Devarim 21:4 records that by the eglah arufa ceremony a heifer is to be brought to a nahal eitan and killed. A nahal is a wadi but it is not clear what is meant by the word eitan. The Mishnah (Sotah 9:5, also see Rashi and Luzzatto on 21:4) writes that it was hard ground, a dry wadi. On the other hand, the Rambam (Laws of murder and preserving life, 9:2) explains that nahal eitan means a strong flowing creek, and this is followed by modern translators. For example, Fox (1995, p. 942) and Alter (2004, p. 980) translate the phrase as an "ever flowing or swift running wadi." Tigay (1996, p. 192) explains that eitan is a wadi with a perennial stream, and that this translation is based on an Arabic word.
Tigay questions the interpretation of a perennial wadi "since there are not many perennial wadis in Israel," and hence "it would be difficult to carry out this ceremony in most parts of the country." This question appears to be based on the assumption that the ceremony was held near the place where the victim was found, but the Torah only states that the elders were to be from the city that was closest to the victim, but nothing is stated about where the wadi was. The wadi could have been quite far from the where the corpse was found.
21:4 records that the wadi was not tilled or sown. Tigay (1996, p. 142) notes that this could mean "either that it was never tilled or sown or cannot be" in the future tilled or sown, see Mishnah Sotah 9:5. Either possibility makes it difficult to find a wadi for the ceremony. Any wadi near a city would naturally be used to irrigate the land around it and if a wadi could not be used after the ceremony, then many eglah arufa ceremonies would decrease the available land for farming.
My guess is that there were just a few wadis or even just one wadi that was to be used for the ceremony and it did not matter where the wadi was since the elders would have to travel to the wadi. In addition, the priests, who joined the ceremony in the middle, were not from the city closest to the victim but were more likely from the chosen city where they officiated. The chosen wadis could have been some of the few perennials wadis in the country. Also, as the Torah did not specify any length to the wadi, it could have been that only one part of one wadi was used over and over again for the ceremony.
Bibliography:
Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company
Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1996, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
Hello. The goal of this blog is to enhance our understanding of the Torah and the practice of Judaism. The discussions in the blog are a portion of a more extensive commentary on the Torah, which I will be happy to send to you. You can contact me at ajayschein@gmail.com. Please feel free to send comments. Also, if you want to receive an email with a link to the new posts, send me a request, and I will add you to the email group. Best wishes, Andrew Schein
Monday, August 29, 2011
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Bemidbar 20:29 and Devarim 10:6 - Where did Aharon die?
Devarim 10:6 records “And the children of Israel marched from the Wells of the Children of Ya’akan to Mosera: there Aharon died, and he was buried there; so El’azar his son served as priest in his stead.” The word “there” refers to the previous location mentioned, Mosera, which means that according to Devarim 10:6, Aharon died in Mosera and not Mount Hor. Yet, Bemidbar 20:22-29 record that Aharon died on Mount Hor, and this is repeated in Bemidbar 33:39 and Devarim 32:50. Where did Aharon die?
Rashi based on the Midrash explains that Moshe’s reference to the death of Aharon in Mosera means that the people associated Mosera with Aharon's death but really he died on Mount Hor. Rashi explains that when Aharon died on Mount Hor, the clouds of G-d’s glory departed from the people, and hence the people feared the King of Arad, which caused them to march back towards Egypt. The people marched backwards to Mosera, and there the tribe of Levi battled with the people to stop their march back towards Egypt. Many people died in this battle at Mosera, which caused a great mourning for Aharon because his death had led to this tragic civil war. Thus, while Aharon really died at Mount Hor, because of the great mourning at Mosera, they associated his death with Mosera.
This explanation is difficult for many reasons. One, there is no mention at all in the Torah of this battle between the people and the tribe of Levi at Mosera. Two, as pointed out by the Malbim (1809-1880, on Bemidbar 20:29), Devarim 10:6 records that Aharon died and was buried in Mosera, which cannot be understood to mean that the people associated Aharon's death with Mosera.
Hizkuni quotes from an unknown Midrash a slight variation of Rashi’s approach. This explanation is that for some time after the people left Mount Hor, they were able to see Aharon’s gravesite. It was only when they reached Mosera that they were unable to see the gravesite, and hence it seemed to the people that Aharon died at Mosera. However, the Malbim’s question also applies to this suggestion since Devarim 10:6 records that Aharon died at Mosera and not that the people associated his death with Mosera.
A second approach to explaining where Aharon died is to argue that the places Mount Hor and Mosera are not really two separate places. Ibn Ezra seems to suggest that Mosera was the name of the desert where Mount Hor was situated. According to this approach, Aharon died both in Mount Hor, the specific place, and Mosera, the general name of the area.
Ramban rejects Ibn Ezra’s answer because he claims that Mosera is really the same place as Moserot (Bemidbar 33:31), which means that it is a name for a local area and not for a general area. Instead, Ramban suggests that Mount Hor was a large mountain, and due to its great size, there were many places that faced the mountain. Bemidbar 20:22 records that the people camped by Mount Hor, which means that they were at the foot of the mountain. Bemidbar 20:25-27 records that Moshe, Aharon and El’azar went to the top of the mountain and Aharon died at the top of the mountain. Ramban then suggests that Mosera was the place that faced the top of the mountain, and thus it could be said that Aharon died at Mosera. Ramban further suggests that maybe the mountain was also referred to by the names of the places situated near the mountain, so then Mosera would also be a name for Mount Hor.
David Tzvi Hoffmann (on Devarim 10:6) slightly varies Ramban’s answer. He suggests that Mosera was the name of the place where the people camped by the foot of Mount Hor, and Aharon died on the Mount Hor itself. Thus, it could be written that Aharon died on Mount Hor, but also his death could be considered as being at Mosera as that was where the people were camped. Hoffmann then suggests that Bemidbar 20:22 recorded the encampment of the people as being at Mount Hor, even though it really was Mosera, to focus on the death of Aharon, which was on Mount Hor. Yet, if all the names really refer to the same place, then one would have thought that the Torah would have used just one name consistently in all references to Aharon’s death.
A third approach is to understand that the word “there” in Devarim 10:6 is not referring to Mosera. The idea is that the word “there” means at that time, and then 10:6 should be understood that at the time when the people were traveling to Mosera, they happened to be near Mount Hor and Aharon died on Mount Hor. This approach is quoted by Ibn Ezra in the name Yitzhak Ibn Geat (?), Da’at Zekenim (13th century), Bekhor Shor (12th century) and Hizkuni (13th century). (The last three are all part of the Ashkenazi school of medieval commentators.) This approach is difficult since it introduces a break in the sentences, and requires one to add words to the verse.
Malbim (on Bemidbar 20:29) offers two answers. The first explanation centers on the fact that Bemidbar 20 only mentions that Aharon died but does not mention burying Aharon, and only Devarim 10:6 records where Aharon was buried. (It is true that Bemidbar 28:26 records that only Moshe and El’azar went down the mountain, which would imply that Aharon was buried on the mountain.)
How could Aharon be buried on Mosera if he died on Mount Hor? Malbim explains that after Aharon died on Mount Hor, the people went up and saw his body (Bemidbar 20:29) and they intended to eulogize him on the mountain in the presence of his body. However, the Canaanites attacked the people during the time they were doing the eulogy, as Bemidbar 21 records this attack immediately after the mention of Aharon dying. The people retreated due to this attack, as Bemidbar 21:1 records that the Canaanites were initially successful in their attack. When the people retreated they did not want to leave Aharon’s body with the Canaanites, so they took it with them on their retreat from Mount Hor. In their retreat they went to Mosera, and there they buried Aharon. This answer while appealing is problematic since Devarim 10:6 records that Aharon also died in Mosera. Malbim answers that Devarim 10:6 only mentions that Aharon died as part of the reference to the burial. However, this is difficult since according to this approach, Devarim 10:6 should have just recorded that Aharon was buried in Mosera, and not mentioned anything about where Aharon died.
Malbim’s second explanation centers on the fact that Bemidbar 20:29 records that the people saw that gavah Aharon. The word gavah seems to refer to death, but why did the Torah not use the word met, the more typical word for death? Malbim notes that there is a difference between gavah and met. He claims that gavah means a loss of crucial life functions, while met refers to the state afterwards where the body degenerates due to the loss of these life functions. Thus, he explains that Bemidbar 20:29 means that the people only saw that Aharon was in a state of gavah but not a met. Thus, Aharon only partially died by Mount Hor, but the state of being a met only occurred when the people were at Mosera. Accordingly, only in Mosera was Aharon buried since one does not bury somebody who is in a state of gavah.
I like this explanation best since in Bereshit 25:8,17; 35:29, the Torah records that the person died (met) after the use of the word gavah. This implies that gavah is separate from dying. However, Bemidbar 20:26,28 record the word met in reference to Aharon by Mount Hor, which implies that both states of death occurred on Mount Hor. I did not see how the Malbim explained the use of the word met in Bemidbar 20:26,28.
