Seudah Hamafsekes On Shabbat

The Magen Avraham (552:14) says even though when 9 Av is motzei Shabbat one is allowed to eat whatever they ant beforehand and is not limited by the normal rules governing the סעודה המפסקת, one should not be overly merry and therefore one should not have the meal with friends.  The Yad Efraim quotes the Bechor Shor disagrees and holds that would be public avelut not displayed on Shabbat.    

 Rashi Taanis (29b) says רב תשעה באב שחל להיות בשבת - אינו מפסיק סעודתו ואינו ממעט בתבשילין אלא אוכל כל צרכו ומעלה על שולחנו אפי' כסעודת שלמה בשעתו.  The Be'ar Hatev (552:10) points out that Rashi holds when 9 Av is on Sunday - motzei Shabbat, there is no seudah hamafsekes.  Rav Soloveitchik (Mesorah journal volume 9) says according to Rashi there is no chalos of seudah hamafsekes when 9 Av follows Shabbat so it doesn't make sense to impose any of the rules at all.  

Why is there no seudah hamafsekes according to Rashi?  The Rambam (Taanis 3:3) describes the latter level of fasts for rain and he says, וּבְשָׁלוֹשׁ אֵלּוּ אוֹכְלִין וְשׁוֹתִין מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בְּצוֹם כִּפּוּר.  Why does he say you eat beforehand like Yom Kippur when there is a mitzvah to eat as oppose to other fast days?  Why must one eat beforehand?  Says Rav Soloveitchik, we see that part of the laws of fasting is to have a meal before the fast to designate that the fast begins at the conclusion of eating.  The סעודה מפסקת is a law in the chalos of the taanis itself.  Therefore, since on Shabbos fasting itself is suspended ,there can not be any laws that stem from the fast attached to it and that is why Rashi holds there is no law of seudah hamafsekes on Shabbat.       

The Tur cites the custom of the Sar Shalom and the Avi Ezri to not eat meat or drink wine in the meal eaten before motzei Shabbat. They acknowledge it is permitted as the Gemarah (Taanis 29a) says however, they advised against it משום חורבן הבית.  It is unclear why they would say to avoid what the Gemarah clearly says is allowed and why focus only on meat and wine, why not keep all the laws of סעודה מפסקת?  However, it is clear that they view the eating on Shabbas as a seudah hamafsekes.  The Beis Yosef even cites an opinion in the Mordechai that one does have to have a regular סעודה מפסקת before entering the fast.   

The Shulchan Aruch (552:1) says עֶרֶב תִּשְׁעָה בְּאָב לֹא יֹאכַל אָדָם בַּסְעֻדָּה הַמַּפְסֶקֶת, שֶׁאוֹכְלָהּ אַחַר חֲצוֹת, בָּשָׂר, וְלֹא יִשְׁתֶּה יַיִן וְלֹא יֹאכַל שְׁנֵי תַּבְשִׁילִין.  The Shulchan Aruch in the laws of 9 Av itself (554:25) says וְכָל הָאוֹכֵל בָּשָׂר אוֹ שׁוֹתֶה יַיִן בַּסְעֻדָּה הַמַּפְסֶקֶת, עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: וַתְּהִי עֲוֹנֹתָם עַל עַצְמוֹתָם.  Why does he repeat the law and why is a law in seudah hamafsekes put in he laws of 9 Av itself?  The sefer Diver Hakodesh says that we see there are two dinim to the prohibition of eating meat and wine in סעודה מפסקת.  One halacha in the seudah itself as a demonstration of mourning and then there is another halacha as a law of 9 Av not to go into the day as the possuk says עֲוֹנֹתָם עַל עַצְמוֹתָם, to have meat and wine in one's stomach.  It is a law of 9 Av which effects how one enters the day.  Hence, even one who is not fasting will still have a prohibition of meat and wine due to this halacha.  With this idea, he says, we can understand those that said not to eat meat and wine even on Shabbat going into 9 Av is in because of the halacha of the fast day, not to enter the day with meat and wine "on one's bones."  Therefore, they only said not to eat meat and wine, but do not say to refrain from having two dishes.  The issue with this explanation is that isn't the reason given in the Tur - he says משום חורבן הבית which indicates that although not a technical prohibition, one's feelings for the churban should not allow for consumption of meat and wine.  The Sefer Haminhag says that in places that obtsain from meat and wine from Rosh Chodesh Av, they should abstain at the seudah hamafsekes as well.  In other words, although from the law of the Gemarah it is permitted, since there is a custom to extend these aspects of diminishing in joy, that should definitely apply immediately before the onset of the day, even on Shabbat (see also this torahmitzion article.)       

Even on a year when erev 9 Av is not Shabbas the Rema (552:9) cites a custom to have a bigger meal before the סעודה מפסקת and gives the reason so that one has the strength to make it through the fast.  The Magen Avraham says it is to remember that the days of 9 Av will be turned into happy days so we have a meal to commemorate that idea.

Hearing

The Sefer Yetzirah associates the month of Av with the sense of listening.  The Bnei Yissachor (maameray Tamuz and Av 1:3) says the decree of 9 Av was sealed due to listening to the meraglim which is a lack in proper listening.  The Sefer Yetzirah also connects the month with the letter ט.  The letter ט is טוב גניז בגויה (as the Zohar says,) which is related to the ear which has an external covering and the internal part.  The sense of hearing contains the capability to bring out a internal goodness or destruction when it is misused.  Why is the sense of hearing connected to golus?  

The word for hearing שמע is the same word as the word gather as in וישמע שאול את העם (see Likutay Torah Vaeschanan.)  When one listens to Hashem, a person's capabilities are aligned.  When one does not listen, then a person's internal order is disturbed.  The golus is a collective of all of the individual internal states of golus (see Shuvi V'necheza siman 25.)  

The original sin of mankind stemmed from Chava listening to the snake and then Adam listening to her.  G-d asks Adam איכה the same word as the איכה we read on tisha b'Av.

Incomplete Houses And Feasts

The Tur (siman 560) cites the opinion of the Rambam (Taanis 5:12) that one may not line the walls of their house entirely from סיד which was the way aristocrats houses were done, rather one should first use a covering of טיט and סיד on top of that and then leave over a space unfinished opposite the door to express our lacking due to the churban.  The Tur disagrees and holds the unfinished space works to demonstrate our lacking due to the churban even in a house finished the way aristocrats do.  Rabbi Chagai Preschel (a previous Rosh Kollel in my kollel,) in בחגוי הסלע on Eicha wants to say the machlokes is in the geder of the takkanah to leave over an unfinished amah area.  The Rambam holds it is a takkanah on the cheftzah of the house.  Chazal said that one should not live in a house constructed like that of kings and therefore, one may not plaster their house in such a manner.  In addition, even when one does not plaster their walls like that for a king, one must still leave an unfinished area to show the house is not complete.  Hence one can't build a beautiful house but just leave something out for the house is still a beautiful house.  The Tur holds it is a din in the gavra that an action that brings simcha should be left incomplete to remember the churban and that is fulfilled by always leaving something of the house unfinished. 

