Rabbi Moshe Feinstein zt”l (1895-1986) was the preeminent posek for North American Jewry for most of the 20th century, both for the yeshivish and Modern Orthodox communities. Rav Moshe was born in Russia in 1895, where he served as rabbi making great personal sacrifices on behalf of his community until he emigrated to the U.S. in 1937, having determined that it was no longer possible to continue to live as a religious Jew in Russia. He lived on the Lower East Side of New York and served as the Rosh HaYeshivah and head of Mesivta Tifereth Jerusalem. Rav Moshe was active in communal affairs and served as president of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis and Chairman of the Council of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of the Agudath Israel of America.
His teshuvot, Iggrot Moshe, span 9 volumes (the last two published after his death in 1986) and deal with every topic in Shulkhan Arukh and with all the new contemporary challenges that presented themselves to Orthodox American Jewry in the 20th century, from transplants and medical ethics to birth control and abortion, to denominations, conversion, and feminism, and to dishwashers, ovens and microwaves.
Rav Moshe was known for his gentleness, his humanity and his responsiveness to the human condition. His approach to psak was one which was based primarily on the Gemara and Rishonim, to which brought a conceptual lens for framing halakhic debates.
In this teshuva, Rav Moshe addresses the question of whether education-age children need to mourn on Tisha B’Av. He does this by addressing two issues. First: what is the mechanism of religious education? Do we reach the goal of acculturating children to mitzvot by having them observe all the mitzvahs like an adult? Or is it possible that we acculturate children to keeping mitzvot in any manner that we can? If the first is true, it’s obvious that children should mourn on Tisha B’Av. If the second is true, we need to think whether demanding that they mourn will successfully help children form a connection with the mitzvot of Tisha B’Av.
Secondly, Rav Moshe asks the question of whether Tisha B’Av is appropriate for children. Are they able to actually mourn in a meaningful way? This demands thinking more deeply about what the mourning of Tisha B’Av is actually about. In what ways is it like the mourning for loved ones who have passed and in what way is it different? Can children actually identify with the mourning of the Jewish people?
Rav Moshe concludes that they can. He notes the importance of Tisha B’Av as mass mourning despite the historical nature of the mourning which might have caused us to be lenient. And in an ingenious move, he turns that same historical nature into a reason that children can identify. The mourning, it turns out, is not about personal anguish, something that adults themselves may struggle with, but rather honor given to the Temple and regret for mitzvot that we cannot observe. This is something that can resonate for children and adults alike. Thus, in his analysis of the place of children, Rav Moshe opens space for adults as well to connect with this challenging holiday.
| שו”ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק א סימן רכד
ומסתבר לע”ד שגם אם איכא חיוב חינוך באבלות וקריעה, תליא בזה דאם נימא שהחינוך להתרגל הוא רק טעם למה שחייבו אבל עצם החיוב הוא שהקטן יקיים המצוה כמו הגדול, אין טעם לחלק שבאבלות וקריעה לא יתחייב דאף אם הטעם לחייבו להרגילו ליכא במצוה זו משום דהוא רק מצוה הבאה ע”י מקרה ואפשר שלא יבא לו כלל מ”מ אין לחלק כיון דחייבוהו לקיום מצות כגדול. ואף לטעם הבית הלל משום שאין לחייבו בתשובה שאינו בר עונשין או לטעם כתר”ה שאין לו דעת להצטער נמי יש לחייב… וכיון שחייבוהו בקיום מצות כגדול גם אלו יש להיות בכלל. ואם נימא דעצם החיוב הוא ההתרגלות ולא קיום מצוה אין לחייבו באבלות וקריעה דלטעם זה אין כל המצות בכלל תקנה אחת שיקיים גם הקטן כגדול מאחר שאין ענין חיובו כחיוב הגדול אלא הוא על ההתרגלות דכל מצוה ולכן הוא רק בדבר שיש ענין התרגלות ולא באבלות וקריעה שליכא ענין התרגלות משום שהן מצות הבאות ע”י מקרה שאפשר שלא יבואו כלל. וגם שייך טעם הבית הלל וטעם כתר”ה משום דאם ההתרגלות הוא החיוב לא הוו כל המצות בכלל תקנה אחת מאחר דאינו על הקיום אלא הוא תקנה בכל מצוה ביחוד שצריך להרגילו ולכן כיון שיש חלוק במצוה זו, דההתרגלות לא יהיה לאופן שחייב הגדול דהוא לתשובה או להרגשת הצער לא חייבוהו…