I would vary the Malbim’s definition of the term gavah. Gavah would not be a cessation of crucial life functions, which would signify death, but a condition where a person is alive but something (a famine, a virus, a decree, not including the aging process) is impacting the person that he/ she will die because of this thing, the person understands that the thing will kill him, and a person has no ability to reverse this process. The process where the person dies from this “thing” could be imminent, as in Bereshit 7:21, by the waters of the flood, or even long term. Thus, Bereshit 47:18 records that the people of Egypt, who were obviously alive, referred to themselves as geviyatenu, since they were running out of food, and they feared that they would die in the near future if Yosef did not give them food, as Bereshit 47:19 records. This is also the meaning of the term in 17:27,28, when the people realized that they were destined to die from G-d’s decree after the sin of the spies, see our discussion on 17:27,28, “The people’s state of mind after the rebellion of Korah and the miracle of the blossoming of the staffs: Hopeless in the desert.” Note, that in some situations this could be a better state than dying instantaneously since it allows a person to “say goodbye to the world,” see Bereshit 25:8.
Following this understanding of the word gavah, then the word met was used in Bemidbar 20:26,28 to signify that Aharon was considered as if he was dead even though he was still alive, or that since he was about to die, then he was considered as being dead with regard to his inability to retain being the high priest. Accordingly, since Aharon was on the verge of dying, then the term gavah could be used in 20:29. Furthermore, the Torah does not state in 20:23-29, that Aharon was gathered to his kin since he had not died yet, as 20:24,26 mean that he would be gathered to his kin in the future, and this process started on Mount Hor.
Devarim 32:50 does imply that Aharon was gathered to his kin on Mount Hor, but it also records that he died on Mount Hor. Thus, just as the dying on Mount Hor was the beginning of the death process, so too the reference to Aharon gathering to his kin on Mount Hor should be understood as the beginning of the gathering process.
With regard to the people seeing that Aharon gavah in 20:29, many answers have been proposed to explain what was this seeing. Rashi (on 20:29) quotes the Midrash Tanchuma that the angels showed the people Aharon lying upon the bier. Ibn Ezra (on 20:29) just writes that the people saw the process of Moshe, Aharon and Eleazar transferring the office of high priesthood. Hizkuni (on 20:29) quotes that seeing can be an understanding that the people understood that Aharon had died or that they saw Moshe in mourning for Aharon.
A simpler idea is that since Aharon was not buried at Mount Hor, then the people saw Aharon’s body, though it would remain a technical question how did this happen? Did people go up and get Aharon’s body? This seems strange since then Moshe and Eleazar would have left Aharon somewhat alive on the mountain by himself. Did they know that G-d would protect Aharon from animals?
Rashi based on the Midrash explains that Moshe’s reference to the death of Aharon in Mosera means that the people associated Mosera with Aharon's death but really he died on Mount Hor. Rashi explains that when Aharon died on Mount Hor, the clouds of G-d’s glory departed from the people, and hence the people feared the King of Arad, which caused them to march back towards Egypt. The people marched backwards to Mosera, and there the tribe of Levi battled with the people to stop their march back towards Egypt. Many people died in this battle at Mosera, which caused a great mourning for Aharon because his death had led to this tragic civil war. Thus, while Aharon really died at Mount Hor, because of the great mourning at Mosera, they associated his death with Mosera.
This explanation is difficult for many reasons. One, there is no mention at all in the Torah of this battle between the people and the tribe of Levi at Mosera. Two, as pointed out by the Malbim (1809-1880, on Bemidbar 20:29), Devarim 10:6 records that Aharon died and was buried in Mosera, which cannot be understood to mean that the people associated Aharon's death with Mosera.
Hizkuni quotes from an unknown Midrash a slight variation of Rashi’s approach. This explanation is that for some time after the people left Mount Hor, they were able to see Aharon’s gravesite. It was only when they reached Mosera that they were unable to see the gravesite, and hence it seemed to the people that Aharon died at Mosera. However, the Malbim’s question also applies to this suggestion since Devarim 10:6 records that Aharon died at Mosera and not that the people associated his death with Mosera.
A second approach to explaining where Aharon died is to argue that the places Mount Hor and Mosera are not really two separate places. Ibn Ezra seems to suggest that Mosera was the name of the desert where Mount Hor was situated. According to this approach, Aharon died both in Mount Hor, the specific place, and Mosera, the general name of the area.
Ramban rejects Ibn Ezra’s answer because he claims that Mosera is really the same place as Moserot (Bemidbar 33:31), which means that it is a name for a local area and not for a general area. Instead, Ramban suggests that Mount Hor was a large mountain, and due to its great size, there were many places that faced the mountain. Bemidbar 20:22 records that the people camped by Mount Hor, which means that they were at the foot of the mountain. Bemidbar 20:25-27 records that Moshe, Aharon and El’azar went to the top of the mountain and Aharon died at the top of the mountain. Ramban then suggests that Mosera was the place that faced the top of the mountain, and thus it could be said that Aharon died at Mosera. Ramban further suggests that maybe the mountain was also referred to by the names of the places situated near the mountain, so then Mosera would also be a name for Mount Hor.
David Tzvi Hoffmann (on Devarim 10:6) slightly varies Ramban’s answer. He suggests that Mosera was the name of the place where the people camped by the foot of Mount Hor, and Aharon died on the Mount Hor itself. Thus, it could be written that Aharon died on Mount Hor, but also his death could be considered as being at Mosera as that was where the people were camped. Hoffmann then suggests that Bemidbar 20:22 recorded the encampment of the people as being at Mount Hor, even though it really was Mosera, to focus on the death of Aharon, which was on Mount Hor. Yet, if all the names really refer to the same place, then one would have thought that the Torah would have used just one name consistently in all references to Aharon’s death.
A third approach is to understand that the word “there” in Devarim 10:6 is not referring to Mosera. The idea is that the word “there” means at that time, and then 10:6 should be understood that at the time when the people were traveling to Mosera, they happened to be near Mount Hor and Aharon died on Mount Hor. This approach is quoted by Ibn Ezra in the name Yitzhak Ibn Geat (?), Da’at Zekenim (13th century), Bekhor Shor (12th century) and Hizkuni (13th century). (The last three are all part of the Ashkenazi school of medieval commentators.) This approach is difficult since it introduces a break in the sentences, and requires one to add words to the verse.
Malbim (on Bemidbar 20:29) offers two answers. The first explanation centers on the fact that Bemidbar 20 only mentions that Aharon died but does not mention burying Aharon, and only Devarim 10:6 records where Aharon was buried. (It is true that Bemidbar 28:26 records that only Moshe and El’azar went down the mountain, which would imply that Aharon was buried on the mountain.)
How could Aharon be buried on Mosera if he died on Mount Hor? Malbim explains that after Aharon died on Mount Hor, the people went up and saw his body (Bemidbar 20:29) and they intended to eulogize him on the mountain in the presence of his body. However, the Canaanites attacked the people during the time they were doing the eulogy, as Bemidbar 21 records this attack immediately after the mention of Aharon dying. The people retreated due to this attack, as Bemidbar 21:1 records that the Canaanites were initially successful in their attack. When the people retreated they did not want to leave Aharon’s body with the Canaanites, so they took it with them on their retreat from Mount Hor. In their retreat they went to Mosera, and there they buried Aharon. This answer while appealing is problematic since Devarim 10:6 records that Aharon also died in Mosera. Malbim answers that Devarim 10:6 only mentions that Aharon died as part of the reference to the burial. However, this is difficult since according to this approach, Devarim 10:6 should have just recorded that Aharon was buried in Mosera, and not mentioned anything about where Aharon died.
Malbim’s second explanation centers on the fact that Bemidbar 20:29 records that the people saw that gavah Aharon. The word gavah seems to refer to death, but why did the Torah not use the word met, the more typical word for death? Malbim notes that there is a difference between gavah and met. He claims that gavah means a loss of crucial life functions, while met refers to the state afterwards where the body degenerates due to the loss of these life functions. Thus, he explains that Bemidbar 20:29 means that the people only saw that Aharon was in a state of gavah but not a met. Thus, Aharon only partially died by Mount Hor, but the state of being a met only occurred when the people were at Mosera. Accordingly, only in Mosera was Aharon buried since one does not bury somebody who is in a state of gavah.
I like this explanation best since in Bereshit 25:8,17; 35:29, the Torah records that the person died (met) after the use of the word gavah. This implies that gavah is separate from dying. However, Bemidbar 20:26,28 record the word met in reference to Aharon by Mount Hor, which implies that both states of death occurred on Mount Hor. I did not see how the Malbim explained the use of the word met in Bemidbar 20:26,28.