With this he explains the change in the dikduk halashon of the Rambam and Tur in the next halacha.  The Rambam continues וְכֵן הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁהָעוֹרֵךְ שֻׁלְחָן לַעֲשׂוֹת סְעֻדָּה לָאוֹרְחִים מְחַסֵּר מִמֶּנּוּ מְעַט וּמַנִּיחַ מָקוֹם פָּנוּי בְּלֹא קְעָרָה מִן הַקְּעָרוֹת הָרְאוּיוֹת לָתֵת שָׁם, the Rambam puts the emphasis on the table being incomplete while the Tur writes ועושה אדם כל צרכי סעודה ומשייר בה דבר מועט אפילו כסא דהרסנא the emphasis is one the person, that he should leave something out of his feast to demonstrate his pain over the churban. 

The poskim discuss if leaving a picture of Yerushalayim or sign helps instead of the leaving an ammah unfinished (see Mishna Berurah #3 and sources cited in Pischay Teshuva.)  Such an argument would only make sense if leaving an ammah is a din in the gavra, if there is a din that the cheftzah of the house not to be properly finished then it would not help to hang a sign or picture. This chakirah also may play a role in determining who the obligation should be in the case of a rentor (see Igros Moshe volume 3 #86,) it is is a din in the gavra it should be an obligation on the one living in the house.  The poskim also discuss if one uses טיט with other things mixed in that it is lower quality and one won't be obligated to leave over an ammah (see Mishna Berurah #2, Aruch Hashulchan, Ritva Bava Basra 60b,) that  makes more sense if it is a din in the house not to be built nicely.  Then one can argue this type of cement is not good and it is not considered building too nice of a house but if it is a din in the gavra then it is more likely to say there still needs to be something recognizable that is left incomplete. 

Post Chatzos

Shulchan Aruch (557) בתשעה באב אומר בבונה ירושלים נחם ה' אלהינו את אבילי ציון וכו' ועננו בשומע תפלה ואם לא אמר לא זה ולא זה אין מחזירין אותו: הגה והמנהג פשוט שאין אומרים נחם רק בתפלת מנחה של תשעה באב לפי שאז הציתו אש במקדש ולכן מתפללים אז על נחמה (רוקח ואבודרהם).  The Beis Yosef adds וז"ל הריטב"א בתשובה לענין נחם בט"ב דעתי דכיון דמשום המאורע אמרינן ליה על פי הירושלמי לאומרו בכל תפלותיו ערבית שחרית ומנחה ככל מעין המאורע שבכ"מ אלא שבערבית ושחרית שהוא כמי שמתו מוטל לפניו ואינו בנחמה אומרים רחם ולמנחה אומרים נחם שדומה למי שנקבר מתו ומ"מ ש"צ אינו אומרו אלא במנחה כמו שנהגו עכ"ל.  

The Rema says (559:3) the custom is to sit low to the ground on 9 Av until chatzos and he says (5554:22) the custom not to do work is until chatzos.  What changes at  chatzos?  Rav Solevetchik connects this to the previous Ritva.  Before chatzos, the halachot reflect the status of an אונן who is preoccupied with burying the day and can't be distracted.  After chatzos the status switches to a state of avelut which has no law prohibiting distractions from the dead, to the contrary it is a time of comfort.  It is hard to understand how this explains the law of sitting which is not prohibited for an onnan, only for an avel and it is the laws of avelut seems to be the basis of why we don't sit on a regular chair (see Taz 559)?  It is also noteworthy that the Rema does not cite this reason of the Ritva, only the previous reason of the Beis Yosef לפי שאז הציתו אש במקדש ולכן מתפללים אז על נחמה.  

Built into the day is the concept of nechama.  Why does the mood of the day switch to the theme of nechama?  Rabbi Genack in Toras Yitzchak (Nachamu) says:

Part of the avelut is to give nechama.  It is interesting because I would think the idea of nechama is to move on from the pain of dealing with death and to be able to move on.  I would think that doesn't apply with the Mikdash.  But maybe even with the destruction of the Mikdash, although we go back to mourn every year for we can't just get on without the Mikdash, at the same time we understand the continuity of Klal Yisrael is able to carry on without the Mikdash.  Maybe part of the nechama is that despite the churban Klal Yisrael moves on and is able to looks forward to a greater future. 

Where Is Hashem

The Gemarah Megillah (29a) says תניא ר"ש בן יוחי אומר בוא וראה כמה חביבין ישראל לפני הקב"ה שבכל מקום שגלו שכינה עמהן גלו למצרים שכינה עמהן שנאמר (שמואל א ב, כז) הנגלה נגליתי לבית אביך בהיותם במצרים וגו' גלו לבבל שכינה עמהן שנאמר (ישעיהו מג, יד) למענכם שלחתי בבלה ואף כשהן עתידין ליגאל שכינה עמהן שנאמר (דברים ל, ג) ושב ה' אלהיך את שבותך והשיב לא נאמר אלא ושב מלמד שהקב"ה שב עמהן.  Form this Gemarah one wolud conclude the Shechina went along with Klal Yisrael into golus.  On the other hand the Gemarah Rosh Hashana (31a) says אמר רב יהודה בר אידי א"ר יוחנן עשר מסעות נסעה שכינה מקראי וכנגדן גלתה סנהדרין מגמרא עשר מסעות נסעה שכינה מקראי מכפרת לכרוב ומכרוב לכרוב ומכרוב למפתן וממפתן לחצר ומחצר למזבח וממזבח לגג ומגג לחומה ומחומה לעיר ומעיר להר ומהר למדבר וממדבר עלתה וישבה במקומה which indicates the Shechina departed.  Rav Yaakov Adas in Pirkay Machshava says we must say there are different levels of the presence of the Shechina, a certain aspect departed and a certain aspect remains.  

The possuk in Yirmiyahu (2:8) says הַכֹּֽהֲנִ֗ים לֹ֚א אָֽמְרוּ֙ אַיֵּ֣ה ה וְתֹֽפְשֵׂ֚י הַתּוֹרָה֙ לֹ֣א יְדָע֔וּנִי וְהָֽרֹעִ֖ים פָּ֣שְׁעוּ בִ֑י וְהַנְּבִאִים֙ נִבְּא֣וּ בַבַּ֔עַל וְאַֽחֲרֵ֥י לֹֽא־יוֹעִ֖לוּ הָלָֽכוּ.  Asks the Briskor Rav why did they have to say איה ה?  He answers with the Gemarah Rosh Hashana, since the Shechina already started to depart one is obligated to say איה ה.  If one sees a lack of the presence of the Shechina that was there previously, it behooves one to do something about it.  

Tasting On A Fast Day

 Berachot (14a)  אָמַר לֵיהּ: טוֹעֵם וְאֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּם. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: מַטְעֶמֶת אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה בְּרָכָה, וְהַשָּׁרוּי בְּתַעֲנִית טוֹעֵם וְאֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּם. עַד כַּמָּה? רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי טָעֲמִי עַד שִׁיעוּר רְבִיעֲתָא.

The Rosh says טועם ואין בכך כלום פירש רב חננאל  כגון שחוזר ופולטו הלכך לא חשיבא הטעימה הנאה  וגם א"צ ברכה ומיהו דוקא רביעית  אבל טפי מרביעית חשיבא הנאה לענין תענית. ומיהו נראה דברכה לא צריך כיון שאינו נהנה בתוך מעיו.  According to the Rosh the obligation for beracha is swallowing the food and without that there is no obligation of beracha.  For a fast the issur is the pleasure of even having food in the throat but less than a רביעית is insignificant.   

