Avodah Mailing List

Volume 36: Number 84

Tue, 17 Jul 2018

• 1. Extending restrictions of 9 days (Ben Waxman)
• 2. Masei How We Live is More Important than Where... (Cantor Wolberg)
• 3. Re: Extending restrictions of 9 days (Micha Berger)
• 4. [TorahMusings] Picking and Choosing Poskim (Micha Berger)
• 5. Devarim (Cantor Wolberg)
• 6. response to tragedy (Eli Turkel)
• 7. tisha ba-av (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Why we lost the Beis haMikdash (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: tisha ba-av (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: response to tragedy (Micha Berger)
• 11. tisha baav (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: Why we lost the Beis haMikdash (Ari Zivotofsky)

Is there any concept of extending the basic minhagim restrictions of the 
nine days like no meat or no wine to other "fancy" type foods? A great 
salmon steak is just as good or even better than many types of meat, 
certainly it is more expensive and can be seen as a delicacy. Similarly 
good beer or whiskey is certainly just as "sameach" as wine. Or do we 
say "the minhag is the minhag and don't go adding even more items to the 
list". IOW it is entirely possible to fulfill the letter of the minhag 
and yet not feel the nine days? at all.

Has this been discussed here?

Ben

The Sidra of Masei defines with great exactitude the borders of the land of
Israel. Further, in his commentary on the verse and you shall drive out the
inhabitants of the land and dwell therein; unto you have I given the land
to possess it (Bamidbar 33:53), the Ramban identifies this verse as the
imperative to inhabit the Land.  The great importance the Sages attached to
living in the Land and the prohibition against leaving it are derived from
this verse.
 
As the Jews prepare to enter Israel they are warned by God regarding the
non-Jewish nations who already inhabit the land: Do not permit them to live
in your land (Shemot 23:33). In the opinion of a large number of scholars
(Rashi on Gittin 45a, Ravad and Sefer Mitzvot Gedolot) this applies only to
the seven nations who inhabited Israel at that time and who have since
vanished into history.
 
The problem that we are faced with today is how to deal with our enemies
who reside in the Holy Land and want to drive us out and kill us.  Our
claim to Israel is ultimately predicated on the Torah.	The Bible is our
mandate. However, our permanence in the land depends on the degree to which
the Torah is encoded in that land. The whole purpose of God giving us the
land was that in combination with the Torah, we are supposed to be a light
unto the nations. If that goal is removed, then our whole purpose for
existence has been thwarted. Without the pillar of cloud by day, our vision
is totally clouded. And without the pillar of fire by night, we are
suffering from night blindness.
Could this be to what our Rabbis referred when in answer to the question
why did we lose the land? they answered shelo barchu baTorah techilah, not
as is usually translated they did not make a blessing before reading the
Torah but rather as they did not look upon Torah as a priority?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180713/80dd566d/attachment-0001.html>

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 06:12:12AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
: Is there any concept of extending the basic minhagim restrictions of the
: nine days like no meat or no wine to other "fancy" type foods? ...
:                                                               Similarly
: good beer or whiskey is certainly just as "sameach" as wine. Or do we
: say "the minhag is the minhag and don't go adding even more items to the
: list". IOW it is entirely possible to fulfill the letter of the minhag
: and yet not feel the nine days at all.

I could make a leshitasam argument with the posqim who are or aren't okay
with wearing comfortable sneakers on 9 beAv.

That said....

About the same time I approved this post in my role as avodah-mod, I saw
a post on the Mekoros group on Facebook asking about whether anyone
prohibits exercising if it means you're going to need a shower afterward.
May you put yourself in a position to need rather than just appreciate
a shower.

The juxtopositon caused an emotional reaction:

The point of mourning during Bein haMetzarim is not to be miserable
in-and-of itself.

How many politicians and other famous people recently said "I'm sorry"
only to continue their announcement in a way that implies that they mean
"I'm sorry I was caught?"

Now picture the criminal who is caught and actually repents in
prison. They might need having gotten caught and feeling the personal
consequences in order to repent. But the person can indeed end up
on the straight and narrow because of it.

IMHO, we don't need minhagim just to make sure we're wallowing in the
day's tragedy. if we have enough minhagim on Tish'ah beAv to set a
atmosphere and mood that encourage the teshuvah necessary to end this
galus, then we have enough.