I would vary the Malbim’s definition of the term gavah. Gavah would not be a cessation of crucial life functions, which would signify death, but a condition where a person is alive but something (a famine, a virus, a decree, not including the aging process) is impacting the person that he/ she will die because of this thing, the person understands that the thing will kill him, and a person has no ability to reverse this process. The process where the person dies from this “thing” could be imminent, as in Bereshit 7:21, by the waters of the flood, or even long term. Thus, Bereshit 47:18 records that the people of Egypt, who were obviously alive, referred to themselves as geviyatenu, since they were running out of food, and they feared that they would die in the near future if Yosef did not give them food, as Bereshit 47:19 records. This is also the meaning of the term in 17:27,28, when the people realized that they were destined to die from G-d’s decree after the sin of the spies, see our discussion on 17:27,28, “The people’s state of mind after the rebellion of Korah and the miracle of the blossoming of the staffs: Hopeless in the desert.” Note, that in some situations this could be a better state than dying instantaneously since it allows a person to “say goodbye to the world,” see Bereshit 25:8.
Following this understanding of the word gavah, then the word met was used in Bemidbar 20:26,28 to signify that Aharon was considered as if he was dead even though he was still alive, or that since he was about to die, then he was considered as being dead with regard to his inability to retain being the high priest. Accordingly, since Aharon was on the verge of dying, then the term gavah could be used in 20:29. Furthermore, the Torah does not state in 20:23-29, that Aharon was gathered to his kin since he had not died yet, as 20:24,26 mean that he would be gathered to his kin in the future, and this process started on Mount Hor.
Devarim 32:50 does imply that Aharon was gathered to his kin on Mount Hor, but it also records that he died on Mount Hor. Thus, just as the dying on Mount Hor was the beginning of the death process, so too the reference to Aharon gathering to his kin on Mount Hor should be understood as the beginning of the gathering process.
With regard to the people seeing that Aharon gavah in 20:29, many answers have been proposed to explain what was this seeing. Rashi (on 20:29) quotes the Midrash Tanchuma that the angels showed the people Aharon lying upon the bier. Ibn Ezra (on 20:29) just writes that the people saw the process of Moshe, Aharon and Eleazar transferring the office of high priesthood. Hizkuni (on 20:29) quotes that seeing can be an understanding that the people understood that Aharon had died or that they saw Moshe in mourning for Aharon.
A simpler idea is that since Aharon was not buried at Mount Hor, then the people saw Aharon’s body, though it would remain a technical question how did this happen? Did people go up and get Aharon’s body? This seems strange since then Moshe and Eleazar would have left Aharon somewhat alive on the mountain by himself. Did they know that G-d would protect Aharon from animals?
A different possibility is that Moshe and Eleazar carried Aharon down, and then since Aharon was not considered dead, he did not generate any tumah. Even if this true, then still is would have been physically hard for just two people to carry Aharon down a mountain.
A third possibility is that other anonymous people went up with Moshe, Aharon and Eleazar on Mount Hor, and these unnamed people brought Aharon down.
One could combine the first and third ideas based on the phrase at the end of 20:27, that the people saw Moshe, and presumably, Aharon and Eleazar going up on Mount Hor. What is the significance of this seeing? This was supposed to be a private ceremony. Maybe the significance is that when the people saw Moshe, Aharon and Eleazar going up on Mount Hor, they followed in the distance. Thus, when after the transfer of clothing was over, Moshe and Eleazar left, but the people came up and saw that Aharon was dying. With this idea, there was almost no time when Aharon’s body was left unattended, and 20:29 can be understood literally.
To summarize, Bemidbar 20:28, Bemidbar 33:39 and Devarim 32:50 which all record that Aharon died on Mount Hor, should be understood to mean that he was on the verge of dying as indicated by the use of the word gavah in Bemidbar 20:29. Because he was on the verge of dying, he was no longer the high priest after he went up to Mount Hor. However, Aharon only finally expired at Mosera and there he was buried as recorded in Devarim 10:6.
One could combine the first and third ideas based on the phrase at the end of 20:27, that the people saw Moshe, and presumably, Aharon and Eleazar going up on Mount Hor. What is the significance of this seeing? This was supposed to be a private ceremony. Maybe the significance is that when the people saw Moshe, Aharon and Eleazar going up on Mount Hor, they followed in the distance. Thus, when after the transfer of clothing was over, Moshe and Eleazar left, but the people came up and saw that Aharon was dying. With this idea, there was almost no time when Aharon’s body was left unattended, and 20:29 can be understood literally.
To summarize, Bemidbar 20:28, Bemidbar 33:39 and Devarim 32:50 which all record that Aharon died on Mount Hor, should be understood to mean that he was on the verge of dying as indicated by the use of the word gavah in Bemidbar 20:29. Because he was on the verge of dying, he was no longer the high priest after he went up to Mount Hor. However, Aharon only finally expired at Mosera and there he was buried as recorded in Devarim 10:6.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Tu B'av
The Mishnah (Ta'anit 4:8) records that Raban Shimon ben Gamaliel stated that "There were no happier days for the people of Israel than the fifteenth of Av (Tu B'av) and Yom Kippur (after the cohen gadol finished the avodah?) for on those days the daughters of Jerusalem used to go out….to dance in the vineyards. And what did they (the women) say, 'Young man lift up your eyes, and see what you will choose." This going out and dancing was that the men and women should meet which would explain why the days were so happy, but why did this dancing happen on Tu B'av and Yom Kippur?
The Talmud (Ta'anit 30a, 31b, and Baba Bathra 121a) suggests six reasons why Tu B'av was a special day. One, this was the day when people from different tribes were allowed to marry with each other. Two, on this day, the tribe of Binyamin was allowed to marry with the other tribes after the civil war between the all the tribes and Binyamin, Judges 20,21. Three, this was the day when the people stopped dying in the desert. (This reason is difficult since Bemidbar 33:38 records that Aharon died on the 1st of Av, and Bemidbar 20:29 records that the people cried for Aharon for a month, which implies that they did not travel for the entire month of Av. However, the people did not stop dying until they reached Nachal Zered, Devarim 2:13-16 and Bemidbar 21:12, which was after Aharon had died. Even if the people traveled when they were in mourning for Aharon it is doubtful they could have reached Nachal Zered by the 15th of Av since they had a war with Arad during this period. This chronology also calls into question the first explanation for Tu B'av since that explanation is based on the incident with the daughters of Tzelofhad, which appears to have occurred after the people had reached Nachal Zered.) Four, it was the day when Hoshea ben Ela removed the roadblocks that Yerovam ben Nabat had put up to stop the people from going to Jerusalem. Five, this was the day when the Romans allowed the Jews to bury their dead from the battle of Betar. (This reason cannot be the source for the uniqueness of the day since the women seemed to have danced when the Bet ha-Mikdash was standing and Betar fell 60 year after the Bet ha-Mikdash was destroyed.) Six, this was the last day that trees could be cut for the altar since after this period the wood was not dry because the sun was starting to get weaker and there could be worms in the wood. Megilat Ta'anit (chapter five) also relates Tu B'av to the wood donations to the Bet ha-Mikdash, but for almost exactly the opposite reason. Megilat Ta'anit states that this was the day when wood was donated to the Bet ha-Mikdash. (Mishnah Ta'anit 4:5 records that Tu B'av was one of nine days when wood was donated, though from the Mishnah it seems to be the most important of the nine.)
Maybe there is another reason related to the climate in Israel. The fifteenth of Av is a full moon, and also the midpoint in summer season, the months of Tammuz, Av and Elul. Strikingly, Tu B'av is six months apart from Tu be-Shevat, is also a full moon and is on the mid-point of the winter season, the months of Tevet, Shevat and Adar. Our designation of the seasons is based on the number of sunlight hours there are in the day. The summer begins when the day is the longest, and the winter begins when the day is the shortest. Yet, there exists a seasonal lag, that the climate does not exactly match the number of sunlight hours. For example, in Israel, on average, the hottest months are July and August and not June, while the coldest months are January and February. (For example, according to Table 1.3 in the 2010 Statistical Abstracts of Israel by Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics for the years 1981-2000, the average highest monthly temperatures at the Beit Dagan Meteorological Station was 29.2 in June, 30.8 in July, 31.2 in August and 30.4 in September, and the average lowest monthly temperatures were 8.6 in December, 7.2 in January, 7.1 in February and 8.8 in March. The corresponding readings for Jerusalem for the same period were 27.8 in June, 29 in July, 29.4 in August, 28.2 in September, 8.4 in December, 6.4 in January and February and 8.4 in March.)
