Halakha: A Weekly Shiur In Halakhic Topics
Yeshivat Har Etzion

This shiur is dedicated in memory of Dr. William Major z"l.

BS"D, 24 Tamuz, 5765[1]

Se'uda ha-Mafseket (The Meal before the Fast)

The Baraita in tractate Ta'anit (29b, and in Eruvin 40b) states:

The Rishonim disagree whether one is permitted to eat a lavish meal like that of King Shlomo, or whether he is obligated to eat such a meal in honor of Shabbat, as he does every other week.

The Ravya (III, no. 888; and similarly Responsa Rav Sar Shalom Gaon, no. 56; Ra'avan, tractate Ta'anit; Manhig, Tish'a Be'av, no. 21) writes that one is permitted to eat meat and drink wine, though there are those who are accustomed not to eat meat or drink wine, because they maintain that there is no obligation to do so:

The Shibolei ha-Leket (no. 266) writes in the name of the Halakhot Gedolot (though in our version of the Behag, p. 192, meat and wine are permitted) that when Tish'a Be'av falls out on Sunday, one may not eat meat or drink wine on Shabbat after midday.

On the other hand, the Shibolei ha-Leket himself says in the name of Rav Avigdor Kohen-Tzedek that one should not abstain from meat and wine on Shabbat, even at the se'uda ha-mafseket. Similar rulings were issued by Rabbenu Yerucham (netiv 18, part 2) and the Tur (552).

The Rambam (Hilkhot Ta'aniyot 5:8-9) writes:

The Rambam seems to rule that even when Erev Tish'a Be'av falls out on Shabbat, se'uda shelishit may be as lavish as a meal of King Shlomo.

Two points in the Rambam's ruling should, however, be noted:

First, the Rambam writes that "we never ate a cooked dish, even lentils, on Erev Tish'a Be'av, unless it was Shabbat." What did they do on Shabbat? Did they then eat a meal of lentils, or did they eat a meal fit for King Shlomo? In other words, does the Rambam mean to say that while according to the law it is permissible to eat a feast fit for a king, the common practice is to eat only a dish of lentils? Or perhaps, on a weekday they would not eat even lentils, but on Shabbat, they would eat an ordinary meal!

The Ma'ase Roke'ach (on the Rambam, ad loc.) understands that even on Shabbat they would refrain from eating an ordinary meal and restrict themselves to a dish of lentils. According to Responsa Halakhot Ketanot (II, no. 137), on Shabbat they would eat in regular manner.

Second, regarding Tish'a Be'av that falls out on Sunday, the Rambam writes that one eats "even like a meal of [King] Shlomo." But regarding Tish'a Be'av that falls out on Shabbat, he writes that "one does not omit anything."

The Netziv (Ha’amek She’eila, she’ilta 158, 3) infers from this that when Tish'a Be'av falls out on Sunday, one may add to his se’uda shelishit and eat even more than usual. When, however, Tish'a Be'av falls out on Shabbat, one may eat as usual, like on any other Shabbat, but he may not add any more.

We need not necessarily come to this conclusion, for the Rambam brings the two rulings in the same halakhah, and he writes: "And similarly if Erev Tish'a Be'av falls out on Shabbat," implying that the law in the two cases is the same. So too the formulation of the Baraita in Ta'anit implies that the two cases are governed by the same law.

The disagreement among the Rishonim may depend upon the following question: When Tish'a Be'av falls out on Sunday, is there a se'uda ha-mafseket on Shabbat, though without any mourning practices (because of the honor of Shabbat), or perhaps there is no se'uda ha-mafseket at all? Those who impose restrictions upon the consumption of meat, and the like, would presumably say that there is a se'uda ha-mafseket, though lest stringent than usual because of the honor of Shabbat. Even those authorities who are lenient about eating meat might agree that there is a se'uda ha-mafseket on Shabbat, though they are stringent not to display any sign of mourning on Shabbat.

Rashi, however, is explicit in his disagreement, writing as follows (Ta'anit 29b, s.v. ve-chen):

Rashi's wording implies that there is no se'uda mafseket on Shabbat at all.

This dispute may be based on the more general question, whether the mourning of Tish'a Be'av applies on Shabbat, and so it is only public mourning rites that are not observed (so writes the Or Zaru'a, II, no. 437, regarding Tish'a Be'av that falls out on Shabbat; Maharil, Hilkhot Tish'a Be'av; and Rema 554:19). Or, perhaps, the mourning of Tish'a Be'av does not apply on Shabbat at all, and so even private mourning rites are not observed, meaning that marital relations are permitted (Rosh, Ta'anit 4:32 notes the controversy, and writes that the custom is to practice leniency. So too writes Ramban, Torat ha-Adam, aveilut yeshana; Responsa Rashba, I, 520; and so too rules the Shulchan Arukh, 554:19).

Those who maintain that there is no se'uda mafseket on Shabbat are apparently of the opinion that the sanctity of Shabbat accomplishes the same thing as the se'uda ha-mafseket eaten on a weekday. The se'uda ha-mafseket is supposed to imbue the beginning of the fast with the proper atmosphere, the appropriate solemnity, and the like. The sanctity of Shabbat may prepare a person for the fast in a manner, which while different, nevertheless allows him to build out of the sanctity of Shabbat the mourning of Tish'a Be'av in an appropriate and proper manner.[2]

The Mishna Berura (552, no. 23) rules that we eat as usual, and that it is forbidden to abstain from meat, because that would give the appearance of mourning:

The Mishna Berura adds in the name of the Magen Avraham that on this Shabbat one should sit alone and in anguish, rather than in the company of friends. He also cites the Bekhor Shor, who disagrees and says that this would be considered an act of public mourning, and so one must eat in his usual manner, together with friends, and the like:

The Mishna Berura seems to rule leniently, and in any case a family meal is permitted, even with zimmun.