-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

We've discussed this too often not to share this article by RGR (Cc-ed).
<https://www.torahmusings.com/2018/07/picking-and-choosing-poskim>

-micha

Torah Musings
Thinking About Jewish Texts and Tradition
[R'] Gidon Rothstein in Posts, Responsa Jul 13, 18


Rosh Chodesh Menachem Av: R. Betzalel Stern on Picking and Choosing Poskim
"""" """"""" """""""" """ "" """""""" """"" "" """"""" """ """""""" """"""

Posek-shopping is a natural instinct; we want to be told our desired
course of action is also an or the appropriate one. Shu"t Betzel
HaChochmah 6;29, dated Rosh Chodesh Menachem Av 5747 (1987) takes up
the issue, how to choose a posek without predetermining the answer we get.


A Question About Asking Questions

The questioner lived in a city with two rabbinic authorities, known to
differ on issues of mar'ot, of how and when spotting and other experiences
of blood-flow relate to whether a woman becomes a niddah (or stays one
if she's already in the middle of the experience). In one instance, a
questioner showed a piece of cloth with a spot on it to one of the two,
who ruled it not evidence of being a niddah. The question then showed
it to the other [itself an inappropriate act, as we'll discuss], who
held the spot was blood (and the woman is or continues to be a niddah].

Can the man and his wife listen to the lenient decisor? If not, would
they be allowed to were the question one of Rabbinic law?


Asking Two People

Pesachim 52b shows R. Stern a first example of someone asking two
different rabbis their opinion. R. Safra left Israel and then realized
he had some shemittah wine in his possession. He asked his two traveling
companions (R. Huna the son of R. Ika and R. Kahana) whether they had
heard from R. Avahu (their teacher) whether he followed R. Shimon
b. Elazar's ruling, which obligated one who brings shemittah produce
from outside of Israel to return it to Israel and burn it there.

They gave him conflicting answers, and he decided to follow the lenient
report of R. Huna, since he knew R. Huna to be particularly assiduous
about learning from his teacher, R. Avahu. R. Yosef was displeased
with the incident, and called R. Safra a fulfillment of Hoshe'a 4;12,
`ami be-`etzo yishal ve-maklo yagid lo, my nation asks its wood and its
staff will tell it [what it should do in various situations; the person
is finding the answer he wants, not looking for the truth]. Maklo, R.
Yosef says, can be read as "kol hamekeil lo, whoever is more lenient
with him."

Rashi and Ra"h explained R. Yosef's criticism. R. Avahu had the right
to rule leniently, since the unnamed view in a baraita (and therefore
presumably the majority) adopts that position. R. Huna the son of R.
Ika reported what he heard from his teacher, which was his right,
but R. Safra had conflicting reports about how to rule on this issue.
Picking the convenient one struck R. Yosef as maklo yagid lo, taking
the lenient view from whatever source.

Tzelach (better known as Noda Bi-Yehuda) thought the discussion in
Pesachim showed the question of whether to burn shemittah produce taken
out of Israel must be a question of Torah law, since we do follow the
lenient view on issues of Rabbinic law.

How would R. Safra have defended himself? R. Stern says R. Safra tells us
-- he followed R. Huna because R. Huna was known to be very careful in
reporting what his teacher said. Since R. Avahu was a reputable authority,
R. Safra had the right to follow his view, and R. Huna was a qualified
reporter of those views. [Of course, R. Kahana reported another view; I
think R. Stern is saying R. Safra had good reason to believe R. Huna was
accurately reporting what R. Avahu said at some point, and was therefore
allowed to follow it.]


When There's Still Permissible Choice

R. Avahu was choosing sides in a debate which started with tannaim,
rabbis of the time of the Mishnah, but he had the right to do so. Any
tannaitic debate where no specific ruling was articulated left amoraim
the right to rule as seemed correct to them.

That's even true of the debates between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.
While we today assume we (almost) always follow Beit Hillel, Eruvin 6b
allows following either. The Gemara there criticizes those who always
adopt the lenient view of two (such a person is a rasha, an evildoer)
or the stringent (a kesil, a fool). On the next page, R. Shizvi permits
following a leniency of Beit Shammai on one issue and of Beit Hillel on
another as long as the two rulings do not contradict.

Until there's been a decision, the amora can use his own reasoning to
figure out which view seems more correct, and as long as his various
choices do not contradict, he's not an example of maklo yagid lo,
leniency-shopping.