Tu B'av occurs from the end of July to the middle of August, while Tu be-Shevat falls in the middle of January to the middle of February, which means that these dates roughly correspond to the peak changes in the temperatures in Israel. Furthermore, in Israel there are really only two seasons, the cold and rainy season and the dry and hot season. From the peak of the hottest temperature in Israel around Tu B'av, the temperature begins to fall, reaching its nadir around Tu be-Shevat, from which point it begins to rise reaching its peak around Tu B'av. Thus, Tu B'av and Tu- be-Shevat were a set of new years based on the climate. They were the full moons that were closest to the peaks in temperatures, and hence they signaled a change in the climate. Tu B'av would mark the end of the hot, dry season and the beginning of the cold and wet season, while Tu be-Shevat would mark the end of the cold and wet season, and the beginning of the hot and dry season. (The Meiri in his commentary on the first Mishnah of Rosh Hashanah notes that after Tu be-Shevat, it becomes less cold.)
If this idea is correct, there would be two sets of "new years," one based on climate, Tu B'av and Tu be-Shevat and one based on hours of sunlight, Rosh Hashanah (Rosh Chodesh Tishrei) and Rosh Chodesh Nisan, which roughly correspond to the two equinoxes. In the Torah, the beginning of the year is from Rosh Chodesh Nisan (Shemot 12:1), the system based on sunlight, but it very possible that the people also used the climate system to mark the beginning or changes in the year.
If this idea is true, then we can understand why the women went out to dance on Tu B'av, since it is normal for people to celebrate on a new year. Furthermore, this explanation could accord with the second explanation in the Talmud for Tu B'av, that it was the day that the tribe of Binyamin could rejoin the people. This explanation is based on the verse in Shoftim 21:16 that this event happened on some unidentified holiday, which is suggested to be Tu B'av. Maybe the holiday was Tu B'av that the people were celebrating the new year. In addition, this idea that the dancing on Tu B'av was derived from the celebrations of the new year, might also explain why the dancing was also on Yom Kippur. Rosh Hashanah was the start of the year, and hence we would expect that there would also be celebrations by Rosh Hashanah. However, Rosh Hashanah is a very somber time leading up to Yom Kippur, and hence it is possible that the celebrations were pushed off until the somber period ended either in the afternoon of Yom Kippur or the night after Yom Kippur.
Finally, these two systems of marking the year recall the first Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah, that there are four new years. The Mishnah lists, Rosh Hashanah, and Rosh Chodesh Nisan, and a disagreement whether the new year for the trees should have be Tu be-Shevat as maintained by Hillel or should be on Rosh Chodesh Shevat as maintained by Bet Shammai. The Mishnah also lists that Rosh Chodesh Elul is a new year, while R. Eliezer and R. Shimon argue that it is not a new year at all. It is not clear why Rosh Chodesh Elul should be a new year, as what does it mark? My guess is that the source for Rosh Chodesh Elul is Tu B'av. Chazal did not like the celebration of Tu B'av as the new year possibly because it was "competition" with Rosh Hashanah or because they wanted to emphasize that the dating of the year was to be based on the new moon and not the full moon. Thus, one idea was to minimize the day by moving "the new year" fifteen days ahead to the next new moon, Rosh Chodesh Elul, while R. Eliezer and R. Shimon wanted to abolish it altogether. It could be that this same idea is the basis for the argument between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai with regard to Tu be-Shevat. Bet Hillel was willing to keep the people's celebration of the 15th of Shevat as a new year, while Bet Shammai wanted to move the marking of the "new year" to the new moon instead of the full moon. (I think I heard this idea or a variation of it concerning Tu be-Shevat from my brother-in-law Michael Segal.)
To summarize, I believe that there were two systems to mark the changes in the year, and each system had two festivals at the half-points of the year. One system was/ is based on the hours of sunlight, and the festivals are Rosh Hashanah and Rosh Chodesh Nisan, which roughly mark the equinoxes. The other system was based on change in climate and the two festivals were Tu B'av, which marked the peak of the dry and hot season, and Tu be-Shevat, which marked the peak of the wet and cold season.
The Talmud (Ta'anit 30a, 31b, and Baba Bathra 121a) suggests six reasons why Tu B'av was a special day. One, this was the day when people from different tribes were allowed to marry with each other. Two, on this day, the tribe of Binyamin was allowed to marry with the other tribes after the civil war between the all the tribes and Binyamin, Judges 20,21. Three, this was the day when the people stopped dying in the desert. (This reason is difficult since Bemidbar 33:38 records that Aharon died on the 1st of Av, and Bemidbar 20:29 records that the people cried for Aharon for a month, which implies that they did not travel for the entire month of Av. However, the people did not stop dying until they reached Nachal Zered, Devarim 2:13-16 and Bemidbar 21:12, which was after Aharon had died. Even if the people traveled when they were in mourning for Aharon it is doubtful they could have reached Nachal Zered by the 15th of Av since they had a war with Arad during this period. This chronology also calls into question the first explanation for Tu B'av since that explanation is based on the incident with the daughters of Tzelofhad, which appears to have occurred after the people had reached Nachal Zered.) Four, it was the day when Hoshea ben Ela removed the roadblocks that Yerovam ben Nabat had put up to stop the people from going to Jerusalem. Five, this was the day when the Romans allowed the Jews to bury their dead from the battle of Betar. (This reason cannot be the source for the uniqueness of the day since the women seemed to have danced when the Bet ha-Mikdash was standing and Betar fell 60 year after the Bet ha-Mikdash was destroyed.) Six, this was the last day that trees could be cut for the altar since after this period the wood was not dry because the sun was starting to get weaker and there could be worms in the wood. Megilat Ta'anit (chapter five) also relates Tu B'av to the wood donations to the Bet ha-Mikdash, but for almost exactly the opposite reason. Megilat Ta'anit states that this was the day when wood was donated to the Bet ha-Mikdash. (Mishnah Ta'anit 4:5 records that Tu B'av was one of nine days when wood was donated, though from the Mishnah it seems to be the most important of the nine.)
Maybe there is another reason related to the climate in Israel. The fifteenth of Av is a full moon, and also the midpoint in summer season, the months of Tammuz, Av and Elul. Strikingly, Tu B'av is six months apart from Tu be-Shevat, is also a full moon and is on the mid-point of the winter season, the months of Tevet, Shevat and Adar. Our designation of the seasons is based on the number of sunlight hours there are in the day. The summer begins when the day is the longest, and the winter begins when the day is the shortest. Yet, there exists a seasonal lag, that the climate does not exactly match the number of sunlight hours. For example, in Israel, on average, the hottest months are July and August and not June, while the coldest months are January and February. (For example, according to Table 1.3 in the 2010 Statistical Abstracts of Israel by Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics for the years 1981-2000, the average highest monthly temperatures at the Beit Dagan Meteorological Station was 29.2 in June, 30.8 in July, 31.2 in August and 30.4 in September, and the average lowest monthly temperatures were 8.6 in December, 7.2 in January, 7.1 in February and 8.8 in March. The corresponding readings for Jerusalem for the same period were 27.8 in June, 29 in July, 29.4 in August, 28.2 in September, 8.4 in December, 6.4 in January and February and 8.4 in March.)
Tu B'av occurs from the end of July to the middle of August, while Tu be-Shevat falls in the middle of January to the middle of February, which means that these dates roughly correspond to the peak changes in the temperatures in Israel. Furthermore, in Israel there are really only two seasons, the cold and rainy season and the dry and hot season. From the peak of the hottest temperature in Israel around Tu B'av, the temperature begins to fall, reaching its nadir around Tu be-Shevat, from which point it begins to rise reaching its peak around Tu B'av. Thus, Tu B'av and Tu- be-Shevat were a set of new years based on the climate. They were the full moons that were closest to the peaks in temperatures, and hence they signaled a change in the climate. Tu B'av would mark the end of the hot, dry season and the beginning of the cold and wet season, while Tu be-Shevat would mark the end of the cold and wet season, and the beginning of the hot and dry season. (The Meiri in his commentary on the first Mishnah of Rosh Hashanah notes that after Tu be-Shevat, it becomes less cold.)
If this idea is correct, there would be two sets of "new years," one based on climate, Tu B'av and Tu be-Shevat and one based on hours of sunlight, Rosh Hashanah (Rosh Chodesh Tishrei) and Rosh Chodesh Nisan, which roughly correspond to the two equinoxes. In the Torah, the beginning of the year is from Rosh Chodesh Nisan (Shemot 12:1), the system based on sunlight, but it very possible that the people also used the climate system to mark the beginning or changes in the year.