The Rambam Berachot (1:2) says וּמַטְעֶמֶת אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה בְּרָכָה לֹא לְפָנֶיהָ וְלֹא לְאַחֲרֶיהָ עַד רְבִיעִית.  In Taanis (1:14) he says וּמֻתָּר לוֹ לִטְעֹם אֶת הַתַּבְשִׁיל וַאֲפִלּוּ בִּכְדֵי רְבִיעִית וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִבְלַע אֶלָּא טוֹעֵם וּפוֹלֵט.  He splits between beracha and taanis, only in the Taanis does he note the need to spit out the food but not in Berachot. 

The Shulchan Aruch (210:2) cites both the opinion of the Rambam and the Rosh הטועם את התבשיל אינו צריך לברך עד רביעית ואפי' אם הוא בולעו וי"א שאם הוא בולעו טעון ברכה ולא פטרו את הטועם אלא כשחוזר ופולט ואז אפי' על הרבה אינו צריך ברכה.  The first opinion is the Rambam that only requires a beracha if tasting if swallowing a רביעית and the second opinion holds that one is exempt only if one spits out what they are tasting and then one can taste as much as they want like the Rosh.  In the laws of Taanit (567:1) he says השרוי בתענית יכול לטעום כדי רביעית ובלבד שיפלוט וביום הכפורים ובתשעה באב אסור.  He requires a taster to spit it out for even the Rambam requires one to spit out what one is tasting on a fast day. 

What is the difference between fasting and a beracha?  The Kesef Mishne says ואפשר לתת סמך לדבר דטעמא משום דכתיב ואכלת וברכת שיהא לו כוונת אכילה משמע ורביעית אף על פי שהיא מטעמת כוונת אכילה יש לה וכן פירש ה"ר מנוח. ואף על גב דהאי קרא לענין ברכה אחרונה מיירי מכל מקום יש לסמוך למקרא זה ברכה ראשונה.  It sounds from the K.M. that there is no obligation of beracha for one is not intending to eat, merely to taste.  It should come out then if one is eating merely for a side reason, not for the act of eating, that there is no beracha.  However, the Shulchan Aruch (204:7) says one who drinks water to clear one's throat doesn't make a beracha and the Mishna Berura spells out that if one drinks something other than water they will have to say a beracha even though the person is drinking just to clear their throat?  Furthermore, the Shaar Hatzion (210:30) has a doubt when one tastes and also intends to get pleasure from the food if one says a beracha, what is the doubt, the person should for sure be obligated in a beracha (see Minchas Shlomo 18:5)?  

The Rambam holds that eating less than a רביעית is considered eating, a מעשה אכילה, and hence any act of swallowing is prohibited on a fast day.  That however is not enough to obligate one in a beracha.  For a beracha the obligation is for an act of taking הנאה in the form of eating (see Ramban beginning of Ch. 8 of Berachat) and tasting is not called an act of taking benefit for this is not a way to eat.  However, in an act of of getting pleasure from food, even when there is no intent for consumption there still is an obligation of beracha.  The Shaar Hatzion's doubt is when one also has intent for the benefit of the food does this transform into an act of a pleasurable act of eating or no, for the main intent is to do an act of tasting.  (See Zacher Yitzchok volume 2 siman 21, shiurim of Rav Solevetchik.)   

Why is 9 Av and Yom Kippur different and all tasting is prohibited?  Tosfos notes that it is only a private fast that depends on the nature of one's acceptance that one is permitted to taste but a taanis tzibbur which does not depend on the intention of the one accepting the taanis it will be prohibited to taste.  The Rema therefore rules that for every taanis tzibbur one may not taste.  It would seem the Shulchan Aruch holds the other fast days since רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין don't have the status of a tzibbur fast.  

Cry

 A mashal from Rav Pinkas as to why Maschiach in born on 9 Av which I liked. 

Moadim Of The Future

The possuk in Eicha (1:15) says קרא עלי מועד לשבר בחורי.  The Gemarah Taanis (29a) learns from this possuk that Rosh Chodesh is called a מועד.  However, the poskim learn from this possuk that tisha b'av is called a moad.  How can two things be derived from one possuk?  

What is the moad of tisha b'av, it is anything but a happy day?  The moad is not due to the current state of affairs but the potential for the future that exists within the day.   The day that tisha b'av will be turned into a holiday is what gives it the name of a moad now.  The same is with Rosh Chodesh.  The moad of Rosh Chodesh is because of the future when the light of the moon will become equal to the light of the sun.  Both moadim are the same yesod.  As opposed to most moadim where we commemorate the past, these moadim are a reminder of what is to be in the future. 

Alone

 איכה ישבה בדד העיר רבתי עם היתה כאלמנה.  The opening of Eicha is not a possuk about the destruction but instead how Yerushalayim is left alone.  why is that the opening?  The Sfas Emes (Devarim 5653) explains that the loneliness is the separation of Yerushalayim from its parallel source above.  It is this divide, this separation that is the main lament, the opening remark of the navi.  The destruction is merely an outgrowth of that divide.  It is the loneliness, the sense of solitude, that is the main cry of the navi.

ותרד עיני דמעה – על ביטול תורה

 הגאון הרב אשר אריאלי שליט''א

איתא בחגיגה ה: הנביא אומר בשם ה': "ואם לא תשמעוה במסתרים תבכה נפשי מפני גוה" והגמ' מבארת שהבכי הוא על החורבן. בהמשך מביאה הגמ' את הפסוק "ודמוע תדמע ותרד עיני דמעה כי נשבה עדר ה'". א"ר אלעזר שלש דמעות הללו למה אחת על מקדש ראשון ואחת על מקדש שני ואחת על ישראל שגלו ממקומן ואיכא דאמרי אחת על ביטול תורה. בשלמא למ"ד על ישראל שגלו ממקומן היינו כי נשבה עדר ה', אלא למ"ד על ביטול תורה מאי כי נשבה עדר ה' ומת' הגמ' כיון שגלו ישראל ממקומן אין לך ביטול תורה גדול מזה.

הדברים כאן מסמרי שער. כשלומדים בת"ב את אגדות החורבן ורואים את הצרות הנוראות שסבלו ישראל בשעת החורבן, המיתות המשונות והסבל הנורא. והמצב הזה נמשך קרוב לאלפיים שנה. גזירות ורדיפות ושמד, שעובר על כלל ישראל בגלות. הקינה היא על שגלו ישראל ממקומן, אבל עיקר הבכי הוא על הביטול תורה! שכיון שגלו ישראל ממקומן אין לך ביטול תורה גדול מזה. היתכן שכביכול הקב"ה מתעלם מהמצב הנורא של הצרות, וכלל ישראל זועק מרה בכאבו, והעסק של הבכי ועיקר הדמעה היא רק על הבטול תורה?!

שמעתי בשם אחד הגדולים [וכמדומני מהגר"א קוטלר זצוק"ל] שדייק בפסוק דיוק נפלא. כשפוגע באדם צער או כאב מסוים יוצאת מעיניו דמעה, אבל לפעמים העיניים שטופות בדמע אך הדמעה לא יוצאת החוצה והיא עדין עצורה בתוך העין. לשון הפסוק "ודמע תדמע ותרד עיני דמעה" על שני בתי מקדשות יש דמעה. אך ההתפרצות של הבכי בתוקפו שהדמעה כבר יוצאת מן העין, הוא מחמת ביטול תורה. והדבר צ"ב.