Picking Among Decisors

Theoretically, each of us would have the same right, to survey the various
halachic opinions and choose the one which seems more correct to us,
as long as the two do not contradict and no formal decision process has
closed the issue. Unfortunately, most of us are not competent halachic
authorities (as the amoraim were), so we cannot assume we know how to
distinguish more from less correct. If we choose anyway, or go to one
rabbi on one kind of issue and another on another, we might not be the
evildoer of whom Eruvin spoke, but it would be maklo yagid lo.

The case before R. Stern is a bit better, because we don't know how each
decisor will rule on specific cases, we only know their tendencies. We
might bring a question to the rabbi known to be lenient and he'll surprise
us with a stringent ruling or vice verse.

Too, the more lenient rabbi might have invested more in the study of this
set of halachot, making him a sufficiently great expert to protect us from
the accusation of leniency shopping. R. Stern says Eruvin 7a permits going
to the greater scholar even on a matter of Torah law, regardless of his
lenient tendencies. He knows Sha"ch toYoreh De'ah 242 disagreed with his
reading of Eruvin. Sha"ch thought only Rashba (of the rishonim) applied
this idea to Torah law, Rambam and Semag limited it to Rabbinic law.

But Rema, Choshen Mishpat 25;2, followed Rashba's view, as did Peri
Megadim in his general introduction to his commentary, and Aruch
HaShulchan 242;63. Since our case does not yet have actual conflicting
rulings, even Sha"ch might have agreed.


Halachah or Facts?

The questioner had also worried about whether niddah questions constitute
issues of metzi'ut, of physical facts, which would seem to rule out
following the lenient decisor, since he might be contradicting simple
physical facts, such as that the stain came from blood. R. Stern points
out, however, thinks the phrasing misconstrues what's going on.

The two decisors agree on the color of the stain, they disagree about
how halachah requires us to respond to such a colored stain [I am not
as certain as he is of the facts -- I think sometimes one person sees
a stain as red and the other as brown, and they would have agreed about
the ruling were they to have agreed on the color. On the other hand,
the questioner seems to assume the point of color is to verify whether
the stain started with blood, where it seems to me the issue is dealt
with more technically -- x color makes her a niddah, y color does not,
and we do not have to think about where it started].


Etiquette of Halachic Questioning

The last point R. Stern makes is to reprove the questioner for not telling
the second rabbi he had already shown the stain to the first, and the
ruling the first one gave. Rema Yoreh De'ah 242;31 allows bringing a
question to multiple authorities, as long as the later ones are told
what the earlier one(s) said.

Aside from changing how the second one might choose to respond (he
might choose to contact the first one and discuss it before answering,
for example), it also stops him from contradicting the first on issues
of shikkul ha-da'at, judgment calls (a blatant error by the first one
has to be dealt with; but the second one's tendency to rule differently
in a gray area would not permit him to contravene the first, and he is
required not to).

To summarize (as R. Stern does), people have the right to choose either of
two reputable halachic authorities to be their overall halachic decisor,
regardless of their general tendencies towards leniency or stringency.
There's an argument to be made to allow bringing all of one type of
question to one of the two, and another kind of topic to the other
(since we do not know for sure ahead of time how that decisor will rule);
on matters of Torah law, however, it would seem there's some issue of
leniency-shopping in this latter conduct.

Unless the lenient decisor has some advantage over the stringent one,
such as particular expertise in that topic area.

The rules just stated are for those of us who are not competent halachic
authorities in our own right. A competent Torah scholar has every
right to investigate an issue and rule on disputes that have not yet
been firmly decided one way or other, as long as his lenient rulings
do not place him in self-contradiction [R. Stern does not elaborate,
but he means such as ruling like Beit Hillel or Beit Shammai before a
principle was laid down; today, that would likely include not ruling
against Shulchan Aruch, but might include deciding about current issues
on which even greater Torah scholars were still in disagreement].

As long as we're not shaping halachah in our own image, are searching
for a valid reading of the truth of Torah, we're not running afoul of
the derogated maklo yagid lo.


2018-07-13

Copyright 2018 All rights reserved

The Portion begins, Ayleh HaDevarim...(These are the words of Moshe...). 
The Commentators explain that the word Ayleh has the gematria of
thirty-six, indicating that these were the last thirty-six days of Moshes
life.  During his last days, Moshe admonished the Jewish people, but in a
way so as not to shame them.

1)  HO-IL Moshe [Deut.1:5]  ... Moshe began explaining this Torah...
According to Rashi, Moshe explained the Torah in seventy languages to
symbolize that wherever Jews would be in the future and whatever the
language of the lands of their exile, Jews would study the Torah in a
language that they understood (Sfas Emes). 

