be prohibited that whole day.
What was the rationale behind his
decree? The gemara explains:
"Speedily the Temple will be rebuilt, and people will
say, 'Last year did we not eat [new grain] at
dawn? Now also we can.' They will not realize that last year
when there was no omer sacrifice, eating is permitted
at dawn, and this year when there is
[an omer sacrifice], new grain is only permitted after
the offering of the sacrifice."
The gemara concludes (see the continuation of
the discussion on 30a and 30b)
that the above problem would only come up when the Temple was rebuilt on the fifteenth
of Nisan slightly before sundown or the night of the
sixteenth. Rashi comments: "Perhaps you will say, do we not rule in
tractate Shevu'ot that the Temple is not to
be built on Yom Tov (the fifteenth is the first day of Pesach) or at night?
This only applies to when humans build the Temple, but
the future Temple IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN."
Rashi seems to say explicitly that the third Temple
will be built by God and not by man.
It seems to me that it is not necessary to interpret
Rashi as arguing with the mainstream opinion that there
is a mitzva for the people of Israel to build the third
Temple. Rashi might take a position related (but not
identical - see below) to that developed in a responsum
of Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger in his Binyan Tzion (#1). The
inyan Tzion argues against Rav Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer's
proofs that there is a commandment to
rebuild the Temple and offer sacrifices whenever possible, even before the
messianic era. Besides the obligation to build
the Temple, writes the Binyan Tzion, there must
be a Divine revelation that the sacrifices offered there are desired
by Heaven. Divine desire is a necessary requirement for
re-instituting the sacrificial order; sacrifices must be
"reiach nichoach la-Shem," "sweet smelling to
God." According to Rav Ettlinger, it
is forbidden to offer sacrifices without explicit prophetic Divine revelation
that they are desired.
There were those who objected to the Binyan Tzion's
approach, claiming that the
need that sacrifices be "sweet smelling to God" does not refer to revelation of
divine desire but rather to human intent that
the sacrifices achieve divine desire. The
person offering the sacrifice must intend to do something desirous by
Heaven. Rashi might agree with this approach but still
believe that a revelation that God
desires our
sacrificial service is essential for reinstating certain
aspects of the sacrificial order.
The approach of the Binyan Tzion also rings true for
a practical reason. There are so
many unclear halakhic issues involved in the building of the Temple: Is the
tekhelet used in the kohanim's clothing the authentic
one? Is the altar properly placed (see
the Rambam's Hilkhot Beit Ha-bechira chapter 2)? Are those serving as
kohanim really descended from Aharon? Even though, as in
all areas of halakha, we are to use the
best of our knowledge and follow tradition, with regard to the Temple
of Israel it is essential that there be unanimous assent
to its halakhic legitimacy. It would take a
prophet to assure that all Jews would support the reinstated Temple
service. Otherwise, some individuals might claim that
the new Temple is not in line with Halakha, and
theycould not be forced to change their minds.
It seems that those who would rebuild the Temple and
offer sacrifices - based on a general consensus of the
sages of the land of Israel - would still refrain from
offering the OMER until the appearance of a
Divine revelation that the new Temple is desired.
The offering of the omer affects the whole Jewish people's mitzva of
not eating of the new grain. The leadership of
the people, despite broad national consent, would still
not offer the Omer on behalf of all of Israel withoDivine
approval.
When Rashi says, "When the Temple is standing,"
he refers to divine will concerning
the Temple, not just its physical building. The Temple might be physically built
long before Pesach, but the divine revelation that it is
approved and desired might only take place on Yom Tov
afternoon or at night. Rashi's comment is carefully
worded: "The future Temple IS IN THE HANDS OF HEAVEN."
He does not mean that it will be built
by Heaven, but rather that its functioning is in the hands of Heaven,
waiting for Divine approval. WHEN this approval comes
has nothing to do with the law against building
the Temple at night or on Yom Tov.
REINSTATING SACRIFICES
We can prove that the altar can
be built and sacrifices offered upon it even
without a Temple. The gemara (Makkot 19a) quotes Rabbi Yishmael as saying that
one cannot bring ma'aser sheni (tithe to be eaten in
Jerusalem) to Jerusalem and eat it there nowadays. His
proof is from the laws of the sacrifice of the firstborn
animal, which must likewise be brought to Jerusalem.