וההסבר הפשוט נראה כך. אמנם הצער הוא נורא. נחרב בית ראשון, נחרב בית שני, כלל ישראל בגלות בכאלה שואות, צרות ורדיפות. אך כל זמן שהתורה בשלימותה אפשר לבנות הכל מחדש, כיון שהיסוד קיים. אך כיון שגלו ישראל ממקומן אין לך ביטול תורה גדול מזה. וכדאי' ברמב"ם שכל המחלוקות הנמצאים במשנה של התנאים הקדושים, של ב"ש וב"ה, הכל תוצאה של הצרות והגלות. לפני כן לא היתה מחלוקת בישראל, הכל היה ברור כנאמר בסיני. רק אחר "שמלכה ושריה בגויים אין תורה" רבו המחלוקות. וזה ממשיך וממשיך בירידת הדורות עד דורינו אנו, שרבתה כ"כ שכחת התורה וכל המושגים שלנו בתורה נהיו מצומצמים ביותר עד שרוב רובו של כלל ישראל, הם תינוקות שנשבו שלא פתחו ספר ובמצב ש"שהן יורדין יורדים על התהום". אמנם יש לנו הבטחה "כי לא תשכח מפי זרעו" אך במידה מסוימת אחר החורבן זה כבר נקרא "אין תורה". התורה לא בתוקפה, ואין לך ביטול תורה גדול מזה. ולכן כשהיסוד מתרועע וא"א לחזור ולתקן המצב כמקודם, ע"ז הבכי פורץ "ותרד עיני דמעה" ואז גם הדמעות הקודמות יוצאות החוצה. כבר בוכים על הכל, אך שורש הבכי הוא מהצער והכאב על ביטול תורה.

האבלות של החורבן, האבלות ביום תשעה באב, ללא היסח הדעת ובבכי של "אוי מה היה לנו", דמעה של בית ראשון, דמעה על בית שני, דמעה על ביטול תורה, על הירידה הנוראה של כלל ישראל, מחמת שהיסוד של היהדות הזדעזע, דמעות אלו הם הבונים את ביהמ"ק – הם מקרבים אותנו שוב אל הקב"ה. שהרי אי' בגמ' ש"מיום שנחרב ביהמ"ק מחיצה של ברזל מפסקת בין ישראל לאביהם שבשמים" אך דמעות כן מסוגלות לפרוץ חומה זו וכדאי' "כל השערים ננעלו שערי דמעות לא ננעלו" (ב"מ נט.). דמעות הרי נובעים מעומק הלב, דמעות של אמת. עם אמת זו אפשר לבקוע אפי' מחיצת ברזל וכמובא בספרים מהזוה"ק לגבי ימים נוראים על הפסוק "ותפתח ותראהו את הילד והנה נער בוכה" (ראשית חכמה שער התשובה פ"ד) [רק שיהיו דמעות אמת וכמו שהגרי"ס זצ"ל הזהיר מבכי מזויף]. הצער והבכי על הריחוק מהשי"ת על המצב הרוחני הירוד של הכלל, ושל כ"א בפרט על ביטול ושכחת התורה, הוא עצמו גורם את הקרבה להשי"ת, את התיקון שיביא את הבנין.

Pain No Gain

 

Hatred Or Love

This post is based upon lectures by Rabbi Yehoshua Shapira and Rabbi Y.Y. Jacobson. 

וַתֵּרָגְנ֤וּ בְאׇהֳלֵיכֶם֙ וַתֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ בְּשִׂנְאַ֤ת י״י֙ אֹתָ֔נוּ הוֹצִיאָ֖נוּ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם לָתֵ֥ת אֹתָ֛נוּ בְּיַ֥ד הָאֱמֹרִ֖י לְהַשְׁמִידֵֽנוּ.  It was never recorded in Shelach that they hated Hashem?  Furthermore, if Hashem hates them why did he take them out of Egypt and continue to do so many miracles for them? 

Klal Yisroel had pent up anger held within them back from their days of torture in Egypt.  They were oppressed and had no where to turn.  After the liberation they were rushed out through showers of miracles and never had the time to heal the anger that was deep in their hearts.  When one thing started going awry that anger became reawakened.  Klal Yisroel never said explicitly G-d hates us at the time of the meraglim but they were the feelings that were awakened within their souls.  When Moshe is recounting the episode he acknowledges those feelings to warn Klal Yisroel that they must be eradicated from within their souls.  Because Klal Yisroel had so many feelings of anger they saw everything their glasses of anger and saw hatred all around them.  That led them to believe that indeed G-d hated them.  כמים הפנים לפנים.  

The Midrash (16:20) says וַתִּשָֹּׂא כָּל הָעֵדָה וַיִּתְּנוּ אֶת קוֹלָם, זֶה שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב (ירמיה יב, ח): נָתְנָה עָלַי בְּקוֹלָהּ עַל כֵּן שְׂנֵאתִיהָ, אוֹתוֹ קוֹל שֶׁבְּכִיתֶם, גָּרַם לָכֶם לִהְיוֹת שְׂנוּאִין,  Sfas Emes (5643) says בפסוק ותאמרו בשנאת ה' כו' ע"ז דרשו חז"ל נתנה עלי בקולה כו'.  כמו שהי' חטא זה התחלת הגלות שבאמת השי"ת אהב את דור המדבר ומ"מ עי"ז החטא שהיו אומרים בשנאת. נהפך ונאמר ע"כ שנאתי'.  Klal Yisroel's perception of hate led them to a path of destruction.  Something that was not there turned into an impasse that forced the churban.  Their perception of hatred created a reality.  The Sfas Emes continues that this also teaches us the road to geulah.  מכ"ש שיש לנו ללמוד שמדה טובה המרובה כשבנ"י מקבלין יסורי הגלות באהבה ומאמינים כי הוא חסד הש"י כמ"ש אשר יאהב ה' יוכיח לכן בנ"י המה מדוכאים בעולם. יוכל להיות זאת מפתח של הגאולה.  If one accepts the mussar of Hashem, the hardships, הגם שהיו יסורי משפט ודין and is able to cope without feelings of hate but to understand the great love of Hashem, that will be the key to the geulah. 

The Sfas Emes adds (5642) - בפסוק בשנאת ה' אותנו כו'. וע"ז נאמר נתנה עלי בקולה ע"כ שנאתי'. כי הקב"ה חשב לטובתנו. וע"י שאמרו בשנאת. נהפך ח"ו לשנאה ויש לנו ללמוד ק"ו מדה טובה המרובה אשר גם בגלותנו עתה שנתגרשנו משלחן אבינו שבשמים. יש לנו להאמין ולבטוח באבינו שבשמים. כי מאהבה הוכיח אותנו כמ"ש אשר יאהב ה' יוכיח. ומתוך אמונה זו יתהפך באמת לאהבה.  By believing the golut is for our benefit, than creates the reality that it leads to the geulah and is indeed for our benefit.  וזה עיקר פי' אוהב את התוכחות להאמין כי הוא מאהבה כשיודעין שהמוכיח אוהב נאמן הוא. מקבלין התוכחה. ועי"ז נהפך באמת לאהבה.  The Sfas Emes explains אוהב את התוכחות means to accept that the rebuke of G-d comes form a place of great love.  When one accepts the rebuke in such a fashion, the difficulties themselves become cherished by the person.  It beomes tainted through the glasses of love.  וע"ז כתי' ע"כ פשעים תכסה אהבה. ואיך יכולין לבא לאהבה כשיש רוב פשעים. רק כשמקבלין התוכחה והעונשין והיסורין מתוך אהבה. ולכן כתי' לכו כו' ונוכחה כו' אם יהיו חטאיכם כשנים כו' פי' ע"י קבלת התוכחה יתלבנו החטאים כנ"ל.  The Sfas Emes explains the possuk לְכוּ־נָ֛א וְנִוָּכְחָ֖ה יֹאמַ֣ר י״י֑ אִם־יִהְי֨וּ חֲטָאֵיכֶ֤ם כַּשָּׁנִים֙ כַּשֶּׁ֣לֶג יַלְבִּ֔ינוּ אִם־יַאְדִּ֥ימוּ כַתּוֹלָ֖ע כַּצֶּ֥מֶר יִֽהְיֽוּ as the word וְנִוָּכְחָ֖ה being related to תוכחה, by accepting the hardships for one's sins that itself leads to the kapparah.