2) The word HO-IL (Hay, Vav, Alef, Yud, Lamed) is a remez to Eliyahu HaNavi
being the one who will explain the disputed issues that we leave for him to
explain (teiku). Ho-il is an anagram of Eliyahu. This idea is further
supported by the juxtaposition in the last part of the book of Malachi 
3:22-23 ? Zichru Toras Moshe, Remember the law of Moshe and Hinei Anochi...
Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great
and awe filled day of the Lord.

 3) The Torah tells us that Moshe Rabbeinu said to the Jewish people, Reeh
 nasati lifnaychem ha?aretz. [Deut.1:8]  It is important to note that the
 word Reeh is written in the singular whereas the word lifnaychem is in the
 plural.  The Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh asks why the word Reeh is in the
 singular while lifnaychem is plural?  The Ohr HaChaim answers that people
 may see the same object but each ones perception and understanding is
 different.  An event can take place before all of us, but each one
 understands it at his or her own level.  This is why Re'eh is singular and
 lifnaychem is plural.

The Almighty constantly yearns for that
glorious moment when all of His people will reflect the 
name of our month, Av, and proclaim: You are our AV
and we are Your sons! May this day come 
speedily in our times.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180715/e82ec3dd/attachment-0001.html>

In the recent Torah TO-GO from YU R Willig quotes RYBS
Our Introspection is not for the purpose of determining WHY the national
tragedy took place but for the purpose of discovering WHAT we can do to
improve ourselves and what areas require our tesguva

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180716/faef96b1/attachment-0001.html>

I will repeat a question I have asked in the past but am still not happy
with any answer

We have been taught that the essence of tisha baav is the destruction of
the Temple(s). Nevertheless, Megilat Eicha barely has a mention of the
destruction of the Temple.  The emphasis of Eicha is the destruction of the
city of Jerusalem and the tragedy of its inhabitants. No mention of the
lack of sacrifices etc.
Even in the kinos there is not much on the physical destruction of the
Temple and its effect on the people. In my personal opinion, the most
impressive piyut on the what we lost in the destruction of the Temple is
"Mareh Cohen" recited on Yom Kippur after the avodah and not on Tisha Baav

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180716/141bdb92/attachment-0001.html>

Yes, the usually cited answer is "sin'as chinam". R' Josh Yuter collected
statements by Chazal. The transliterations in brackets are Hebrew in
the original.

<https://joshyuter.com/2018/07/15/judaism/jewish-thought-theology-machshava/lesser-known-reasons-for-jerusalems-destruction>

Rabbi Jack Love, a rebbe-chaver, noted that these multi-way machloqesin
are the norm when chazal ask about a tragedy. Look at the debates
over what exactly Nadav vaAvinu did wrong, or Moshe and Aharon, or a
metzorah... (Another case where one position became "common knowledge"
but Chazal didn't think it was so trivial.

And RJL suggested that this is itself the point. Chazal didn't think
any of them had a good answer. That's why so many revisit the question
suggesting their own answers. Tragedy isn't something we believe we can
explain. However, we also cannot desist from trying to find HQBH, and
to find a lesson we can take outselves, from the tragic.

Not to try would be derekh achzarius. (Rambam, Taaniyos 1:3, based on
Mishlei 11:17)

(Given this "take lesson" idea, it could be that each tanna or amora
was highlighting a flaw of the churban generation that he thought
his own community particularly needed work on. And so the machloqes
more reflects differences in communal culture of their audiences than
differences in how they viewed the churban.)

-Micha


YUTOPIA
The Online Home of Rabbi Josh Yuter

Lesser-Known Reasons for Jerusalem's Destruction
July 15, 2018

As we approach Tisha B'Av, arguably the most tragic day in Jewish
history, it is common for Jews to explore the religious causes for the
destruction of Jerusalem and the Holy Temple. After all, the hurban,
was cataclysmic for the Jewish people politically and religiously as
we lost both our sovereignty in becoming exiles and our Temple through
which we connected with God. And if such a cataclysm was the result of
transgressing particular sins, then these sins must be among the most
grievous, and thus the most urgent in need of correcting.