ולכן להלכה באבלות שהלכה כדברי המיקל אין לחייב לקטן אף אם גם הרמב”ם והרדב”ז סברי כהדרישה והט”ז משום דמהר”מ מרוטנברג והרא”ש והש”ע סברי שפטור…
ובאבלות דתשעה באב ודיני בין המצרים שהעלה כתר”ה דכיון שאין אבלות לקטן לקרוביו כ”ש שאין חיוב לחנכו באבלות דתשעה באב דהיא אבלות ישנה שקיל כדאיתא ביבמות דף מ”ג ותמה על המג”א סי’ תקנ”א שכתב דבאבלות דרבים מחמירים טפי, הנה בתוס’ שם מפורש שלא לכל הדברים אבלות ישנה קילא… וכן הזכירו גם תספורת שיש להחמיר באבלות דרבים עיי”ש ולכן גם לגבי חינוך החמירו באבלות דרבים. ומדויק זה למה שבארתי להמג”א שהחינוך הוא לקיום מצוה לקטן כהגדול שלכן יש בעצם לחייב לקטן שהגיע לחינוך גם באבלות ומה שלא חייבו הוא מצד שהקלו באבלות כדמצינו כמה קולות שלכן כתב דבאבלות דרבים החמירו והחומרא הוא שאוקמוהו אדינא ולא הקלו בו. והרי משמע שלא אמרו הלכה כדברי המיקל באבלות דתשעה באב, דהא הרמב”ן שהביא הרא”ש בתענית דף ל’ פסק כת”ק דאסור לרחוץ ולסוך משהתחיל לאכול בערב תשעה באב אחר חצות סעודה המפסקת כת”ק אף שר’ ישמעאל בר’ יוסי בשם אביו מתיר וכן פסק הנ”י משום דהלכה כרבים אף שבאבלות כה”ג הלכה כדברי המיקל אף כיחיד נגד רבים… וא”כ חזינן שלא הקלו באבלות דרבים לכן גם לענין חינוך שסובר המג”א שהוא מצד שהקלו באבלות יש להחמיר באבלות דרבים דלא אשכחן שהקלו בה יותר משאר איסור דרבנן.
ולהטעם שכתב הנחל אשכול שבמצות הבאות ע”י מקרה לא חייבו בחינוך ודאי באבלות דת”ב ודיני בין המצרים שהוא דבר קבוע משנה לשנה עד ביאת הגואל שיהפוך השי”ת לששון ולשמחה יש לחייב לחנך התינוקות אף אם נימא דאבלות ישנה ודרבים קילא, משום דלא תלוי זה בחומרא וקולא אלא דדבר שהוא קבוע יש לחייב אף שהוא קיל ודבר שאינו קבוע לא חייבו אף שהוא חמור. ואף לטעם הבית הלל הא אבלות ישנה הוא על החורבן דביה”מ שלא היה בימינו שגם אבלות הגדולים אינו על חטאיהם, ואף שכל שלא נבנה ביהמ”ק בימיו כאילו נחרב בימיו מ”מ לא בשביל זה חייבו האבלות והתענית אלא על החורבן ממש שלא היה בזמננו וא”כ שייך זה גם בקטנים, דאף שכתב הרמב”ם ברפ”ה דתעניות שהוא כדי לעורר הלבבות לפתוח דרכי התשובה שבזכרון דברים אלו נשוב להיטיב נמי שייך זה גם בקטנים כמו שמחוייבים לחנכם בתענית יו”כ ובאמירת הוידוים שהוא לתשובה. ורק טעם כתר”ה אולי שייך גם באבלות דת”ב דאין יודע הקטן להצטער. אבל יותר מסתבר שהחיוב דת”ב ובין המצרים הוא העיקר לכבוד ביהמ”ק ועל מה שאיננו יכולים לקיים כל המצות התלויות במקדש שזה שייך אף לתינוקות שאין יודעין להצטער… | It seems reasonable to me that even if there is an obligation of educating children in mourning and tearing one’s clothes, this is dependent on whether we say that, though the initial motivation for obligating children to keep mitzvot is in order to acculturate them into the practice, the (legal form of the) of the obligation of education requires that the child observe the mitzvot precisely as does an adult. This being the case, there is no reason to make a distinction and claim that there is no obligation (for children) in mourning and tearing. For even if the reason for the obligation– acculturation– is not relevant to this mitzvah because it’s a mitzvah that is contingent on possible experiences, and it is possible that it will never apply to them, in any case, we do not make this distinction, for their obligation is to keep the mitzvot like an adult. Even according to the reasoning of the Beit Hillel, that children are not obligated to do teshuva because they are not liable for punishment, or according to your (the questioner’s) reasoning, that they don’t have the understanding necessary to properly grieve, we should still obligate them… Since they are (generally) obligated to keep the mitzvot like an adult, these mitzvot should be included.