You Do Not Belong

This post is based upon a shmuz from Rabbi Yosef Elefant. 

The Gemorah in Yevamot (47a) says תנו רבנן גר שבא להתגייר בזמן הזה אומרים לו מה ראית שבאת להתגייר אי אתה יודע שישראל בזמן הזה דוויים דחופים סחופים ומטורפין ויסורין באין עליהם אם אומר יודע אני ואיני כדאי מקבלין אותו מיד.  The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a potential convert who comes to a court in order to convert, at the present time, when the Jews are in exile, the judges of the court say to him: What did you see that motivated you to come to convert? Don’t you know that the Jewish people at the present time are anguished, suppressed, despised, and harassed, and hardships are frequently visited upon them? If he says: I know, and although I am unworthy of joining the Jewish people and sharing in their sorrow, I nevertheless desire to do so, then the court accepts him immediately to begin the conversion process (translation from Sefaria which is Steinsaltz.)

Why must the convert wish to join in the sorrows of the Jews?  Even if he is not deterred by such knowledge why must he be encouraged by the promise of such suffering?  The Maharal in Netzach (Ch. 15) explains that suffering means that the person does not fit, is not comfortable in this world.  It means one does not belong.  The ger must recognize that he is joining a nation whose place is not in this world.  It is just a temporary trip one must travel through in this world.  

This is the recognition one must have of the golut.  The suffering of the golut is because we do not belong in the golut.  It is not state one is supposed to belong in.  Just as the Gemorah says the ger must realize what he is joining so too we must realize we do not belong in golut.  That may be why כל המתאבל על ירושלים זוכה ורואה בשמחתה (Taanit 30b.)  Just as the ger is only accepted when he is willing to part with belonging in this world, so too one can leave golut only when one is willing to give it up. 

Kiddush And Havdalah

In an earlier post it was cited the Rambam holds that kiddush and havdalah are the same yesod to honor Shabbos when it starts and when it ends.  Other Rishonim disagree and hold that havdalah signifies that it is now chol.  What is behind this machlokes?  

The Rambam in Laws of Shabbos (29:1) defines kiddush as  זָכְרֵהוּ זְכִירַת שֶׁבַח וְקִדּוּשׁ, a commandment to praise and mention the holiness of the day.  The Rashba in a Teshuva volume 4 (#295) says a similar construct.  However, the Ramban in Yisro (20:8) defines kiddush as sanctifying the day just like Beit Din sanctifies yoval.  [Even though Shabbos is kadosh by itself it is like a bechor animal where there is a mitzvah to designate it as kadosh even though it happens by itself as the Rambam rules in the Laws of Bechor (1:4).]  According to the Rambam we understand that kiddush and havdalah have the same function to praise Shabbos and they are the same mitzvah (see Minchas Chinuch (31:1) compares kiddush and havdalah to krias shema of the morning and evening.)  Hence, havdalah is also a law to praise the day of Shabbos.  However, according to the Ramban that the mitzvah of kiddush is to infuse kedusha into the day, that is only applicable by kiddush, not by havdalah and we must say that havdalah is a different din, not the same mitzvah as kiddush.  We don't find a concept to merely praise the Shabbos and in his view havdalah would be a form of accepting the chol.  That is why the Rambam holds kiddush can be done before Shabbos, as one is approaching the Shabbos, because then it is appropriate to praise Shabbos.  However, if one is sanctifying the day, it must be in a time when one is a timeframe of kedushat shabbos and that is why Tosfos holds that kiddush can be done on Friday afternoon only because tosefes Shabbos allows one to extend the kedusha of Shabbos.  Only when there is kedushat Shabbos can kiddush be recited.  

Another point on havdalah done on Shabbos.   The Mishba Berurah (299:1) cites the Magen Avrahom holds if one davened maariv of motzei Shabbos early on Shabbos, it is prohibited to eat until one says havdalah.  The Shaar Hatzion cites the Pri Migadim disagrees because when davening maariv early on Shabbos its still Shabbos and the obligation of havdalah doesn't kick in yet.  He obviously understands this is no concept of the dinim of chol extending into Shabbos not like the Behag mentioned earlier this week.

Early Havdalah

This post is based on a shiur by Rabbi Yosef Elefant. 

The Gemorah Berachot (27b) says a person is allowed to say havdalah even when it is still light outside and it is still Shabbos.  If that's the case, why would we not say havdalah early, on Shabbos itself, when tisha b'av is Sunday? 

In order to address this question we first need to understand the din itself.  Why is one allowed to say havdalah early?  Tosfos on the page writes that this din of saying havdalah is true only in a pressing situation where one must leave immediately after Shabbos to do a mitzvah but otherwise one may not say havdalah early.  However, the Rambam does not mention this caveat.  What is this machlokes about? 

Before the Gemorah says one can do havdalah while it is still Shabbos it says one can say kiddush when it is still daylight on Friday.  Tosfos in Pesachim (99b) and the Rosh Arvei Pesachim siman 2 explain the reason one can recite kiddush while it is still day is because of the principle of tosefes Shabbos, that one can extend Shabbos into Friday.  That works to explain why you can do kiddush early but that does not help us for havdalah; why you can do havdalah early?

The Rambam in the Laws of Shabbos (29:11) says יֵשׁ לוֹ לְאָדָם לְקַדֵּשׁ עַל הַכּוֹס עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִכְנְסָה הַשַּׁבָּת. וְכֵן מַבְדִּיל עַל הַכּוֹס מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן הִיא שַׁבָּת. שֶׁמִּצְוַת זְכִירָה לְאָמְרָהּ בֵּין בִּשְׁעַת כְּנִיסָתוֹ וִיצִיאָתוֹ בֵּין קֹדֶם לְשָׁעָה זוֹ כִּמְעַט:  The Rambam holds the reason one can say havdalah and kiddush while still day is because of the same reason, the mitzvah is to talk about Shabbos around the time of Shabbos, not on the day itself but as one is ushering in or exiting Shabbos.  The Rambam holds that the mitzvah of kiddush and havdalah are the same mitzvah; both are declarations of the kedusha of Shabbos.  Havdalah is not an expression of chol, it is an expression of Shabbos and hence may be declared even as it is still Shabbos. 

The Tur (556) brings the Behag says one should not recite havdalah early on Shabbos before tisha b'av because if one does so it would be prohibite for them to continue drinking.  Why would the person be prohibited from drinking just because he recited havdalah?  We see the Behag holds that by saying havdalah while it is still shabbos one is already bringing in the chol and although the issur melacha is still in place, there is a semi-status of chol already pronounced.  The Behag is the opposite of the Rambam.  He holds that havdalah is an expression of leaving Shabbos and therefore when one does havdalah early it is because one is to an extent leaving the kedusha of Shabbos behind.