According to the Talmud in B. Yoma 9b, the sins which caused the
destruction of the First Temple were idolatry, forbidden sexual relations,
and murder. The severity of these sins is well documented in Jewish
law as all of them are not only capital offenses, but they are known
as yeihareig v'al ya'avor -- sins for which one ought to let oneself be
killed rather than violate.[1]

Regarding the destruction of the Second Temple, the Talmud in Yoma
continues that even though the Jews were engaged in Torah study,
fulfilling the commandments, and performing acts of kindness, the Second
Temple was destroyed because of a sin'at hinam or "baseless hatred"
throughout the nation.[2] This demonstrates that the sin of baseless
hatred is just as severe as the sins of idolatry, sexual transgressions,
and murder since all of these transgressions were responsible for the
destruction of the Temple and the exile of the Jewish people.

In my experience, most Jews are familiar with the reasons for the
destruction given in B. Yoma 9b, and why it's common to find much
discussion over the harms of "baseless hatred"[3] around this time
of year.[4]

But the Talmud records additional reasons given for the destruction of
Jerusalem which are rarely discussed. Here is a sample of some of them
from B. Shabbat 119b:

- Abaye: [shechalelu bah es haShabbos] -- Desecrating the Shabbat
  (B. Shabbat 119b)

- R. Abbahu: [shebitelu Qeri'as Shema shacharis ve'arvis] -- Not reciting
  the Shema in the morning and night (B. Shabbat 119b)

- R. Hamnuna: [shbitelu bahh tinoqos shel beis rabban] -- Schoolchildren
  were no longer learning Torah (B. Shabbat 119b)

- Ulla: [shelo harah lahem boshes panim zeh mizeh] -- People had no
  sense of shame between each other (B. Shabbat 119b)

- R. Yitzchak: [shehushvu qatan vegadol] -- They equated the great and
  the small (B. Shabbat 119b)

- R. Amram b R. Shimon b Abba citing R. Shimon b Abba: [shloe hokhichu
  zeh es zeh] -- They did not rebuke each other (B. Shabbat 119b)

- R. Yehuda: [shebizu bahh talmidei chakhamim] -- They disgraced Torah
  scholars (B. Shabbat 119b)

- Rava: [shepasqu mimenah anshei amanah] -- There ceased to be trustworthy
  people. The gemara qualifies that it refers to people being trustworthy
  in business (B. Shabbat 119b)

Most of these opinions are supported by Biblical verses, which could
imply that these would be referring to the first destruction of Jerusalem,
not the second. Still, regardless of which destruction these statements
refer, the severity would still not be mitigated since they were still
responsible for a destruction.[5]

I'm presenting these opinions without further comment,[6] other than to
note that these reasons for the destruction exist and are generally not
as well-known as baseless hatred.

Share this:

NOTES

[1] B. Sanhedrin 74a

[2] Without citing the gemara in Yoma, the narrative of Kamtza and Bar
Kamtza on B. Gittin 55b elaborates on how baseless hatred caused the
destruction. Note the equivalence between the destruction of the Temple
and the destruction of Jerusalem.

[3] Of course, people often wind up justifying their hatred for "good
reasons," which rarely helps matters.

[4] The sins of murder and idolatry are not as prevalent in the Jewish
community as they might have been in the past, but I have not seen sexual
transgressions discussed in the context of the destruction nearly as
much as baseless hatred, despite it being no less relevant today.

[5] The gemara includes an aside on the continuing importance of not
disparaging Torah scholars and of the education of schoolchildren.

[6] Of the opinions mentioned here, R. Yitzchak's might be the most
jarring to whose for whom equality is sacred. Further research into this
and all other opinions is strongly encouraged.

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 05:05:54PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: We have been taught that the essence of tisha baav is the destruction of
: the Temple(s). Nevertheless, Megilat Eicha barely has a mention of the
: destruction of the Temple.  The emphasis of Eicha is the destruction of the
: city of Jerusalem and the tragedy of its inhabitants...

: Even in the kinos there is not much on the physical destruction of the
: Temple and its effect on the people...

Well, if you include the effect on the people, I disagree. Starting with
Ahalah and Ahalivama.

Which brings me to what I think the essence of Tish'ah beAv. Not churban
bayis. In a sense, churban bayis wasn't tragic, as the whole point was to
make the point on eitzim va'avanim and avoid churban Benei Yisrael ch"v.

But the human cost as a consequence of churban bayis has been huge. And
as you note, that's exactly what we talk about. Not the loss of qorbanos,
but the loss of the consequent sheleimus and shalom we could have used
the BHMQ to develop.