R. Moshe Feinstein (Responsa Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chayyim, IV, no 112, 4) adds that on this Shabbat a person is permitted to partake of meat at se'uda shelishit, even if he does not ordinarily do so. So too he is permitted to sing zemirot at this se'uda shelishit, even if this is not his usual custom:

Finishing the meal

The Gemara in Eruvin (41a) cites the opinion of Rabbi Yose that when Tish'a Be'av falls out on Friday, the fast continues until the very end of the day, that is, until Shabbat itself. The Sages disagree, arguing that a person should not enter into Shabbat in a fast. But regarding Tish'a Be'av that falls out on Sunday, all agree that one must stop eating on Shabbat at sunset:

The Sages agree about Tish'a Be'av that falls out on Sunday, arguing that when a person eats and drinks all of Shabbat, stopping to eat at sunset is not regarded as "fasting." So too rules the Rema (552:10) that one must finish se'uda shelishit before sunset:

Not only should a person conclude his meal prior to sunset, but it is preferable that he also finish singing the Shabbat zemirot by that time. For when a person refrains from singing it is not clearly evident that he is doing so out of mourning. Thus, it is preferable that the singing should not continue after sunset (see also Magen Avraham 554, no. 4).

Torah study on Shabbat after Midday

The posekim disagree whether or not one is permitted to learn Torah after midday on Erev Tish'a Be'av, even when it falls out on a weekday. According to Responsa Terumat ha-Deshen (mo. 44), learning Torah is forbidden after midday, whereas according to the Maharshal (cited by the Taz, 553, no. 2), this is permitted.

The Rema (553) rules that the common practice is to restrict one's learning after midday on Erev Tish'a Be'av to those items that may be studied on Tish'a Be'av itself.

The Leket Yosher (I, p. 110) writes that when Tish'a Be'av falls out on Shabbat, one should not study Torah all of Shabbat. The Maharil (no. 44) writes that in such a case one should not study Torah after midday.

Maharil's position in the case where Tish'a Be'av falls out on Sunday is unclear, there being variant readings (see Responsa Ketav Sofer, Orach Chayyim 101, s.v., u-le-tashlum).

The Darkhei Moshe (554, 1) writes in the name of the Maharil that when Tish'a Be'av falls out on Sunday, we do not read from Pirkei Avot on Shabbat. This implies that even when Tish'a Be'av falls out on Sunday, one should not study Torah after midday on Shabbat. The Rema rules:

The Rema's ruling relates only to Tish'a Be'av that falls out on Shabbat. The Acharonim disagree about Tish'a Be'av that falls out on Sunday: The Levush (554) writes that one should act stringently in that case as well and refrain from studying Torah after midday. On the other hand, the Keneset ha-Gedola (Hagahot Bet Yosef, 552) writes that only when Tish'a Be'av falls out on Shabbat is Torah study after midday forbidden, but when it falls out on Sunday, Torah may be studied all of Shabbat.

The Yerushalmi (Shabbat 16:1) implies that when Erev Tish'a Be'av falls out on Shabbat, one is forbidden to study Torah from the time of Mincha on, for it states:

(See Responsa Chatam Sofer, Orach Chayyim, nos. 33 and 156. See also Mor u-Ketzi'a, no. 553, where a different interpretation is offered.)

The Magen Avraham (553, no. 7), the Eliya Rabba (no. 4, and the Kaf ha-Chayyim (553, no. 18) all rule stringently, even when Tish'a Be'av falls out on Sunday. How did they forbid Torah study on Shabbat when the observance of mourning rites on Shabbat is forbidden? It follows from what they say that since on a regular Shabbat, a person is permitted to study those "bad things" that may be studied even on Tish'a Be'av, if he studies them on this Shabbat, it is not clearly evident that he is doing so out of mourning.

The Chatam Sofer (Responsa, Orach Chayyim, no. 156) suggests a different explanation. He argues that the prohibition to study Torah on Erev Tish'a Be'av is not a mourning rite. Such study is forbidden, because when a person learns something during the day, he continues to think about it at night, and this brings him joy. Thus, Torah study is forbidden even when Erev Tish'a Be'av falls out on Shabbat (according to these authorities), because it will bring a person joy on Tish'a Be'av itself!

Many Acharonim permit Torah study even when Tish'a Be'av itself falls out on Shabbat. Thus the Maharam mi-Lublin (Responsa, no. 99; and also the Taz (ad loc.) writes that one who studies Torah on this Shabbat has not lost out. So too rules the Mishna Berura (553, no. 10), pointing out that some Acharonim go as far as to say that Torah study is permitted even when Erev Tish'a Be'av falls out on a weekday.

In light of all that has been said, there is certainly room for leniency on Erev Tish'a Be'av that falls out on Shabbat, that a person may study Torah as he usually does every other Shabbat.

Removing shoes

We have already seen that one must stop eating before sunset. This does not involve any infringement upon the honor of Shabbat, because the person ate all day and is satiated. As for removing shoes, the Roke'ach (no. 310) writes that on Motza'ei Shabbat, one does not remove his shoes or sit on the ground until after Barkhu.

The Rema issues a similar ruling (553:2):

We see then that the members of the congregation remove their shoes only after Barkhu, so as not to observe mourning rites on Shabbat. As for the cantor, however, we are lenient and allow him to remove his shoes before Barkhu, so that he not become confused while leading the prayers.

There may, however, be a difference between the time of the Rema and our time: First of all, some argue that at the time of the Rema, they would recite Ma'ariv early and finish the service before sunset. Thus, there was no problem to remove shoes only after Barkhu. Today, however, when we recite Ma'ariv at its proper time, shoes should be removed already at sunset. The Pekudat Elazar is in doubt about the matter (553).

On the other hand, Rav Sonnenfeld (Responsa Salmat Chayyim) writes that shoes are removed only after nightfall, because one is forbidden to display mourning on Shabbat. There is no problem with Tish'a Be'av, because from the very outset when the fast was established, it was accepted that when Tish'a Be'av would fall out on Motza'ei Shabbat, shoes would be removed only after Shabbat is over.