The Tur (293) brings from the Ritz Gayos that now that the custom is to follow the opinion of the Rabannan to daven maariv after dark, not like Rebbe Yehuda that says one can do it from plag mincha one should not say kiddush or havdalah early.  What does a machlokes about davening times have to do with whether one can say kiddush or havdalah when it is still day?  The Gra in Maaseh Rav (117) says one must daven maariv before saying kiddush (not like the Magen Avraham 271:5.)  In that light we can understand that if you can't daven yet, you can't say kiddush yet.  But why must one daven maariv in order to say kiddush?  It must be that davining maariv is what already makes it called the night time.  If one davened maariv they have declared it to be night and the dinim of the night can already extend into the previous day but without maariv it is still Friday and one can't make kiddush or it is still Shabbos and one can't make havdalah.  The davining is what gives at least a partial status of night.  This is similar to the Behag that one can make the status of the night extend into the previous day but he holds that can only happen through tefillah.  

Getting back to Tosfos and how he will learn havdalah.  It must be Tosfos learnt along the lines of the Ritz Gayos or the Behag but he holds it only suffices for havdalah to be able to have an early removal of the kedusha of Shabbos but to fulfill kiddush one needs bonafide kedushas Shabbos it would not suffice to have a quasi status of the night extended with a kiddush or tefillah and therefore needs to evoke the principal of tosefs Shabbos.  Because Tosfos holds that one is declaring it to be chol early by saying havdalah when it is still Shabbos he only allows it in a pressing situation.  The Rambam that holds it does not make it chol, on the contrary, havdalah is a way of affirming the holiness of Shabbos, has no problem with doing havdalah on Shabbos.  However, we are left with the question according to the Rambam dwhy should one not say havdalah on Shabbos when tisha b'av is sunday?

Delayed Havdalah (#2)

The Rosh in Berachot Ch.4 # 17 brings from Rabbenu Yona in a scenario where one forgot havdalah at maariv and he doesn't have wine to say havdalah later that night but he will be able to obtain wine tomorrow then he does not repeat the maariv prayer.  Rabbi Akiva Eger (on Shulchan Aruch 299:6) asks why does the Rosh say you don't repeat maariv only if you will get wine Sunday if he paskins in Pesachim that one can say havdalah through Tuesday, he should say it depends if you will be able to obtain wine through Tuesday?  R.A.E. proves from this Rosh that there is a difference between saying havdalah on Sunday as opposed to the days following.  Sunday is considered the proper time of havdalah, it is an extension of motzei Shabbos but the later days are makeup days. Therefore, if one will obtain wine by Sunday one doesn't repeat the prayers since he will be able to say havdalah in the proper time.  However, if one will will only get wine in the makeup days then he must repeat the prayers.  This contradicts the Rosh in Berachot (in the last post) that holds when was an onan motzei Shabbos he does not say havdalah on Sunday and the Minchas Chinuch explained since he is exempt on motzei Shabbos he is exempt from the makeup days as well, which means Sunday is a makeup day also?  

The answer to this contraction lies in another Rosh.  The Rosh in Moad Katan Ch. 3 (#96) has another machlokes with the Maharam.  He discusses a case where one in a katan and their relative dies and before the conclusion of the shloshim the katan becomes a gadal.  The Maharam holds then the new gadol has to observe avelut like one who hears the news of a dead relative within thirty days just like one who hears about a relative that died on the regel.  Since he can't observe avelut at the time he heard about the death, he observes it later when he becomes obligated, so too the katan when he becomes a gadol will be obligated to observe the avelut.  The Maharam asks on himself that there is on comparison because in the case of the regel, the person was obligated in avelut but the day blocks the obligation, when the regel is over then the person observes avelut but the katan that is completely exempt from avelut since he isn't obligated in the beginning of the avelut he should never become obligated?  The Maharam answers that we do not say דיחוי when it comes to mitzvot.  When a mitzvah becomes temporarily unfit we do not say it is unfit forever so even though this katan was not obligated at the beginning, now that he is a gadol he will obligated in avelut.  The Rosh disagrees and holds the question of the Maharam is correct.  He says that principal of אין דיחוי במצות is true when the mitzvah becomes unfit for some reason but when a person is unfit for the mitzvah then we do say דיחוי.  We don't say דחוי regarding the cheftzah but we do say דחוי in the gavra.  He brings a proof to this from the halacha (Chagigah 9a) that if one is lame on the first day of the regel so he is exempt from bringing the korbanot of עלייה לרגל even if he is healed on the second day on the regel he is still exempt from the korbanot if the rest of the days of the regel are a makeup for the first day and not an independent obligation.  We see since the person was not obligated the first day, he does not become obligated later on.  

The Rosh in Berachot cites this same Gemorah in Chagigah as a proof to his shita that since the onan was exempt from havdalah motzei Shabbos he is exempt Sunday as well.  We see from the Rosh in Moad Katan that the reason for the petur is not since the person is not obligated in the main chiuv he is exempt from the makeup like the Minchas Chinuch learnt, rather the reason that one is exempt is because of  the principle of דיחוי.  It is possible that it is one chiuv and still if one is exempt in the beginning they are exempt from the whole mitzvah.  The understanding of the M.C. would be limited to a chiuv with an extension time to make it up.  That would not be applicable by the shloshim of avelut which is one long chiuv, there are no tashlumin days.  From the fact that the Rosh compares that scenario to the Gemorah in Chagigah is because he understands the reason for the exemption is because of דיחוי.  The machlokes Rosh and Maharam in Berachot and in Moad Katan go lishitasam if we say this principle of דחוי אצל מצות when the person was unfit for the mitzvah and subsequently becomes fit. 

Obviously now there is no contradiction in the Rosh.  The Rosh holds like R.A.E. proves from the Rosh in Berachot  Ch.4 that Sunday is the time of the chiuv not a makeup time.  The reason the Rosh holds that one who was an onan on motzei Shabbos is exempt from havdalah even on Sunday is because of דיחוי.  Even in the same chiuv, if one is unfit at the beginning of the mitzvah they became נדחה from the mitzvah. 

There is one more point to hammer out.  It sounds like from the Rosh if one is an onan at the beginning of motzei Shabbos and then does the burial that night, in that case everyone will agree to say havdalah after the funeral.  According to this understanding why, we should still say דחוי?  We must say there are three levels of the havdalah obligation.  On motzei Shabbos itself since that is the real time to say havdalah, even if one can't do at the beginning the rest of motzei Shabbos is the same obligation.  One can't say דחוי in the same frame of chiuv.  Sunday is an extension of the main chiuv but a level less than motzei Shabbos and we can say דחוי.  The rest of the days are mere makeup days.  This point requires some clarification.  (See Teshuvot Chasam Sofer Orach Chayim siman 17, see also Steipler Berachot siman 9.) 

Delayed Havdalah (#1)

The following posts are a series in the understanding of doing havdalah after motzei Shabbos when 9 Av is Sunday based upon shiurim by Rabbi Yosef Elefant.

The Gemorah in Pesachim (106-107) discusses if one did not say havdalah on motzei Shabbas until when can one still do havdalah.  There are two main opinions in the Gemorah if one can do havdalah all of Sunday or through Tuesday night.  The halacha is that one can do havdalah through Turesday night.  There are three ways to understand the machlokes in the Gemorah.

#1 Everyone agrees the time for havdalah is motzai Shabbos.  However one can make up the missed time of the havdalah and the machlokes is how long is the time frame to make it up, to do tashlumin for havdalah. 