If this idea is true, then we can understand why the women went out to dance on Tu B'av, since it is normal for people to celebrate on a new year. Furthermore, this explanation could accord with the second explanation in the Talmud for Tu B'av, that it was the day that the tribe of Binyamin could rejoin the people. This explanation is based on the verse in Shoftim 21:16 that this event happened on some unidentified holiday, which is suggested to be Tu B'av. Maybe the holiday was Tu B'av that the people were celebrating the new year. In addition, this idea that the dancing on Tu B'av was derived from the celebrations of the new year, might also explain why the dancing was also on Yom Kippur. Rosh Hashanah was the start of the year, and hence we would expect that there would also be celebrations by Rosh Hashanah. However, Rosh Hashanah is a very somber time leading up to Yom Kippur, and hence it is possible that the celebrations were pushed off until the somber period ended either in the afternoon of Yom Kippur or the night after Yom Kippur.
Finally, these two systems of marking the year recall the first Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah, that there are four new years. The Mishnah lists, Rosh Hashanah, and Rosh Chodesh Nisan, and a disagreement whether the new year for the trees should have be Tu be-Shevat as maintained by Hillel or should be on Rosh Chodesh Shevat as maintained by Bet Shammai. The Mishnah also lists that Rosh Chodesh Elul is a new year, while R. Eliezer and R. Shimon argue that it is not a new year at all. It is not clear why Rosh Chodesh Elul should be a new year, as what does it mark? My guess is that the source for Rosh Chodesh Elul is Tu B'av. Chazal did not like the celebration of Tu B'av as the new year possibly because it was "competition" with Rosh Hashanah or because they wanted to emphasize that the dating of the year was to be based on the new moon and not the full moon. Thus, one idea was to minimize the day by moving "the new year" fifteen days ahead to the next new moon, Rosh Chodesh Elul, while R. Eliezer and R. Shimon wanted to abolish it altogether. It could be that this same idea is the basis for the argument between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai with regard to Tu be-Shevat. Bet Hillel was willing to keep the people's celebration of the 15th of Shevat as a new year, while Bet Shammai wanted to move the marking of the "new year" to the new moon instead of the full moon. (I think I heard this idea or a variation of it concerning Tu be-Shevat from my brother-in-law Michael Segal.)
To summarize, I believe that there were two systems to mark the changes in the year, and each system had two festivals at the half-points of the year. One system was/ is based on the hours of sunlight, and the festivals are Rosh Hashanah and Rosh Chodesh Nisan, which roughly mark the equinoxes. The other system was based on change in climate and the two festivals were Tu B'av, which marked the peak of the dry and hot season, and Tu be-Shevat, which marked the peak of the wet and cold season.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Eating on erev Tisha B’av
The Mishnah (Ta'anit 4:7) records three opinions with regard to how a person is to act on erev Tisha B'av, the 8th of Av. One opinion, the anonymous tanna kamma, is that a person is not allowed to eat two (or more) cooked items, eat meat or drink wine. (Today this opinion is only relevant with regard to not having two cooked dishes since we stop eating meat and drinking wine from Rosh Chodesh.) Two, R. Shimon b. Gamaliel maintains that a person should reduce his regular intake of food, and three, Rebbi Yehuda says that a person must turn his bed over to sit on the floor. The Mishnah ends by noting that the Rabbis did not accept this latter opinion.
The three opinions of the Mishnah share the common idea that erev Tisha B'av is a day of mourning and a realization that people cannot be asked to fast two days in a row. The first opinion limits the food intake the most, but still people can eat. The second opinion, R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, believes that the limits of the first opinion are too much for people who are about to fast, and hence he says that people should just eat less. (Today we fulfill, unintentionally, his dictum by not eating meat on erev Tisha B'av.) The third opinion, Rebbi Yehuda could be stating either an additional requirement to the first two opinions or he could be arguing with the first two opinions. If he is arguing, then maybe his view is that on erev Tisha B'av there should be no limitations on eating, but instead to show that the day is one of mourning, a person should turn his bed over.
This idea that erev Tisha B'av is a day of mourning could be either to prepare for Tisha B'av that one does not make a barbecue/ party before the fast or maybe Chazal thought that the eighth day of Av was also a day that was worthy of mourning. The Talmud (Ta'anit 29A, also Tosefta Ta'anit 3:10) records that there is a contradiction as to when the first Bet ha-Mikdash was destroyed. Kings II 25:8,9 records that it was destroyed on the 7th of Av, but the book of Jeremiah 52:10 records that it was destroyed on the 10th of Av. The Talmud reconciles these opinions that on the seventh and the eighth the Babylonians entered the sanctuary, on the ninth the Bet ha-Mikdash began to burn and the destruction ended on the 10th. Thus maybe the mourning on the 8th is based on the period when the Babylonians entered the Bet ha-Mikdash, and then the mourning was slightly less than on Tisha B'av since the Bet ha-Mikdash did not begin to burn until the 9th of Av.
The Talmud (Ta'anit 30a,b) records that on erev Tisha B'av Rebbi Yehuda the son of Rebbi Elai (?) would sit between two types of ovens and only eat bread and water. This practice was more than required by the Mishnah, and certainly fulfilled the idea of the Mishnah that erev Tisha B'av was a day of mourning. However, the Talmud (30a) also records that Rav Yehuda stated that the first opinion in the Mishnah of not eating two cooked items on erev Tisha B'av only applies to the last meal of the day prior to the fast, the seudah hamafseket, and only if this last meal occurs after midday. (Is this the view in the Tosefta Ta'anit 3:11?) This is a big leniency and change from the Mishnah since according to this opinion, except for the last meal after midday, people can eat regularly on erev Tisha B'av, and the day loses is quasi-fast status.
We see that in the Talmud there were two approaches to eating on erev Tisha B'av. The first approach is that the day is a day of mourning almost similar to Tisha B'av and hence one eats just the simplest food possible, while the second approach allows one to eat regular food with no limits on the quantity except by the last meal.
The Rambam (12th century, Laws of Fasting 5:7-9) first writes that for the general population who cannot endure too much, i.e., who find it difficult to fast on Tisha B'av without eating regularly on erev Tisha B'av, the law is like Rav Yehuda in the Talmud, that the limitations of not eating two cooked foods only applies for the last meal prior to the fast which is consumed after midday. However, afterwards he writes that the more appropriate behavior is to follow the practice of Rebbi Yehuda the son of Rebbi Elai to just have bread and water. He concludes by saying that he himself never ate any cooked food on erev Tisha B'av unless it was on Shabbat. The Rambam views the two approaches in the Talmud as being complimentary depending on the type of person. (The Bach, Orah Chayyim 552, writes that the Rambam's practice is not the accepted custom and is not even praiseworthy!)
The Tur (14th century, Orah Chayyyim 552) writes that the law is like Rav Yehuda, and he discusses what is considered two cooked items. He writes that the custom in France was to mix many items together in one pot and this was called one cooked item, while in Germany this was not done. He adds that if it was customary to add items together when cooking all year long, then he thinks that this only counts as one item. He also quotes his father, Rabbenu Asher, that there are no limitations on items that are eaten raw, which means that one can eat raw fruit and vegetables at the seudah hamafseket. The Tur then adds that in Germany there was a custom to eat eggs, and this meant that they could not have any more cooked items in the seudah hamafseket.
It seems that in Germany in the end of the 13th century the seudah hamafseket consisted of bread, eggs, vegetables, fruits, cheese, and salted fish. However, in the end of the 14th century/ beginning of the 15th century there developed a custom to have two meals, a regular meal before minhah, and a simple meal, the official seudah hamafseket, after minhah. (The Rama, 16th century, 552:9, also in Darkei Moshe 552 quotes this from the Maharil, Germany, 1365-1427.) Most likely the reason for this development is that people wanted to eat a cooked meal before the fast, and hard boiled eggs were not enough.
The Arukh Hashulchan (1829-1908, 552:11 also see Mishnah Berurah, 552:22) writes that this custom of two meals is a haarama (trick). It seems that his custom was to eat just one meal, but he would eat also a dairy kugel not as a meal before the seudah hamafseket.
The trick is that the last meal is not really a meal but only eaten to allow a person to eat as much as they want in the second to last meal. If a person did not have the simple last meal, then the second to last meal would be the last meal before the fast and then one could not eat a regular meal before the fast. Yet, this trick is not a new development of the Rama or the Maharil but is from Rav Yehuda in the Talmud, who argued that the limitations of the first opinion of the Mishnah were only for the last meal eaten after midday. Furthermore, it is common to have haarama by rabbinic prohibitions, for example see Shulchan Orah, Orah Chayyim 334:16 and 335:5, and Mishnah Berurah 335:11, and people even sell their hametz, a trick to get out of the biblical requirement to destroy all of one's hametz.
The Rama (552:9) also adds that one can be stringent and not eat so much, and this person is called holy. The comment of the Rama is based on Rebbi Yehuda the son of Rebbi Elai, but it is not clear how stringent the "holy" person should be, i.e. how much food he/ she should limit himself/ herself and for how long on erev Tisha B'av is the person limiting his/ her intake of food. Most likely, from the context, the Rama is referring to the meal before minhah that instead of eating a lot, a person limits him or herself. In any event, this holy person is the exception, and today I believe that the overwhelming majority of Ashkenazim, if not all, eat a very full meal before the seudah hamafseket on erev Tisha B'av. Furthermore, as noted by the Chayyei Adam (1748-1820, 134:6), this full meal is eaten right before the start of Tisha B'av, which means that for almost the entire day there is no limitation on the quantity of food that can be consumed.