This position seems to stand the test of reason, for if one removes his shoes on Shabbat, there is mourning on Shabbat. Perhaps, however, it may be argued that this is a private rite of mourning, for the person remains in his house. But even if we define the practice as private mourning, it stands to reason that shoes should not be removed. As the Minchat Chinukh writes (313, end), there is a difference between mourning and affliction. Private rites of mourning are permitted, but afflicting oneself on Shabbat is forbidden, even in private.

Removing shoes is not a rite of mourning, but rather a rite of affliction. It is one of the five afflictions. Thus, it should be forbidden on Shabbat, even in private. This also follows from the words of the Vilna Gaon (553) that only eating must stop while it is still day, "which is not the case regarding the removal of one's shoes."[3]

There is another difference between the Rema's day and ours: It is not our custom today to remove our shoes, but rather to put on non-leather shoes. This is difficult to do after saying Barkhu during the Ma'ariv service.

And there is yet another difference: Generally speaking, it is inappropriate to wear Shabbat clothing on Tish'a Be'av. If we suffice with the removal of our shoes, we end up reading Eikha and saying kinot in our Shabbat clothing! This doesn't seem to have been a problem in the Rema's day, because the Rema rules (551) that on Shabbat Chazon one wears weekday clothing! Since it is our custom to wear Shabbat clothing (following the Vilna Gaon) on Shabbat Chazon, it is problematic for us to suffice with the removal of our shoes (see Mo'adim u-Zemanim, VII, no. 256).

In light of all that has been said above, it is customary to delay the Ma'ariv service about fifteen minutes. As soon as Shabbat is over, one should recite (at home) "Barukh ha-mavdil bein kodesh le-chol," remove one's shoes, change into weekday clothing, and then go to the synagogue. So rules Rav Ovadia Yosef in Responsa Yechave Da'at (V, no. 38):

A similar ruling is found in Mo'adim u-Zemanim (ibid.) in the name of the Chazon Ish (and so too in Ze ha-Shulchan, II, notes on Orach Chayyim 559), and in Torat ha-Mo'adim, no. 9, 1.

How should we act this year with respect to havdala? Surely, we cannot drink the wine on Motza'ei Shabbat! During the Shemone Esre, we say "Ata chonantanu," but as for havdalah, we find three different opinions in the Rishonim:

The first opinion is that of the Geonim, who maintain that havdala is recited on Sunday night, i.e., at the completion of the fast. So too write the Tosafot (Pesachim 107a, s.v. Amemar):

Many Rishonim adhere to this position (Machzor Vitri, no. 267; Behag, kiddush; Ravya, II, no. 522). [The Behag rejects the possibility of reciting havdala on Shabbat itself after pelag ha-mincha, because with the recitation of havdala, a person accepts the fast, and accepting a fast on Shabbat is forbidden.]

According to the second opinion, one should recite havdala on Motza'ei Shabbat, and give the wine to a minor to drink. This position is found in the Manhig (Tish'a Be'av, no. 21). He writes that there is no concern that the minor will become accustomed to drink the wine and do so even after he reaches adulthood, because the circumstances are exceptional (that Tish'a Be'av should fall out on Motza'ei Shabbat). The Meiri (Ta'anit 30b), however, writes that even in this case, there is concern that the minor will continue to drink wine even after he reaches maturity. So too the Ramban (Torat ha-Adam) rejects this position.

The third opinion is that of the Ramban (Torat ha-Adam, aveilut yeshana). According to him, no havdala is recited all, neither on Motza'ei Shabbat, nor on Sunday. The reason: Since Motza'ei Shabbat is unfit for havdala, havdala is set aside completely. This is unlike the case of a person who forgot to recite havdala on Motza'ei Shabbat, who may recite havdala until Tuesday. For such a person was obligated on Motza'ei Shabbat, and therefore he can still compensate (tashlumin) for his failure to fulfill that obligation. But when there is no obligation on Motza'ei Shabbat, there is no room for tashlumin. The Ramban adds that it stands to reason that this was included in the original enactment of havdala, that when Tish'a Be'av falls out on Motza'ei Shabbat, there is no havdala at all. This is also the position of Responsa Rashba (I, no. 117), Ritva (Ta'anit 30b; Sukka 54b), and others.

We shall try to explain these positions:

The Rosh (Berakhot 3:2) cites a dispute among the Rishonim regarding a person who was in a state of aninut (acute mourning) on Motza'ei Shabbat: All agree that he does not recite havdala on Motza'ei Shabbat. The question arises whether or not he must recite havdala on Sunday when his acute mourning ends? According to the Ri, since he was exempt on Motza'ei Shabbat, he is released entirely from the mitzva. According to the Maharam mi-Rotenburg, he must recite havdala on Sunday.

This dispute may be understood as follows: According to the Ri, when a person recites havdala on Sunday, he compensates for his failure to fulfill his obligation of Motza'ei Shabbat. Thus, if a person is an onen on Motza'ei Shabbat, and therefore exempt from havdala, he is entirely exempt from havdala even on Sunday. The Maharam, on the other hand, maintains that the time of havdala is until Tuesday. Thus, even if a person was exempt from havdala on Motza'ei Shabbat, since he is now obligated in mitzvot, and since it is now the time of havdala, he is obligated to recite havdala.[4]

According to this, the Ramban who rules that havdala is not recited at the end of Tish'a Be'av on Sunday, is apparently of the opinion that havdala during the week is tashlumin for the obligation of Motza'ei Shabbat. Since the mitzva was set aside on Motza'ei Shabbat, it is set aside entirely. According to this, the Meiri (Ta'anit 30b) explains that those who disagree and say that havdala is recited at the end of Tish'a Be'av, maintain that havdala during the week is not tashlumin for the obligation of Motza'ei Shabbat, but rather the time of havdala is until Tuesday.

It stands to reason, however, that those who disagree with the Ramban do not necessarily have to accept this position. They may agree that havdala during the week is indeed a law of tashlumin, but there is a great difference between an onen and Tish'a Be'av. An onen is exempt from all mitzvot; since he is released from the mitzva of havdala on Motza'ei Shabbat, he cannot recite havdala even after his aninut has passed. Mourning, however, does not exempt a person from mitzvot. Thus, when Tish'a Be'av falls out on Motza'ei Shabbat, a person is obligated to recite havdala, though he is unable to fulfill this obligation, because he is forbidden to drink the wine. Since, therefore, he was bound by the obligation on Motza'ei Shabbat, he can recite havdala in compensation even on Sunday night.