Rather than seeing this as a question, I see it as a disproof of your
assumption.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 03:20:54PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: In the recent Torah TO-GO from YU R Willig quotes RYBS
: > Our Introspection is not for the purpose of determining WHY the national
: > tragedy took place but for the purpose of discovering WHAT we can do to
: > improve ourselves and what areas require our tesguva

RYBS says something similar in Qol Dodi Dofeiq
<https://www.sefaria.org/Kol_Dodi_Dofek%2C_The_Righteous_Suffer.11>:
    When the "Child of ?Destiny" ?suffers, he says in his heart,
    "There is evil, I do not deny it, and I will not conceal it with
    ?fruitless ?casuistry. I am, however, interested in it from a
    halakhic point of view; and as a person ?who wants ?to know what
    action to take. I ask a single question: What should the sufferer
    do to live ?with his ?suffering?" In this dimension, the emphasis is
    removed from causal and ?teleological ?considerations (which differ
    only as to direction) and is directed to the realm of ?action. The
    ?problem is now formulated in the language of a simple halakhah
    and revolves around a ?quotidian ??(i.e. daily) task. The question
    of questions is: What does suffering obligate man to do? ?This
    ?problem was important to Judaism, which placed it at the center
    of its ??Weltanschauung. ?Halakhah is just as interested in this
    question, as in issues of issur ?and heter and ??hiyyuv and p'tur. We
    do not wonder about the ineffable ways ?of the Holy One, but ?instead
    ponder the paths man must take when evil leaps up at him. We ask ?not
    about the reason ?for evil and its purpose, but rather about its
    rectification and uplifting. How ?should a man react in a ?time of
    distress? What should a person do so as not to rot in his affliction??

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

<< Which brings me to what I think the essence of Tish'ah beAv. Not churban
bayis. In a sense, churban bayis wasn't tragic, as the whole point was to
make the point on eitzim va'avanim and avoid churban Benei Yisrael ch"v.

But the human cost as a consequence of churban bayis has been huge. And
as you note, that's exactly what we talk about. Not the loss of qorbanos,
but the loss of the consequent sheleimus and shalom we could have used
the BHMQ to develop.

Rather than seeing this as a question, I see it as a disproof of your
assumption.  >>

My strong suspicion is that if one were to take a survey asking what we
mourn on tisha baav most people would answer the physical destruction of
the two Temples.

<< he loss of the consequent sheleimus and shalom we could have used the
BHMQ to develop.>>

That is a modern concept Eichah mourns the destruction of the city of
Jerusalem, the killing of its population leading to the exile.

In fact this discussion has "halachic" implications. There are some groups
that downplay the meaning of Tisha Baav since now we have a rebuilt and
vibrant Jerusalem with a Jewish government. Thus, for example some shuls
make changes of one type or another to Nachem.
I am told that even RAL made some small changes claiming that saying the
original version would be a lie today. Again, his changes were very minor
but others suggested major changes

RYBS OTOH pushes the notion that Jerusalem without the Temple is a desolate
city without inhabitants and so he objected to any change in Nachem. It
would seem that according to RYBS it is the destruction of the physical
building that we memorialize and my question is that this is not the thrust
of Eichah.

As to the kinnos there are a variety of them (in addition to sefardi
wants). Even  Ahalah and Ahalivama  stresses the shame we feel  rather than
the physical destruction.
As I mentioned I would have expected to see some equivalent to Mareh Cohen
on Tisha Baav.
Perhaps one exception is the comparison of the exodus from Egypt to the
exile from EY


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180716/ab316013/attachment-0001.html>

You might find this of interest:

Tzarich Iyun: The Destruction of the Beit Hamikdash - OU Torah
<https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/tzarich-iyun/tzarich_iyun_destruction_of_the_beit_hamikdash/>

Misconception: According to rabbinic tradition, the destruction of the
Second Beit Hamikdash (Temple) can be attributed solely to sinat chinam
-- gratuitous hatred. Fact: Some rabbinic sources do, indeed, attribute
the destruction to sinat chinam.

________________________________
From: On Behalf of Micha Berger via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 9:49 PM

Yes, the usually cited answer is "sin'as chinam". R' Josh Yuter collected
statements by Chazal. The transliterations in brackets are Hebrew in
the original.

<https://joshyuter.com/2018/07/15/judaism/jewish-thought-theology-machshava/lesser-known-reasons-for-jerusalems-destruction>
...


------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


------------------------------


**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org


When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."

A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)