There was one other development by the seudah hamafseket. After his discussion of what is considered cooked food, the Tur records the opinion of Rebbi Yehuda the son of Rebbi Elai that if possible it is better for a person just to have only bread and water. Most likely, the Tur meant that all day the person should follow Rebbi Yehuda the son of Rebbi Elai, and this would be the Rambam's view. However, the Shulchan Arukh (252:6) interpreted the Tur's comment that "if possible one should just eat bread and drink water" only in reference to the seudah hamafseket. This ruling by the Shulchan Arukh changed the seudah hamafseket to just being a meal of bread and water. According to this ruling of the Shulchan Arukh, one should not even eat eggs at the seudah hamafseket, just bread and water. This was not accepted, as R. Shimon Eider (1978, p. 15), notes that the custom today is that seudah hamafseket consists of bread, cold hard-boiled eggs and water. The custom is also to dip the bread into ashes, see Rama 552:6.
We see that the law/ custom of eating on erev Tisha B'av has changed from limited eating according to the Mishnah and the ideal of the Rambam to eating with almost no limitations. Almost definitely this change was due to people's fear of fasting, and hence the practice was/is to allow people to eat without limitations for almost the entire erev Tisha B'av. The limitations on food consumption throughout the day in the Mishnah have become relegated to just the last meal of the day that is eaten after midday, and this last meal, the seudah hamafseket, has developed into a ritual meal of bread dipped in ashes, with hard boiled eggs and water to mark the impending onset of Tisha B'av.
The three opinions of the Mishnah share the common idea that erev Tisha B'av is a day of mourning and a realization that people cannot be asked to fast two days in a row. The first opinion limits the food intake the most, but still people can eat. The second opinion, R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, believes that the limits of the first opinion are too much for people who are about to fast, and hence he says that people should just eat less. (Today we fulfill, unintentionally, his dictum by not eating meat on erev Tisha B'av.) The third opinion, Rebbi Yehuda could be stating either an additional requirement to the first two opinions or he could be arguing with the first two opinions. If he is arguing, then maybe his view is that on erev Tisha B'av there should be no limitations on eating, but instead to show that the day is one of mourning, a person should turn his bed over.
This idea that erev Tisha B'av is a day of mourning could be either to prepare for Tisha B'av that one does not make a barbecue/ party before the fast or maybe Chazal thought that the eighth day of Av was also a day that was worthy of mourning. The Talmud (Ta'anit 29A, also Tosefta Ta'anit 3:10) records that there is a contradiction as to when the first Bet ha-Mikdash was destroyed. Kings II 25:8,9 records that it was destroyed on the 7th of Av, but the book of Jeremiah 52:10 records that it was destroyed on the 10th of Av. The Talmud reconciles these opinions that on the seventh and the eighth the Babylonians entered the sanctuary, on the ninth the Bet ha-Mikdash began to burn and the destruction ended on the 10th. Thus maybe the mourning on the 8th is based on the period when the Babylonians entered the Bet ha-Mikdash, and then the mourning was slightly less than on Tisha B'av since the Bet ha-Mikdash did not begin to burn until the 9th of Av.
The Talmud (Ta'anit 30a,b) records that on erev Tisha B'av Rebbi Yehuda the son of Rebbi Elai (?) would sit between two types of ovens and only eat bread and water. This practice was more than required by the Mishnah, and certainly fulfilled the idea of the Mishnah that erev Tisha B'av was a day of mourning. However, the Talmud (30a) also records that Rav Yehuda stated that the first opinion in the Mishnah of not eating two cooked items on erev Tisha B'av only applies to the last meal of the day prior to the fast, the seudah hamafseket, and only if this last meal occurs after midday. (Is this the view in the Tosefta Ta'anit 3:11?) This is a big leniency and change from the Mishnah since according to this opinion, except for the last meal after midday, people can eat regularly on erev Tisha B'av, and the day loses is quasi-fast status.
We see that in the Talmud there were two approaches to eating on erev Tisha B'av. The first approach is that the day is a day of mourning almost similar to Tisha B'av and hence one eats just the simplest food possible, while the second approach allows one to eat regular food with no limits on the quantity except by the last meal.
The Rambam (12th century, Laws of Fasting 5:7-9) first writes that for the general population who cannot endure too much, i.e., who find it difficult to fast on Tisha B'av without eating regularly on erev Tisha B'av, the law is like Rav Yehuda in the Talmud, that the limitations of not eating two cooked foods only applies for the last meal prior to the fast which is consumed after midday. However, afterwards he writes that the more appropriate behavior is to follow the practice of Rebbi Yehuda the son of Rebbi Elai to just have bread and water. He concludes by saying that he himself never ate any cooked food on erev Tisha B'av unless it was on Shabbat. The Rambam views the two approaches in the Talmud as being complimentary depending on the type of person. (The Bach, Orah Chayyim 552, writes that the Rambam's practice is not the accepted custom and is not even praiseworthy!)
The Tur (14th century, Orah Chayyyim 552) writes that the law is like Rav Yehuda, and he discusses what is considered two cooked items. He writes that the custom in France was to mix many items together in one pot and this was called one cooked item, while in Germany this was not done. He adds that if it was customary to add items together when cooking all year long, then he thinks that this only counts as one item. He also quotes his father, Rabbenu Asher, that there are no limitations on items that are eaten raw, which means that one can eat raw fruit and vegetables at the seudah hamafseket. The Tur then adds that in Germany there was a custom to eat eggs, and this meant that they could not have any more cooked items in the seudah hamafseket.
It seems that in Germany in the end of the 13th century the seudah hamafseket consisted of bread, eggs, vegetables, fruits, cheese, and salted fish. However, in the end of the 14th century/ beginning of the 15th century there developed a custom to have two meals, a regular meal before minhah, and a simple meal, the official seudah hamafseket, after minhah. (The Rama, 16th century, 552:9, also in Darkei Moshe 552 quotes this from the Maharil, Germany, 1365-1427.) Most likely the reason for this development is that people wanted to eat a cooked meal before the fast, and hard boiled eggs were not enough.
The Arukh Hashulchan (1829-1908, 552:11 also see Mishnah Berurah, 552:22) writes that this custom of two meals is a haarama (trick). It seems that his custom was to eat just one meal, but he would eat also a dairy kugel not as a meal before the seudah hamafseket.
The trick is that the last meal is not really a meal but only eaten to allow a person to eat as much as they want in the second to last meal. If a person did not have the simple last meal, then the second to last meal would be the last meal before the fast and then one could not eat a regular meal before the fast. Yet, this trick is not a new development of the Rama or the Maharil but is from Rav Yehuda in the Talmud, who argued that the limitations of the first opinion of the Mishnah were only for the last meal eaten after midday. Furthermore, it is common to have haarama by rabbinic prohibitions, for example see Shulchan Orah, Orah Chayyim 334:16 and 335:5, and Mishnah Berurah 335:11, and people even sell their hametz, a trick to get out of the biblical requirement to destroy all of one's hametz.
The Rama (552:9) also adds that one can be stringent and not eat so much, and this person is called holy. The comment of the Rama is based on Rebbi Yehuda the son of Rebbi Elai, but it is not clear how stringent the "holy" person should be, i.e. how much food he/ she should limit himself/ herself and for how long on erev Tisha B'av is the person limiting his/ her intake of food. Most likely, from the context, the Rama is referring to the meal before minhah that instead of eating a lot, a person limits him or herself. In any event, this holy person is the exception, and today I believe that the overwhelming majority of Ashkenazim, if not all, eat a very full meal before the seudah hamafseket on erev Tisha B'av. Furthermore, as noted by the Chayyei Adam (1748-1820, 134:6), this full meal is eaten right before the start of Tisha B'av, which means that for almost the entire day there is no limitation on the quantity of food that can be consumed.
There was one other development by the seudah hamafseket. After his discussion of what is considered cooked food, the Tur records the opinion of Rebbi Yehuda the son of Rebbi Elai that if possible it is better for a person just to have only bread and water. Most likely, the Tur meant that all day the person should follow Rebbi Yehuda the son of Rebbi Elai, and this would be the Rambam's view. However, the Shulchan Arukh (252:6) interpreted the Tur's comment that "if possible one should just eat bread and drink water" only in reference to the seudah hamafseket. This ruling by the Shulchan Arukh changed the seudah hamafseket to just being a meal of bread and water. According to this ruling of the Shulchan Arukh, one should not even eat eggs at the seudah hamafseket, just bread and water. This was not accepted, as R. Shimon Eider (1978, p. 15), notes that the custom today is that seudah hamafseket consists of bread, cold hard-boiled eggs and water. The custom is also to dip the bread into ashes, see Rama 552:6.