This reasoning seems to be obvious. What does the Ramban think? How does he compare aninut and Tish'a Be'av? Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik offers a persuasive explanation.[5]

According to R. Soloveitchik, the essence of the law of havdala is not to release Shabbat. The essence of havdala is to distinguish between Shabbat meals and weekday meals. Just as we open the first Shabbat meal with kiddush, so too we open the first weekday meal with havdala!

For this reason, it is permissible to continue se'uda shelishit into Motza'ei Shabbat, for it still a Shabbat meal!

According to this, the Ramban maintains that since Motza'ei Shabbat is not a time of eating, the mitzva of havdala is completely cancelled. The impossibility of drinking the wine is not a side problem, a technical difficulty preventing the recital of havdala. It is an essential problem! If it is impossible to eat and drink, the whole basis for havdala falls to the wayside! For the whole idea of havdala is to distinguish between Shabbat meals and weekday meals.[6] Since, therefore, the mitzva was set aside on Motza'ei Shabbat, it is set aside completely.[7]

The Shulchan Arukh (556:1) rules that havdala is recited on Sunday night, that is to say, at the end of Tish'a Be'av. The Radbaz (Responsa, II, no. 642), as well as other Acharonim, disagree with the Shulchan Arukh and rule that havdala is not recited. The accepted opinion, however, is that of the Shulchan Arukh, to recite havdala on Sunday night. Similar rulings were issued by the Levush (556), the Magen Avraham (no. 2), the Eliya Rabba (no. 4), the Kitzur Shulchan Arukh (125, 6), the Chayyei Adam (126, 6), the Torat ha-Mo'adim (9,2), and others.

In any event, as stated above, "Ata chonantanu" should be recited during the Ma'ariv service on Motza'ei Shabbat. If a person forgot to say it, he does not repeat the Shemone Esre, because he may rely on the havdala to be recited at the end of the fast on Sunday night (Shulchan Arukh 294:3).[8]

Women who do not ordinarily recite the Ma'ariv service must be reminded in particular to say "Barukh ha-mavdil bein kodesh le-chol" (Mishna Berura 556, no. 2). According to R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (cited in Ve-Aleihu Lo Yivol, I, p. 203), it is preferable that women should recite the Ma'ariv service on this Motza'ei Shabbat, and say "Ata Chonantanu." He reasons as follows: The Gemara in Berakhot 33a states that according to the original enactment, havdala was to be recited in the prayer service. Only afterwards was it enacted that havdala should be recited over a cup of wine. Thus, on this Motza'ei Shabbat, when havdala over a cup of wine is impossible, it is fitting to recite havdala in the prayer service.

In any event, a woman who is unable to recite Ma'ariv should recite "Ata chonantanu."[9]

The Orchot Chayyim (Havdala, no. 14) writes that when Tish'a Be'av falls out on Motza'ei Shabbat, we do not recite the blessing over light, because on this day the sanctuary was burned. The Meiri (Ta'anit 30b) adduces proof to this position from what Rav Hai Gaon says that the blessing over light is not recited on Sunday night. The fact that Rav Hai Gaon had to say this clearly indicates that the blessing over light was not recited on Motza'ei Shabbat (for were the blessing recited on Motza'ei Shabbat, then it would be quite obvious that it is not recited again on Sunday night).

Other Rishonim, however – Siddur Rashi (414), Ravya (III, 890), the Manhig (Tish'a Be'av, 21), Hagahot Maimuniyot (end of Hilkhot Ta'anit, minhagei Tish'a Be'av), and others – all rule that the blessing over light is recited on Motza'ei Shabbat. So too rules the Shulchan Arukh (556:1):

Therefore, the blessing over light is recited prior to the reading of Eikha[10] (Taz, no. 1). If a person did not recite the blessing at that time, he can do so all night. But once the morning of Sunday dawns, the blessing can no longer be recited (Taz, ibid.).

The Be'ur Halakha (296, s.v. lo yavdilu) is in doubt whether or not the obligation to recite the blessing over light – on an ordinary Motza'ei Shabbat – applies to women. Thus, it is preferable that the husband should recite the blessing over light on this Motza'ei Shabbat, before he goes to synagogue (after Shabbat is over) for his wife as well (see also Shemirat Shabbat ke-Hilkhata, 62, note 98).

If, however, the husband failed to recite the blessing, women, by strict law, are obligated to recite the blessing, and can do so on their own. This is also the position of R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (cited in Shemirat Shabbat ke-Hilkhata, 61, note 69; Minchat Shelomo, II, no. 53, 2. There he writes that even according to the Be'ur Halakha, women are not obligated to recite the blessing, but they are permitted to do so) and R. Elyashiv (Hilkhot u-Minhagei Bein ha-Metzarim, p. 188, note 14).

"Bore minei besamim":

The Shulchan Arukh adds here that the blessing over spices is not recited. Let us explain:

The Roke'ach (no. 311) writes in the name of R. Moshe b. R. Yekutiel, and so also writes the Shibolei ha-Leket (no. 268), that the blessing over spices is recited on Motza'ei Shabbat even on Tish'a Be'av. The Orchot Chayyim (havdala) writes, however, that the blessing is not recited because spices are not brought into a house of mourning. This is also the ruling of the Shulchan Arukh.

Why does the Shulchan Arukh rule that the blessing over spices is not recited when Tish's Be'av falls out on Motza'ei Shabbat? This position may be understood in two ways:

1) Because of the mourning, one should not smell spices.

2) The Shakh (Yore De'a, 265, no. 12) explains that on an ordinary Motza'ei Shabbat, we recite a blessing over spices as compensation for the loss of the "additional soul" that accompanies the Jew throughout Shabbat. This does not apply on Tish'a Be'av.