#2 There is so such concept as making up a missed havdalah rather the machlokes is what is the time frame for havdalah.  The opinion that holds Sunday is because since the day follows the night, Sunday is connected to motzei Shabbos (Mishna Berurah (299:17).)  The opinion that holds through Tuesday night holds that the first three days of the week are all connected to the previous Shabbos. 

#3 Rabbi Akiva Eger (299:6) says a hybrid approach.  He says everyone agrees that Sunday is a continuum of motzei Shabbos and is the time for havdalah.  The machlokes is if one has a make up time through Tuesday. 

The Rambam (Shabbos 29:4) says וְאִם לֹא הִבְדִּיל בַּלַּיְלָה מַבְדִּיל לְמָחָר וּמַבְדִּיל וְהוֹלֵךְ עַד סוֹף יוֹם שְׁלִישִׁי.  Why does he say you can do havdalah tomorrow and through Tuesday, just say through Tuesday and that includes Sunday?  This Rambam sounds like R.A.E.  He is emphasizing Sunday because that is the proper time for havdalah, and then tells you that one can make up the missed havdalah through Tuesday.  

There are 4 נ"מ between these approaches in the understanding of the halacha. 

#1 Another area where we find the concept of a make up is if one missed a prayer.  The halacha of tashlumin by prayer is only if the prayer wasn't missed wantonly (S.A. 108:7.)  What if one didn't do havdalah on motzei Shabbos wantonly can one still recite havdalah on the following days? 

The Tur (271:8) says if one purposely didn't recite kiddush Friday night the Rambam holds you can make it up Shabbos day but Rav Amram Gaon holds that you can't make it up Shabbos day if you purposely neglected to recite kiddush Friday night.  (The Bach explains that Rav Amram compares making up the kiddush Shabbos day to making up a missed prayer, it can only be done if it was missed unintentionally.  The Rambam holds that you can make it up because the entire Shabbos is the proper time of kiddush, it is just better to recite it at the beginning.)  This would parallel the דיון that we have regarding havdalah.  The S.A. (299:6) says 'שכח ולא הבדיל במוצאי שבת מבדיל עד סוף יום ג.  The M.B. (#15) says the same is true if one intentionally did not say havdalah on motzei Shabbos.  This should depend on what the geder of the havdalah is (it is interesting the M.B. thinks that is the opinion of the Rambam.   See also the Meiri Taanit (30b) mentions making up havdalah even if it was intentionally not said.)

#2 Can one make up the havdalah for Yom Tov that was missed?  It the next day is a makeup day that halacha is only for Shabbos not Yom Tov but if it is considered the proper time because the day follows the night, it would apply to Yom Tov as well.  R.A.E.  says according to his understanding that after Yom Tov you have the next day to say havdalah. 

#3 The Rosh in Berachot Ch.3 #3 brings a machlokes if one was an onan on motzei Shabbos should they say havdalah the next day. The Maharam holds that he says havdalah the next day.  The Rosh disagrees since he was exempt at motzei Shabbas he does not say havdalah Sunday as well. The Minchas Chinuch (31:9) says they argue if extension of havdalah is a makeup or it is considered the proper time.  If it is the proper time, then even one who is exempt motzei Shabbos will still say havdalah the following days but if it is a makeup, one who is exempt from the main obligation can not be obligated in the makeup.  (It is noteworthy according to this understanding that the Rosh holds even Sunday is a makeup day not like R.A.E.)    

#4 Tosfos Pesachim (107a) say since we hold havdalah can be said through Tuesday when 9 Av falls out on Shabbos we do havdalah after the fast is over.  The Maharsha points out that Tosfos holds if havdalah can only be said through Sunday since the fast is over at the conclusion of Sunday, one would not be able to say havdalah. The Behag (cited in Ran Pesachim (21b-22a of dafa Rif) holds even if normally you hold havdalah can only be said through Sunday, in the case when 9 Av is Sunday the time frame for havdalah is extended.  The Ran brings the Rishonim ask how can the Behag say the time frame is extended if Sunday is over?  The Behag holds that you can do havdalah on Sunday as a makeup.  Normally Chazal limited the makeup to Sunday because that gives you ample time to say havdalah but in the case when 9 Av is Sunday and there is no opportunity for havdalah before Monday, the makeup time is extended (that is לכאורא the peshat in the Ran's defense of the Behag.) [The Tur (299:6) brings the Behag holds the halacha that one say say havdalah even if he inappropriately ate beforehand only applies if one says havdalah on motzei Shabbos but if one is saying havdalah on subsequent days then one can no longer say havdalah.  The Tur asks what is the difference? The Amek Beracha (kiddush and havdalah #5) says the Behag is lishitaso that the additional days are makeup days for havdalah.  One can say havdalah even if they ate beforehand inappropriately if it is still the time for havdalah but one is not granted a makeup time if they already misappropriated the havdalah.]

The Ramban in Toras Adam (#111) argues on the Behag and says the complete opposite.  He says that even if normally one would hold havdalah can be said through Tuesday, when 9 Av is Sunday you don't do havdalah following the fast since you couldn't day havdalah motzei Shabbos you can't say it on the following days as well.  (similar to the Maharam held when one is an onan on motzei Shabbos since there was no obligation in the timeframe of the chiuv , there is no obligation in the makeup time.)  The Meiri Taanis (30b) explains there are two ways to understand why Tosfos disagrees with the Ramban.  Either he holds the obligation of havdalah through Tuesday is not as a makeup but that is considered the proper timeframe for havdalah or even if it is a makeup it is not like onan where the individual is exempt from the obligation, here there is an obligation of havdalah but one can't fulfill it because of the fast.  Therefore the obligation of havdalah can be fulfilled after the fast. 

Nechamah Within the Aveilus

Nechamah Within the Aveilus
Tisha b'Av 
Harav Hagaon Yehuda Wagschal Shlita

The Three Weeks, the Nine Days, Erev Tisha b’Av and Tisha b’Av are all full of minhagim of aveilus, to gradually bring us into the feeling of mourning for Yerushalayim. Surprisingly, however, among the minhagim of this time there are also some minhagim of nechamah. For example, on Tisha b'Av itself after chatzos, we start minimizing the aveilus, sitting on chairs and showing signs of nechamah. Similarly, the Shabbos after Tisha b'Av is called Shabbos Nachamu, and the minhag is to be marbeh a little in simchah on this Shabbos, reflecting the nechamah that we experience after the aveilus on Yerushalayim.

The minhagim of aveilus are certainly in place, because we’re still in a state of churban, but what place is there for minhagim of nechamah? What changed that should offer us consolation? We’re still in the midst of the devastating churban of the Beis Hamikdash, and we weren’t yet zocheh to its rebuilding and the rebuilding of Klal Yisrael. So why are we observing minhagim of nechamah?
The Gemara, at the end of Taanis, teaches: כל המתאבל על ירושלים זוכה ורואה בשמחתה, and Rav Chaim Volozhiner wonders why this is phrased in the present tense. Shouldn’t the wording be יזכה ויראה בשמחתה? How can it be that right now, in middle of the aveilus, we’re zocheh to see the simchah?