We see that the law/ custom of eating on erev Tisha B'av has changed from limited eating according to the Mishnah and the ideal of the Rambam to eating with almost no limitations. Almost definitely this change was due to people's fear of fasting, and hence the practice was/is to allow people to eat without limitations for almost the entire erev Tisha B'av. The limitations on food consumption throughout the day in the Mishnah have become relegated to just the last meal of the day that is eaten after midday, and this last meal, the seudah hamafseket, has developed into a ritual meal of bread dipped in ashes, with hard boiled eggs and water to mark the impending onset of Tisha B'av.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
The prohibition of doing laundry in the nine days
The Mishnah (Ta'anit 4:7) records that during the week of Tisha B'av, one does not cut one's hair or do laundry unless Tisha B'av is on Friday, and then one can cut one's hair and do laundry on Thursday. Most likely, the rationale for these prohibitions is that a person should not look festive, with a haircut and clean clothes. This was especially relevant in olden times, when doing laundry was much more infrequent than today, and hence wearing clean clothes was more impressive. (It cannot be that the prohibition of doing laundry is because of the labor involved in doing laundry since for most people not doing laundry is a vacation and this idea leaves the prohibition of not cutting one's hair unexplained.) With this understanding, it would be obvious that one could not wear new clothing, though this is not stated in the Mishnah, see Shulchan Arukh Orah Chayyim 551:6.
In the Talmud there were two developments to this Mishnah with regard to the prohibition of doing laundry. One, there is an argument as to whether a person can do laundry to wear the clothing after Tisha B'av, Rav Nachman says yes, while Rav Sheshet says no (Ta'anit 29b), and the halakhah is like Rav Sheshet, Shulchan Arukh, 551:3. Rashi explains that the basis for Rav Sheshet's opinion is that doing the laundry, which in those days was quite time consuming, would divert one's mind from the mourning for the Bet ha-Mikdash. It is not clear if this reason would be relevant today since washing clothing is much easier today with washing machines, but a different explanation for Rav Sheshet's opinion is that he was making a gezirah. The gezirah could be either that there was a fear that if a person washed clothing for after Tisha B'av, then by accident they might come to wear the clothing before Tisha B'av or that people would claim that they were washing clothing for after Tisha B'av when really they were washing clothing to wear before Tisha B'av.
A second development was that the Talmud (Ta'anit 29b) makes the unexpected claim that gihutz (a type of ironing) in Bavel is comparable to the washing of clothes in Israel. The idea seems to be that in Bavel they were not able to clean the clothes as well as in Israel, and then the prohibition on doing laundry in the week of Tisha Ba’av would only be if a person both washed and ironed (gihutz) the clothing, while there would be no prohibition of just washing clothing in Bavel since the person would not look so sharp because the clothing even if laundered were not that clean. With this logic, the question would be whether other places were like Bavel and washing clothing would be permitted in the week of Tisha B’av or like Israel and laundry would be forbidden. (In the Steinsaltz edition of the Talmud, they quote the Raavad as permitting laundry outside of the land of Israel.)
The Shulchan Arukh (551:3) first writes that our laundry is permitted, which is surprising since when he wrote the Shulchan Arukh he was living in Israel, but it seems that he was following the language of the Tur, who lived outside of Israel. However, afterwards he writes that the practice is not do laundry. Furthermore, he notes that several Rishonim argue that only in Bavel was washing clothing permitted but in other places it was forbidden, which means that washing clothing in the week of Tisha B'av is forbidden not due to custom but to the rabbinic enactment of the Mishnah. Today with our machines and soap, laundered clothing is much cleaner than in Israel in the time of the Mishnah, and hence today the leniency of the Talmud with regard to Bavel should certainly not be applicable.
In the Middle Ages, there were several developments in the law/ custom. One, Tosafot (Ta'anit 30a, travayehu) quotes that Rashi ruled that one should not do laundry even on non-clothing items. This appears to be based on Rashi's explanation for Rav Sheshet's opinion that doing laundry diverts one from mourning, and then any laundry even one not related to making a person look good would be forbidden. The Shulchan Arukh (551:3) accepts this ruling, and also rules that a person should not change one's linen during the period (see R. Shimon Eider, 1978, p. 10).
One exception to this rule is that the Rama (551:14) rules that one can do laundry for little children's clothing. This latter ruling accords with the idea that the prohibition is to look good, and then this would not apply to little children, but if the problem is doing the laundry itself, as evident with the prohibition of washing linen, than any laundry, even children's laundry should have been forbidden. However, maybe it was considered too much to prohibit washing children's clothing since it is hard (impossible?) for little children to keep their clothing clean and in those days there was very little spare clothing.
One new stringency in the Middle Ages is that Ashkenazim began to keep this prohibition of not washing clothing from the beginning of the month of Av, as opposed to just the week of Tisha B'av, Rama 551:4. No reason is provided for this extension and it contradicts the principle of the Mishnah that Shabbat takes precedence over the mourning for the Bet ha-Mikdash and hence the prohibition in the Mishnah only began after Shabbat, see our discussion "The law/ custom of not cutting one's hair in the nine days and three weeks." This new stringency began after the 11th century since Tosafot (Ta'anit 30a, travayehu) rules that if Tisha B'av is on Thursday, then one can cut one's hair and wash clothes for Shabbat on Tisha B'av itself in the afternoon. Certainly, if one can wash clothings on Tisha B'av for Shabbat, then one can wash clothes for the Shabbat before Tisha B'av. Also in the 12th century, the Ravyah (Germany, 1140-1225, siman 881) writes that the custom was not to do laundry during the week of Tisha B'av, though he writes that one should not mend clothes from the beginning of the month. (With regard to Sefardim, R. Chayyim David haLevi in his Kitzsor Shulchan Arukh, 1975, p. 239 writes that Sefardim only keep the prohibition from the week of Tisha B'av, but in his longer work Mekor Chayyim, vol. 4 p. 184 he writes that Sefardim follow the Ashkenazim and stop doing laundry from the beginning of the month.)
This question which takes precedence, the mourning for the Bet ha-Mikdash or Shabbat, also arises as to whether one is to wear Shabbat clothing on the Shabbat preceding Tisha B'av, Shabbat Chazon. The Rama (551:1) writes that one is not to switch to Shabbat clothing on Shabbat Chazon, which shows that he gives precedence to the mourning over Shabbat, and this ruling accords with his comment that the prohibition of doing laundry begins from Rosh Chodesh. The Mishnah Berurah (1907, 551:6) notes that in Vilna the practice was to follow the Gra (1720-1797) who ruled that one wears Shabbat clothing on Shabbat Chazon and this was also the ruling of the Rav Yaakov Emden (1697-1776). The Arukh Hashulchan (1829-1908, Russia, 551:11) notes that in his time people wear Shabbat clothing on Shabbat Chazon, and he is upset that people are not following the "old" custom to wear regular clothes on Shabbat. However, what he calls the old custom was really the newer custom that only began in the late Middle Ages, and really the initial custom prior to the Middle Ages was to wear Shabbat clothing on Shabbat Chazon.
My impression is that today everybody wears Shabbat clothing on Shabbat Chazon, which means that they give Shabbat more priority than the mourning for Tisha B'av. Similarly, people eat meat on Shabbat during the nine days. However, if a person does not shave or bath on Friday for Shabbat, then the person is giving precedence to the mourning of Tisha B’av over Shabbat, which is a contradiction.
One recent development with regard to the prohibition of not wearing freshly laundered clothing is that people prepare for the nine days, by wearing freshly laundered clothing a few minutes prior to Rosh Chodesh, and then they wear these clothing, which are almost completely freshly laundered, during the nine days. (I am not sure when this idea developed but it must be relatively recently since only in the 19th/ 20th century did people have more than a few items of clothing that they were able to wear clean clothing every day.)
With regard to this trick, there has developed a difference between Sefardim and Ashkenazim. R. Ovadiah Yosef (Yalkut Yosef, vol. 5, p. 563, also see R. Chayyim David HaLevi, 1975, p.239) writes that one prepares the clothing by wearing them for a half hour, and one needs to do this even for socks and undershirts. However, R. Shimon Eider (1978, p. 9) writes that one only needs to do this trick for outer garments, but for inner garments, such as socks and undergarments, he quotes that R. Moshe Feinstein stated that one could wear them freshly laundered. This ruling accords with the original idea of the Mishnah, that the prohibition of not doing laundry was in order that a person will not look good, and nobody sees the undergarments. Furthermore, R. Shimon Eider also quotes R. Moshe Feinstein that if a person prepared a garment to wear, and inexplicably it got dirty, then if a person must wear a clean garment (for work) then one can wear a freshly laundered garment. Rabbi Ari Enkin (2009, p. 64) quotes from the Minchat Yitzhak (10:44) another trick, that if a person did not prepare clothing beforehand, then one can put the freshly laundered clothing on the floor for some time, and then wear the clothing.