There is a practical difference between these two explanations: According to the Shakh, it is permissible to smell spices on Tish'a Be'av; it is only the enactment regarding the "additional soul" that does not apply then. This he states explicitly. This also follows from the words of the Magen Avraham (556, no. 1. See Mishna Berura, and Sha'ar ha-Tziyyun, ad loc.). The Mishna Berura (no. 1) and Sha'ar ha-Tziyyun (no. 1) write, however, that according to the Taz, smelling spices is forbidden all of Tish'a Be'av. So too writes the Kaf ha-Chayyim (no. 4).

The Arukh ha-Shulchan (556) writes that one should not recite havdala on wine, but rather on another drink. The Eliya Rabba and the Peri Megadim (556) write that havdala should be recited over wine, but the wine should be given to a young child to drink. Rabbenu Yerucham (netiv 18) maintains that there is no prohibition whatsoever to eat meat or drink wine on Motza'ei Tish'a Be'av. Even though the common practice is to be stringent on the matter and refrain from eating meat and drinking wine, when a mitzva is involved, the Ma'amar Mordechai writes that there is no reason to be stringent. Thus, a person may recite havdala over wine, and drink the wine himself. It stands to reason that grape juice is treated like wine in a wine-press that has not yet begun to ferment, which by strict law may be drunk even during the Nine Days. While we are generally stringent not to drink grape juice during the Nine Days, it stands to reason that lekhatchila one may recite havdala over grape juice and drink it himself (even regarding wine, there is room for leniency, as explained above).

Reciting the passage "Hine El yeshu'ati evtach":

The Mate Efrayim (581, Kene ha-Mate, no. 81; and from there, Shemirat Shabbat ke-Hilkhata, 62, 44) writes that the verses in the "Hine El yeshu'ati" passage are meant to serve as a good omen for Motza'ei Shabbat. Thus, when havdala is made on a different day, as in our case, rather than reciting these verses, we begin with the blessing over wine.

It would appear that before the woman eats, she should recite havdala for herself, for the Mishna Berura rules (296) that when there is nobody to recite havdala for a woman, it is preferable that she should recite havdala for herself, rather than hear it from someone who has already fulfilled his own obligation. In our case, where the husband is not home, and the woman is fasting, it stands to reason that this should be treated like a case where there is nobody available to recite havdala for her. (According to Responsa Minchat Yitzchak [VIII, no. 51], however, she should ask a neighbor who has not yet recited havdala to recite havdala for her, and if this is impossible, it is not clear whether it is better that she should eat without reciting havdala, or recite havdala herself.)

Responsa Zekher Simcha (no. 69, by the av bet din of Wuerzburg) writes that a sick person who must eat on Tish'a Be'av should not recite havdala, because the Sages did not institute havdala over a cup on Tish'a Be'av. Most Acharonim rule, however, that havdala should in fact be recited. So writes the Birkei Yosef (556, no. 2) and the Mishna Berura (559, no. 37). The "Hine El yeshu'ati" section is not recited (just as it is not recited by one in mourning – Responsa Divrei Malkhi'el, VI, no. 9). The blessing over light is recited, but the blessing over spices is omitted.[11]

If the sick person does not plan on eating right away, but only a few hours later – the Kaf ha-Chayyim (no. 9) and Responsa Minchat Yitzchak (VIII, no. 30) write that he should not recite havdala immediately at the termination of Shabbat, but only before he actually eats.

When a sick person makes havdala, it is preferable that he not use wine, but rather the "drink of the land," namely, an important drink that is fit to be served to guests even when they are not thirsty (like coffee or fruit juice – R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Ma'adanei Shelomo, p. 55; Ve-Aleihu Lo Yivol, I, p. 202).

If the sick person recites havdala over wine, there are those who maintain that it is preferable that he should give the wine to a young child to drink. Many authorities write, however, that it is preferable that the sick person himself drink it, even if he used wine [as stated above, grape juice is preferable] (Birkei Yosef, in Sha'arei Teshuva 556; Responsa Az Nidbaru, XI, no. 48; R. Deblitzki, Tish'a Be'av she-Chal be-Yom Alef; Lu'ach Eretz Yisrael – and according to some of these authorities, it is preferable to use wine or grape juice, and not "the drink of the land," even if it will be drunk by the adult himself).[12]

The Chida (556, no. 3) writes that a sick person who must eat can recite havdala even on behalf of the other members of his household. For by strict law, it is possible to make havdala on Motza'ei Shabbat and give the wine to a young child, even though we do not do this for educational reasons. According to this, if it is difficult for the sick person to recite havdala himself, a well person can recite havdala for him, and the sick person (or a young child) will drink the wine. Thus also rules Responsa Tzitz Eliezer (XIV, no. 44) and Responsa Mishne Halakhot (VII, no. 39).

However, according to the explanation put forward by R. Soloveitchik¸ the matter is by no means simple. According to R. Soloveitchik, on Motza'ei Shabbat a person who is forbidden to eat is entirely released from havdala. The whole purpose of havdala is to serve as an introduction to the weekday meals; if a person can not eat, havdala does not pertain to him. According to this, a sick person cannot discharge the obligation of a well person, and perhaps a well person can also not discharge the obligation of a sick person.[13]

Therefore, in the absence of some pressing need, it would seem preferable not to fulfill one's obligation with the havdala of a sick person. However, in a case of need, e.g., where a well person wishes to recite havdala in a hospital, it would seem that he can recite havdala, and the sick person or a young child will drink the wine.

The Maharil Diskin (Responsa, Kuntrus Acharaon, no. 5, 72) is in doubt whether a child who wishes to eat on Tish'a Be'av is obligated to recite havdala for himself. The general custom, however, is for the child not to recite havdala. Thus it is written in the name of the Steipler Rav (Orchot Rabbenu, II, p. 145; and in the name of R. Elyashiv (Responsa Revavot Efrayim, III, no. 371); in Shemirat Shabbat ke-Hilkheta, 62, 45; and in Responsa Mishne Halakhot (VII, no. 39, s.v. ve-hine ha-Meiri). They write that there is no reason to require havdala for educational purposes, for when the child grows up, he will never eat on Tish'a Be'av in this manner. This is, indeed, the common practice.[14]

A summary of the laws governing Tish'a Be'av

that falls out on Sunday

Se'uda ha-mafseket:The Baraita in tractate Ta'anit (29b, and Eruvin 40b) states that a person may put on his table even like a meal of [King] Shlomo in his time.