He explains this in accordance with Rashi’s statement that Yaakov Avinu was not able to be comforted about his son Yosef’s death because the rule is that a mes is forgotten from the heart after twelve months, and since Yosef was actually alive, he could not be forgotten. Many hundreds of twelve-month periods have elapsed since the Churban Beis Hamikdash, whose aveilus is similar to that of a death, so the churban should have been forgotten already. If we are still crying and mourning for Yerushalayim, then, it must be that the Beis Hamikdash is still alive, for if it were completely dead, it would have long been forgotten. Therefore,כל המתאבל על ירושלים after all this time is זוכה ורואה בשמחתה— currently, right now, because his very ability to mourn proves that something of the Beis Hamikdash is still alive for him.

What really is left of Beis Hamikdash? There was a churban, and Yerushalayim was destroyed, so what remnant of the Beis Hamikdash exists that enables us to be זוכה ורואה בשמחתה now?
In the following words, the Gra offers a deep understanding of what the Churban Beis Hamikdash is (cited in Likkutei HaGra):

כי מעת שחרב הבית יצאה רוחנו עטרת ראשנו ונשארנו רק אנחנו הוא גוף שלה בלא נפש. ויציאה לחוץ לארץ הוא הקבר ורימה מסובבת עלינו ואין בידינו להציל מן העובדי כוכבים האוכלים בשרינו. ומכל מקום היו חבורות וישיבות גדולות עד שנרקב הבשר והעצמות נפזרו פיזור אחר פיזור. ומכל מקום היו עדיין העצמות קיימות שהתלמידי חכמים שבישראל מעמידי הגוף עד שנרקבו העצמות ולא נשאר אלא תרווד רקב מאתנו ונעשה עפר שחה לעפר נפשנו. ואנחנו מקוין עתה לתחית המתים התנערי מעפר קומי.

The Gra is saying that the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash was akin to the death of Klal Yisrael. It was as if our neshamah departed, leaving us with a lifeless body. But the process of Churban didn't stop there. Just as the body is buried in the grave after death, Klal Yisrael went into galus, which is compared to the grave. In galus, the Jewish people continued to deteriorate as a result of the surrounding influences, just as the flesh of the body decays in the ground. Yet even then, there were still great yeshivos and groups of Torah scholars. But eventually the flesh of the body becomes so decayed that the bones scatter – which is what happened to Klal Yisrael when the yeshivos dispersed. At that time, the bones are no longer bound together in one form, but they still exist. Just as the bones give support to the body, the talmidei chachamim give support to Klal Yisrael and keep them strong. As time went by, however, even the bones – the talmidei chachamim – decayed into dust. That's what happened to Klal Yisrael.

The Gra is teaching us a tremendous chiddush: that the Churban Beis Hamikdash wasn't a one-time event, but rather an ongoing, continuous process. This process began with the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash, but just as there is a process of decay that continues after death, there continues to be yeridas hadoros through the generations of galus, and that's a direct result of the Churban.

How is it Possible for us to Mourn?
The Gra is also giving us guidance on how to be misabel for Yerushalayim. Many people find it hard to mourn, and part of the reason is that we don’t really have a concept of what we are missing. What does hashraas haShechinah mean? What does gilui Shechinah mean? Yet although we can’t appreciate what was lost, we are still obligated to mourn for Yerushalayim. How is this possible?
The Gra is teaching us that in order to be misabel on Yerushalayim, to feel the churban, you don’t have to look back two thousand years. You don’t have to look far at all, in fact. Every bit of yeridas hadoros, every churban that we see in front of us right now, that’s all a continuation of Churban Beis Hamikdash. Churban Beis Hamikdash marked the yetzias haneshamah from the body, but so much more destruction has happened since then. And the steady decay of the very foundations of Klal Yisrael – from ten years ago to five years ago, from five years ago to now, from one year ago to now – persists right before our eyes. So many of the basic foundations of Klal Yisrael are crumbling.

This deterioration is not a new phenomenon, but rather a direct continuation of Churban Beis Hamikdash. So if you want to be misabel on the churban, and you know how to appreciate what hashraas haShechinah was, then gevaldik! That’s greatest form of aveilus a person can observe. But if you feel distant from the actual churban, you don’t have to look far to find reasons to mourn. You can look right outside your window; you can look right inside yourself. Any decay and any deterioration that we see in the fundamentals of Klal Yisrael – in Torah, in tefillah, in emunas chachamim, in kedushah – that’s reason for mourning the churban.

At the same time, however, the fact that the churban is an ongoing process of decay also means that there must be something left of the Beis Hamikdash. Because if there is something that can decay, there must be some bit of life left. True, the churban is becoming progressively worse, but there’s still something for us to grab onto. The same decay and deterioration that gives us reason to cry also gives us the ability to be זוכה ורואה בשמחתה, because our ability to mourn the churban affords us some connection to the original source of what the Beis Hamikdash was. And that’s the reason we can have a little bit of a nechamah.

The Rema relates that Yirmiyahu Hanavi was sitting at the site of the ruins of the Beis Hamikdash and crying, when a non-Jewish philosopher noticed that he was crying and asked two questions about this. One of the questions was: “A wise person does not cry over the past; whatever happened, happened. You are a wise person, so why are you crying over the past?”

Yirmiyahu Hanavi responded that he is unable to answer that question, because it’s something that the philosopher would not be able to understand. Yet although that non-Jew, who was a great philosopher and man of wisdom, could not understand the answer, a Jew can and does have to understand. The answer lies in the above teaching of the Gra.

A non-Jew cannot see himself as part of a continuous process that goes back thousands of years. He lives in his box, wherever he is at that moment. But a Yid knows that he’s not alone: he’s not the end, and he’s not the beginning – he’s part of a continuous chain. The aveilus that the Gra describes, linking Churban Beis Hamikdash with all the subsequent tzaros and yeridas hadoros that Klal Yisrael faced over the generations in one long process, that’s not something that a non-Jew can comprehend; only a Yid can understand that.

Yirmiyahu did not answer the philosopher because he couldn’t explain to him that the churban is not the past – it’s the present! A Yid knows that the churban of the present is actually a continuation of what was before. And if we’re being misabel on Yerushalayim, we’re not just mourning the past – we’re being misabel on the continuation of that churban.

Yet as we said, the fact that the churban is an ongoing process is also a source of some nechamah, for when we see that we’re part of this continuous chain, we can be comforted by the realization that there’s still something left of the gadlus that was then.

Our job, as we’re being misabel, is also to feel that there’s something left, and that’s the source of the bit of nechamah that we observe on Tisha b'Av after chatzos and on Shabbos Nachamu. For if we were zocheh to be misabel, then we’re also zocheh – currently – to the simchah, knowing that there’s still something left of the greatness of Klal Yisrael and the Beis Hamikdash.

3 Points

A few points on the laws of the 9 days and 9 Av.
1. The Levush 551:14 explains the reason one can't wash clothes is שלא להסיח דעתו מן האבילות but garments of a baby that are constantly soiled, one may wash them שאין בכיבוס זה משום שמחה.  But how does that remove the issue of הסיח דעתו מן האבילות?

2. The Rema 5558 says one can't eat meat the night after 9 Av even if it was Shabbos and pushed to Sunday (when its not the 10th when the Mikdash burnt,) מפני אבילות של יום.  What does that mean, what סברא  is that?

3. From Rabbi Karp - learning דברים הרעים on 9 Av is part of saying kinnot.

I See Destruction

The Meor Einayim on the Gemorah Gittin about ענוותנותו של רבי זכריה בן אבקולס החריבה את ביתנו.  The lesson to take out is that even if you see destruction coming through a Divine vision, one can never see the power of teshuva and good deeds that may come and overturn that decree.