In the Talmud there were two developments to this Mishnah with regard to the prohibition of doing laundry. One, there is an argument as to whether a person can do laundry to wear the clothing after Tisha B'av, Rav Nachman says yes, while Rav Sheshet says no (Ta'anit 29b), and the halakhah is like Rav Sheshet, Shulchan Arukh, 551:3. Rashi explains that the basis for Rav Sheshet's opinion is that doing the laundry, which in those days was quite time consuming, would divert one's mind from the mourning for the Bet ha-Mikdash. It is not clear if this reason would be relevant today since washing clothing is much easier today with washing machines, but a different explanation for Rav Sheshet's opinion is that he was making a gezirah. The gezirah could be either that there was a fear that if a person washed clothing for after Tisha B'av, then by accident they might come to wear the clothing before Tisha B'av or that people would claim that they were washing clothing for after Tisha B'av when really they were washing clothing to wear before Tisha B'av.
A second development was that the Talmud (Ta'anit 29b) makes the unexpected claim that gihutz (a type of ironing) in Bavel is comparable to the washing of clothes in Israel. The idea seems to be that in Bavel they were not able to clean the clothes as well as in Israel, and then the prohibition on doing laundry in the week of Tisha Ba’av would only be if a person both washed and ironed (gihutz) the clothing, while there would be no prohibition of just washing clothing in Bavel since the person would not look so sharp because the clothing even if laundered were not that clean. With this logic, the question would be whether other places were like Bavel and washing clothing would be permitted in the week of Tisha B’av or like Israel and laundry would be forbidden. (In the Steinsaltz edition of the Talmud, they quote the Raavad as permitting laundry outside of the land of Israel.)
The Shulchan Arukh (551:3) first writes that our laundry is permitted, which is surprising since when he wrote the Shulchan Arukh he was living in Israel, but it seems that he was following the language of the Tur, who lived outside of Israel. However, afterwards he writes that the practice is not do laundry. Furthermore, he notes that several Rishonim argue that only in Bavel was washing clothing permitted but in other places it was forbidden, which means that washing clothing in the week of Tisha B'av is forbidden not due to custom but to the rabbinic enactment of the Mishnah. Today with our machines and soap, laundered clothing is much cleaner than in Israel in the time of the Mishnah, and hence today the leniency of the Talmud with regard to Bavel should certainly not be applicable.
In the Middle Ages, there were several developments in the law/ custom. One, Tosafot (Ta'anit 30a, travayehu) quotes that Rashi ruled that one should not do laundry even on non-clothing items. This appears to be based on Rashi's explanation for Rav Sheshet's opinion that doing laundry diverts one from mourning, and then any laundry even one not related to making a person look good would be forbidden. The Shulchan Arukh (551:3) accepts this ruling, and also rules that a person should not change one's linen during the period (see R. Shimon Eider, 1978, p. 10).
One exception to this rule is that the Rama (551:14) rules that one can do laundry for little children's clothing. This latter ruling accords with the idea that the prohibition is to look good, and then this would not apply to little children, but if the problem is doing the laundry itself, as evident with the prohibition of washing linen, than any laundry, even children's laundry should have been forbidden. However, maybe it was considered too much to prohibit washing children's clothing since it is hard (impossible?) for little children to keep their clothing clean and in those days there was very little spare clothing.
One new stringency in the Middle Ages is that Ashkenazim began to keep this prohibition of not washing clothing from the beginning of the month of Av, as opposed to just the week of Tisha B'av, Rama 551:4. No reason is provided for this extension and it contradicts the principle of the Mishnah that Shabbat takes precedence over the mourning for the Bet ha-Mikdash and hence the prohibition in the Mishnah only began after Shabbat, see our discussion "The law/ custom of not cutting one's hair in the nine days and three weeks." This new stringency began after the 11th century since Tosafot (Ta'anit 30a, travayehu) rules that if Tisha B'av is on Thursday, then one can cut one's hair and wash clothes for Shabbat on Tisha B'av itself in the afternoon. Certainly, if one can wash clothings on Tisha B'av for Shabbat, then one can wash clothes for the Shabbat before Tisha B'av. Also in the 12th century, the Ravyah (Germany, 1140-1225, siman 881) writes that the custom was not to do laundry during the week of Tisha B'av, though he writes that one should not mend clothes from the beginning of the month. (With regard to Sefardim, R. Chayyim David haLevi in his Kitzsor Shulchan Arukh, 1975, p. 239 writes that Sefardim only keep the prohibition from the week of Tisha B'av, but in his longer work Mekor Chayyim, vol. 4 p. 184 he writes that Sefardim follow the Ashkenazim and stop doing laundry from the beginning of the month.)
This question which takes precedence, the mourning for the Bet ha-Mikdash or Shabbat, also arises as to whether one is to wear Shabbat clothing on the Shabbat preceding Tisha B'av, Shabbat Chazon. The Rama (551:1) writes that one is not to switch to Shabbat clothing on Shabbat Chazon, which shows that he gives precedence to the mourning over Shabbat, and this ruling accords with his comment that the prohibition of doing laundry begins from Rosh Chodesh. The Mishnah Berurah (1907, 551:6) notes that in Vilna the practice was to follow the Gra (1720-1797) who ruled that one wears Shabbat clothing on Shabbat Chazon and this was also the ruling of the Rav Yaakov Emden (1697-1776). The Arukh Hashulchan (1829-1908, Russia, 551:11) notes that in his time people wear Shabbat clothing on Shabbat Chazon, and he is upset that people are not following the "old" custom to wear regular clothes on Shabbat. However, what he calls the old custom was really the newer custom that only began in the late Middle Ages, and really the initial custom prior to the Middle Ages was to wear Shabbat clothing on Shabbat Chazon.
My impression is that today everybody wears Shabbat clothing on Shabbat Chazon, which means that they give Shabbat more priority than the mourning for Tisha B'av. Similarly, people eat meat on Shabbat during the nine days. However, if a person does not shave or bath on Friday for Shabbat, then the person is giving precedence to the mourning of Tisha B’av over Shabbat, which is a contradiction.
One recent development with regard to the prohibition of not wearing freshly laundered clothing is that people prepare for the nine days, by wearing freshly laundered clothing a few minutes prior to Rosh Chodesh, and then they wear these clothing, which are almost completely freshly laundered, during the nine days. (I am not sure when this idea developed but it must be relatively recently since only in the 19th/ 20th century did people have more than a few items of clothing that they were able to wear clean clothing every day.)
With regard to this trick, there has developed a difference between Sefardim and Ashkenazim. R. Ovadiah Yosef (Yalkut Yosef, vol. 5, p. 563, also see R. Chayyim David HaLevi, 1975, p.239) writes that one prepares the clothing by wearing them for a half hour, and one needs to do this even for socks and undershirts. However, R. Shimon Eider (1978, p. 9) writes that one only needs to do this trick for outer garments, but for inner garments, such as socks and undergarments, he quotes that R. Moshe Feinstein stated that one could wear them freshly laundered. This ruling accords with the original idea of the Mishnah, that the prohibition of not doing laundry was in order that a person will not look good, and nobody sees the undergarments. Furthermore, R. Shimon Eider also quotes R. Moshe Feinstein that if a person prepared a garment to wear, and inexplicably it got dirty, then if a person must wear a clean garment (for work) then one can wear a freshly laundered garment. Rabbi Ari Enkin (2009, p. 64) quotes from the Minchat Yitzhak (10:44) another trick, that if a person did not prepare clothing beforehand, then one can put the freshly laundered clothing on the floor for some time, and then wear the clothing.
We see that the law of not doing laundry the week of Tisha B'av from the Mishnah had several stages of development. In the Talmudic period, there was both a leniency that the law was not applicable to Bavel, and a stringency that it was even forbidden to do laundry to wear the clothing after Tisha B'av. In the Middle Ages, the tendency was to be stringent as the prohibition was extended even to laundering non-clothing items, and for Ashkenazim the prohibition was extended to the beginning of the month of Av. Finally, recently the propensity is to be lenient both by wearing Shabbat clothing on Shabbat and by preparing clothing prior to the period when doing laundry is forbidden.
Bibliography:
Eider, Shimon, (d. 2007) 1978, A summary of halachos of the three weeks, Lakewood, NJ.
Eider, Shimon, (d. 2007) 1978, A summary of halachos of the three weeks, Lakewood, NJ.
Enkin, Ari, 2009, Amot shel Halacha, Jerusalem: Urim Publications.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)