The Rishonim disagree as to whether he is permitted to eat such a meal (though it is preferable that he be stringent and refrain from doing so), or perhaps he is obligated to eat a lavish meal in honor of Shabbat, as he does every week. The issue in dispute appears to be whether a se'uda mafseket is eaten on Shabbat, with care taken to refrain from any public mourning practices, or perhaps there is no se'uda mafseket at all?

The Mishna Berura (552, no. 23) rules that one eats a regular meal, and that one is forbidden to abstain from eating meat, because that would appear as an act of mourning. He notes that the authorities disagree whether or not the meal may eaten in the company of friends. He inclines toward leniency, and certainly permits a family meal and zimmun (ibid.).

Responsa Iggerot Moshe (Orach Chayyim, IV, no. 112, 1) adds that one may eat meat, even if he does not ordinarily do so. So too he may sing zemirot, even if he does not ordinarily sing zemirot at se'uda shelishit.

The Gemara in Eruvin 41a writes that all agree that the meal should be finished before sunset. Since the person ate and drank all Shabbat long, he is not seen as "fasting" on Shabbat when he stops eating at sunset. Thus rules the Rema (552:10). It is preferable that zemirot should also be finished before sunset.

The halakhic authorities disagree about this issue. The Levush writes that even when Tish'a Be'av falls out on Sunday, one should be stringent and refrain from Torah study on Shabbat after midday. The Keneset ha-Gedola (Hagahot Bet Yosef, 552) disagrees; only when Tish'a Be'av itself falls out on Shabbat is Torah study forbidden, but when it falls out on Sunday, Torah study is permitted all of Shabbat.

How can Torah study be forbidden on Shabbat? Surely this should be regarded as mourning on Shabbat? Since on an ordinary Shabbat, one is permitted to study those "bad things" that may be studied on Tish'a Be'av, if one studies them on this Shabbat, it is not a clear indication of mourning. The Chatam Sofer explains that the concern is not about Shabbat, but that a person should not receive pleasure on Tish'a Be'av itself from what he had learned on Shabbat.

Many Acharonim, however, permit Torah study even when Tish'a Be'av falls out on Shabbat. Thus, writes Responsa Maharam mi-Lublin (no. 99). The Taz too writes that one who learns Torah on Shabbat has not lost out. So too rules the Mishna Berura (553, no. 10), arguing that there are a number of Acharonim who rule that it is permissible to learn Torah even when Erev Tish'a Be'av falls out on a weekday.

In light of all this, one is certainly permitted to be lenient when Erev Tish'a Be'av falls out on Shabbat, and study Torah in his usual manner.

The Rema (553:2) writes that leather shoes should be removed in the synagogue, following Barkhu. But it stands to reason that our situation differs from that in the time of the Rema. First, we are accustomed to wear non-leather shoes, and changing one's shoes after Barkhu seems to be inappropriate. Second, it is inappropriate to wear Shabbat clothing on Tish'a Be'av. If we were merely to remove our shoes in the synagogue, we would be saying Kinot in Shabbat clothing. During the time of the Rema, this was not a problem, because the Rema rules that on Shabbat Chazon we wear weekday clothing! We, however, are accustomed to wear Shabbat clothing (following the Vilna Gaon). For us then it is problematic to suffice with the removal of our shoes (see also Mo'adim u-Zemanim, VII, no. 256).

In light of all the above, we are accustomed to delay the Ma'ariv service about fifteen minutes. When Shabbat is over, we say, "Barukh ha-Mavdil ben kodesh lechol" (women should be reminded to say this), remove our shoes, change into weekday clothing, and then go to synagogue. This is the position of Responsa Yechave Da'at (V, no. 38), and also the Mo'adim u-Zemanim in the name of the Chazon Ish. This seems to be the law. (There are those who are accustomed to go about barefoot after sunset.)

What do we do this year regarding havdala; surely we are unable to drink the wine on Motza'ei Shabbat! During the Shemone Esre prayer, we add "Ata chonantanu." As for havdala, we find three opinions among the Rishonim. One opinion is that of the Geonim (cited by Tosafot in Pesachim 107a): havdala is recited on Sunday night, that is, at the conclusion of Tish'a Be'av. The second opinion is that of the Manhig (Tish'a Be'av, 21): havdala is recited on Motza'ei Shabbat, and the wine is given to a young child to drink. The third opinion is that of the Ramban (in Torat ha-Adam) that no havdala whatsoever is recited. Since the mitzva of havdala was set aside on Motza'ei Shabbat, it is set aside forever.

The Shulchan Arukh (556:1) rules that havdala is recited on Sunday night, that is, at the conclusion of Tish'a Be'av. The blessing over light is, however, recited on Motza'ei Shabbat. It is the general practice to recite the blessing over light in the synagogue prior to the reading of Eikha. A person may, however, recite the blessing at home (after Shabbat is over) in order to discharge the obligation of his wife and family. (If he failed to recite the blessing on Motza'ei Shabbat, he should not recite it on Sunday, for fire was created on Motza'ei Shabbat.) The blessing over spices is not recited at all, for it is inappropriate for a time of mourning (Shulchan Arukh, ibid.).

A sick person who must eat on Tish'a Be'av should recite havdala for himself (Mishne Berura 559, no. 37). He should not recite havdala immediately when Shabbat is over, but only when he wishes to eat. If he is unable to drink, he should give the cup to a young child. If he is unable to recite havdala – Responsa Tzitz Eliezer (XIV, no. 44) rules that a well person can recite havdala for him, and the sick person or a young child can drink the wine. (There is room to discuss this ruling, but practically speaking, when the need arises, there is room for leniency.)