Just as the firstborn can be offered only when there is a
Temple, so too ma'aser sheni. The gemara asks what Rabbi
Yishmael's position is regarding the sanctity
of Jerusalem at the present time. If he believes
that the sanctity of the Second Temple period remains in effect,
then the firstborn should also be brought nowadays!
Rashi comments:
"He can offer it and eat it. For if one believes that
the sanctity of the Second Temple
remains in effect, then he must maintain that sacrifices can be brought
even without a Temple, as we say in Megilla (10a)."
Apparently, sacrifices can be brought, according to
this opinion, even when there is
no Temple.
Simply building an altar suffices to enable offering sacrifices.
These are two independent realms of Halakha - building
the Temple and offering sacrifices. A
completely functioning Temple is dependent on divine approval.
Since we were told, "I will destroy your Temples and I
will not smell your fragrant offerings," we must wait
until we are told otherwise. However, sacrifices depend
only on the practical ability to build an altar. As long
as the firstborn can be offered, ma'aser sheni can be
eaten (in purity) in Jerusalem.
This is also the Rambam's position:
in Hilkhot Ma'aser Sheni (2:1), he writes that
ma'aser sheni cannot be eaten in Jerusalem unless there is a Temple ("bifnei
ha- ayit"). On the other hand, in Hilkhot Beit
Ha- bechira (6:15) he writes that because
the sanctity of the Second Temple continues to this day, sacrifices can be
brought today and ma'aser sheni can be eaten in all of
Jerusalem even though there are no
walls. The Rambam seems to refer to the present time. In other words,
building the Temple and the altar are within our hands
nowadays, even though our period will not be
referred to as "when the Temple is standing" until there is divine
approval of the Temple.
UNDERSTANDING RASHI
Why, then, does Rashi refer to "peace" as when there
is Jewish sovereignty and "lack of peace" as when the
Temple is not standing?
The mishna used the expression, "when the Temple is
not standing," implying that it was composed in a period
when the Temple was destroyed and Pesach Sheni could not
be offered. Therefore, Rashi explained "lack of peace"
as when the Temple was not standing. Here, Rashi means
that the Temple is not physically standing. This was
only because it was not practically possible to build the
Temple because of an
unwilling gentile
government. Rashi, by explaining "peace" as when there is
Jewish sovereignty, indicates his approach that the Temple can
and will be built when it is practically possible. The
Temple can be built and sacrifices brought even without
Divine approval.
When the Temple will be able
to be built - physically - the fasts will cease and
instead become days of joy. This will become possible when external and
internal pressures will allow for it. Perhaps we can
infer from the gemara that Tisha Be-av will
still be observed during this period. (The proof given that the
mishna was written in a period when the Temple was not
standing is NOT that messengers went out to announce
Rosh Chodesh Av - that might have been even when the Temple
was standing. The proof is only that the mishna uses the
expression, "when the Temple was standing.")
It is likely that Tisha Be-av will be observed even when the
Temple is standing until there is a divine sign
of approval, that God once again desires our sacrifices and
wants to have His Presence rest in the Beit Hamikdash.
(For the full version of this article, see Daf Kesher
#145, Av 5748, vol. 2, pp. 103-106.)
*********************************************************
VISIT YHE'S WEB SITE:
HTTP://WWW.VIRTUAL.CO.IL/EDUCATION/YHE
*********************************************************
To subscribe send e-mail to: listproc@virtual.co.il:
subject:(leave blank or type word 'subscription'), on
first line of text type: sub yhe-about <your full name> .
For a complete list of YHE Virtual
Beit Midrash
curriculum, send e-mail to: listproc@virtual.co.il:,
on
first line of text type: info yhe-about .
Copyright (c) 1998 Yeshivat Har Etzion.
All rights reserved.
*********************************************************
Shiurim may be dedicated to various
occasions -
yahrzeits, birthdays, etc.
Please e-mail
yhe@virtual.co.il for an application.
YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433
E-MAIL: YHE@VIRTUAL.CO.IL or OFFICE@ETZION.ORG.IL
This Dvar Torah page created
and hosted courtesy of OU Online - The Cyber Home of Torah
No responsibility for its contents may be implied or taken by the OU
Copyright ©1997. Yeshivat Har Etzion.
All rights reserved.
Comments to Webmaster
|