When a sick person recites havdala on Tish'a Be'av, it is preferable to recite havdala on "the drink of the land" (fruit juice, coffee, and the like). But havdala may also be made over grape juice, and there are many who rule that it may be made lekhatchila on wine (and the adult can drink it himself – Lu'ach Eretz Yisrael; some give it to a young child over the age of six).

Young children who eat on Tish'a Be'av are accustomed to eat without reciting havdala (Responsa Mishne Halakhot, VII, no. 39).

At the end of Tish'a Be'av, havdala is recited, without the "Hine El yeshu'ati evtach" passage (but rather beginning with the blessing over wine), and without the blessings over light and spices. Havdala is recited in the ordinary manner over wine, and an adult may drink the wine (it may perhaps be preferable to recite havdala over grape juice).

It stands to reason that if a woman's husband tarries on the way home, she is permitted to recite havdala herself, so that she may eat.

We shall try to join the sanctity of Shabbat to Tish'a Be'av, and enter the mourning of Tish'a Be'av, full of sanctity and strength. We hope and pray that, with God's help, because we mourn the destruction of Jerusalem, we shall merit to see its speedy rebuilding, and that all the difficulties facing the Jewish people will quickly turn into joy and happiness.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Bibliography for further study: R. Sharya Deblitzki, Erev Tish'a Be'av she-Chal be-Shabbat; R. Tzvi Cohen, Erev Tish'a Be'av she-Chal be-Shabbat; Torat ha-Mo'adim, no. 5, sects. 58-60; no. 6, secs. 3-4; and no. 9; Piskei Teshuva, 554.

[2] Regarding se'uda ha-mafseket: According to the simplest understanding, the se'uda ha-mafseket marks the beginning of the mourning of Tish'a Be'av, similar to aninut. Thus writes Responsa Terumat ha-Deshen (no. 151). However, he brings there another reason, that it is not aninut, but rather it is necessary that the meal be eaten in a lowly manner. The Magen Avraham (552, no. 8) writes that according to this explanation, the se'uda ha-mafseket is eaten on the ground, but afterwards one may sit on a regular chair. For it is a law in the meal, and not a law marking the beginning of mourning. This being the case, it may be that the low meal is meant to serve as a reminder and preparation for Tish'a Be'av.

The reason for se'uda ha-mafseket may be similar to the rationale of those who are accustomed not to eat meat or drink wine during the entire Three Weeks. The Rosh (no. 36) explains that this serves as a reminder of the destruction of the Temple and cessation of the sacrificial order (and therefore there is no meat or wine, because the sacrifices and the wine libations have been abolished). Regarding this rationale, see Shi'urei HaRav Soloveitchik, Al Inyanei Avelut ve-Tish'a Be'av, no. 12. Regarding se'uda shelishit when Erev Tish'a Be'av falls out on Shabbat, see no. 13, where R. Soloveitchik explains that the se'uda ha-mafseket is not a law of aninut, but rather a law of fasting, that is to say, it is necessary to clearly mark the beginning of the fast (therefore there is also a se'uda mafseket on Erev Yom Kippur, where there is no mourning). For this reason, there are those who maintain that there is a se'uda ha-mafseket on Shabbat (for it is not a sign of mourning), while on the other hand, Rashi maintains that there is no se'uda ha-mafseket on Shabbat, because the meal marks "the beginning of the fast" and there is no fasting on Shabbat.

[3] R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shemirat Shabbat ke-Hilkhata, 28, note 139) would, however, remove his shoes immediately after sunset. Moreover, he would lie on his bed without shoes for the entire bein ha-shemashot period, from sunset to nightfall, in order to remove all doubts (Shalmei Mo'ed, chap. 92, note 116). R. Elyashiv would also remove his shoes at sunset, arguing that a person at home during bein ha-shemashot does not expect guests to visit, and so there is no public mourning (following the Mordekhai, Mo'ed Katan, chap. 3. His position is cited in Hilkhot u-Minhagei Bein ha-Metzarim, p. 183, note 7). According to most of the Acharonim, however, shoes are removed only at nightfall: This is the simplest understanding of the Rema, cited above, that shoes are removed after Barkhu (unless we say that Ma'ariv was recited while still day, as argued by Pekudat Elazar above. The simple understanding, however, is that Ma'ariv was recited at night, but nevertheless shoes were removed only after nightfall.) So too the Vilna Gaon (553); the Chayyei Adam (136, 1); Kitzur Shulchan Arukh; R. Chayyim Sonnenfeld (Responsa Salmat Chayyim, 227); and the Chazon Ish (cited above, and also in Orchot Rabbenu, II).

Sitting on the ground: Even according to those who maintain that shoes should be removed at sunset, one should not sit on the ground, because that is a clear sign of mourning, and sitting on the ground (even during the week) is not by strict law, but only customary practice and pious behavior (Ritva, beginning of Ta'anit). This is also the position of R. Elyashiv (cited in Hilkhot u-Minhagei Bein ha-Metzarim, p. 185, note 8.

[4] This disagreement also has a practical ramification regarding one who intentionally failed to recite havdala. For if havdala during the week is tashlumin for the obligation of Motza'ei Shabbat, there is no tashlumin for intentional disregard. The Shulchan Arukh (199) rules that only if a person unintentionally forgot to do so on Motza'ei Shabbat, may he recite havdala during the week [implying that the obligation of havdala is on Motza'ei Shabbat, and the rest of the week is tashlumin]. In Yore De'a (341), however, the Shulchan Arukh rules in accordance with Maharam that a mourner recites havdala after the burial [implying that the obligation of havdala extends until Tuesday].

What is the underlying point in dispute? It seems that the disagreement relates to the essence of havdala. According to Rambam (Hilkhot Shabbat 29:1), havdala is part of the mitzva of Zakhor, namely, that one must sanctify the unique quality of Shabbat at a time close to the beginning and close to the end of the day. This applies only at a time close to the transition between Shabbat and weekday, and so it would seem that havdala over the course of the week is a law of tashlumin. On the other hand, according to an explanation appearing in the Maggid Mishne (ibid.), there is a separate law of havdala, of distinguishing between holy and mundane. According to this reason, it may be that, after the fact, the entire first half of the week is fit for this declaration. (see also my shi'ur on havdala).

[5] Shi'urei ha-Rav, Inyanei Avelut ve-Tish'a Be'av, no. 29.

[6] See below regarding a well person who wishes to fulfill his obligation with the havdala recited by a sick person, where we raise a difficulty in connection with this understanding of the Ramban.

[7] According to R. Soloveitchik, even the Behag agrees with this, but he maintains that despite the fact that Sunday is not a day of eating, it is still possible on Sunday night to distinguish between a Shabbat meal and a weekday meal (this may be the idea that we are not dealing here with tashlumin for the obligation of Motza'ei Shabbat, but rather the basic mitzva continues until Tuesday).

[8] In general, if a person forgets to insert "Ata chonantanu" in his Shemone Esre, and eats before reciting havdala over a cup of wine, he must repeat Shemone Esre and insert "Ata chonantanu" (Shulchan Arukh 294:1). In light of this, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shemirat Shabbat ke-Hilkhata, 62, note 95) raises the question whether a person must repeat Shemone Esre, if he forgot "Ata chonantanu" on Motza'ei Shabbat, and then ate by mistake on Motza'ei Tish'a Be'av without first reciting havdala. He writes that it stands to reason that since a number of prayers already went by without "Ata chonantanu," there is no place to insert it now. He concludes, however, that the matter requires further study.

[9] The argument may be made that the woman is not required to recite havdala in Shemone Esre (and that it suffices for her to recite "Barukh ha-Mavdil"), because she will hear havdala at the end of Tish'a Be'av.

[10] Regarding women: R. Chayyim Pilagi (Ru'ach Chayyim, 556] writes that women should be reminded to recite "Barukh ha-mavdil bein kodesh le-chol" as well as the blessing over light on Motza'ei Shabbat. This, however, is not so simple, for there are those who maintain that even on an ordinary Motza'ei Shabbat, women are exempt from the blessing over light (see Responsa Yabi'a Omer, IV, Orach Chayyim, no. 24, 9). It may perhaps be preferable that the husband should recite the blessing over light for his wife, and only afterwards go to synagogue, for according to our custom, the Ma'ariv service is delayed.

[11] It would seem that the same law applies to a sick woman. Since, however, there is a question whether there is at all an obligation of havdala on this night, and there is a question whether women are obligated in havdala (see nos'ei kelim, Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayyim 296), there are those who maintain that a woman should not recite havdala herself, but rather she should eat without reciting havdala, or else a well person should recite havdala for her, and she will drink the wine. (See Shemirat Shabbat ke-Hilkhata 62, 48; Responsa Tzitz Eliezer XIV, no. 44; Responsa Shevet ha-Levi, VIII, no. 129). It stands to reason, however, that when there is nobody to recite havdala on her behalf, she can recite havdala for herself, as on any other Motza'ei Shabbat, for most Rishonim maintain that there is an obligation of havdala on this Motza'ei Shabbat.

[12] How much must he drink? In order to fulfill the obligation of havdala, a cheekful suffices. In general, however, we try to drink a revi'it, so that we can recite a blessing after we finish drinking, and not enter the realm of doubtful blessings.

[13] If we accept this, there seems to be a great difficulty with R. Soloveitchik's understanding of the Ramban. According to the Manhig, an adult recites havdala on Motza'ei Shabbat, and gives the wine to a young child to drink. The Ramban disagrees, for if the child is given to drink, he may come to do the same even after he reaches adulthood. According to R. Soloveitchik, however, the adult cannot recite havdala (allowing a minor to drink) not only because of the side reason regarding what may happen to the child, but for a fundamental reason: the adult is entirely released from the mitzva of havdala! The fact that the Ramban mentions the side reason implies that fundamentally speaking the adult can recite havdala, unlike what R. Soloveitchik says regarding the Ramban. It may be possible to suggest that, in fact, the Ramban maintains that fundamentally an adult cannot recite havdala on this Motza'ei Shabbat. But he says that even those who maintain that an adult can recite havdala at this time must admit that he cannot give the cup to a child to drink, because of the possible ramifications for the child. In short, the Ramban maintains that in any event the adult cannot recite havdala, but he offers a rationale which even his opponents must accept, that even if the adult can recite havdala, he cannot give the cup to a young child to drink.

Further support for the Rav's understanding of the Ramban may be adduced from the fact that the Ramban writes that on this Motza'ei Shabbat, "there is no cup in the world," implying that havdala does not pertain at all.

[14] A Brit on Tish'a Be'av: This question rises not only this year but in an ordinary year as well. Let us mention the main points: Ashkenazim perform a brit at the conclusion of the kinot, even before midday (Rema 559:7), whereas Sefardim perform a brit only after midday (Shulchan Arukh, ibid.). The father and mother of the newborn, as well as the mohel and the sandak, are permitted to wear Shabbat clothing (Mishna Berura 559, no. 31), but may not wear leather shoes (Be'ur Halakha, ibid., s.v. mutar). They may don a tallit as on an ordinary day (Sha'arei Teshuva, 555, no. 1; though it is preferable to use a borrowed tallit in order not to require a blessing).

All the blessings are recited, including Shehecheyanu (Da'at Torah, end of no. 551). The wine is given to the new mother or to a minor (over the age of six). [Regarding metzitza with wine – Sha'arei Teshuva 612, no. 3, writes in the name of Responsa Devar Shmuel that this is forbidden; whereas Responsa Maharam Shik (315) permits it, provided that he turns his mouth downward, so that he not swallow the wine by mistake.]

Following the brit, the celebrants should remove their Shabbat clothing (Mishna Berura 559, no. 34). That night, after Tish'a Be'av is over, a celebratory meal (with no limitations on the guests) may be served that includes meat and wine (Mishna Berura 558, no. 2).

(Translated by David Strauss)