But if, on the other hand, we say that the essential obligation (and goal of education) is acculturation and not the observance of the mitzvah proper, then we shouldn’t obligate children in mourning and tearing. For, according to this reasoning… the child’s obligation is not at all like the adult’s obligation. Rather his obligation is to be acculturated into observance of every mitzvah. Therefore, this is relevant to something that it is possible to acculturate one to, and not in mourning and tearing where there is no acculturation because they are mitzvot they might possibly never incur. Thus, your reasoning and that of the Beit Hillel are applicable here: if the core obligation is to acculturate (the child into mitzvot), then not all the mitzvot are of the same cloth. If this mitzvah is distinct in that the acculturation will not accomplish the purpose for which an adult is obligated, to wit, to do teshuva or to feel grief, the child would not be obligated therein …
Therefore, according to the laws of mourning, where the law is in accordance with the lenient opinion, we should not obligate a child even though the Rambam and the Radbaz agree with the Drisha and the Taz (that children are obligated in mourning). Because the Maharam of Rottenburgh, Rosh, and Shulchan Arukh rule that they are exempt.
Regarding the mourning of Tisha B’Av and the laws of the Three Weeks leading up to it, you suggest that since minors are not required to mourn for deceased relatives, it should certainly be the case that there is no obligation to educate them in the mourning of Tisha B’Av, because it is ‘ancient mourning,’ which is a lenient category (as appears in Yevamot 43). And you were astonished at the position of the Magen Avraham (O.H. 551:38) who wrote that for mass mourning, we are more strict. But the Tosafot (in Yevamot) wrote explicitly that ancient mourning is not lenient in all cases… and they also mentioned that regarding haircuts, we should be strict for mass mourning. And therefore, the rabbis were also strict regarding education for mass mourning.
This fits precisely with what I wrote according to the Magen Avraham, that the education is for the child to keep the mitzvah like an adult. And for this reason, we should obligate an education-aged child to keep regular mourning as well. And we don’t obligate them because we are lenient in regular mourning as we find in various leniencies. And therefore, he wrote that in cases of mass mourning, we are strict. And the stringency is that we treat it according to the basic law and we are not lenient.
Indeed, it appears that we do not say that “the law is in accordance with the lenient opinion in mourning” regarding the mourning practices of Tisha B’Av. For the Ramban (brought by the Rosh in M. Ta’anit p. 30) ruled… that it is forbidden to wash or anoint once one has begun eating the closing meal after noon on the eve of Tisha B’Av, even though R. Yishmael beR. Yose in the name of his father permits it. The Nimuke Yosef rules likewise, because we rule according to the majority opinion, though in similar cases of regular mourning the law is in accordance with the lenient opinion, even if that opinion is of an individual as against the majority… If so, we see that the rabbis were not lenient in the case of mass mourning. Therefore, when educating children as well, the Magen Avraham opines that we should be lenient in cases of regular mourning, but that we should be strict in such cases of mass (national) mourning, as we do not find that the rabbis were more lenient in mass mourning than in any other rabbinic injunction.
Further, according to the reason brought by the Nachal Eshkol, that the rabbis did not create an obligation of education on mitzvot that occur contingently, certainly regarding the mourning of Tisha B’Av and the rules of the Three Weeks, which are set dates from year to year [until the redeemer comes when God will change them to joy and rejoicing], there ought to be an obligation to educate the children, even if we were to treat ancient and mass mourning leniently. These are not (at their core) issues of leniency or stricture, but rather derive from an obligation to educate for set practices, even if there are leniencies associated with those practices. And there is no obligation to educate for contingent practices, even if we treat them generally strictly. Even according to the reasoning of the Beit Hillel (that children do not need to do teshuva because they are not responsible for their actions), this is ‘ancient mourning’ for the destruction of the Temple, (a structure which of course) didn’t exist in our days. Therefore, even adults’ mourning is not on account of their own sins. And even though we consider anyone for whom the Temple was not built in their days as though it were destroyed in their days, in any case, this is not the reason we are obligated to mourn on Tisha B’Av, but rather for the actual (historical) destruction, which of course didn’t happen in our time. Therefore, this mitzvah applies even to children. Even though the Rambam (Hilkhot Ta’aniyot 5:1) writes that the (the goal of this mitzvah) is to awaken hearts to open the pathways of teshuva, for in the memory of these things, we will return to doing good– this also applies to children. Just as we are obligated to educate them in the fast of Yom Kippur and saying the confessions, which are done for the purpose of effecting teshuva.
Only the reasoning which you articulated, that children do not have the understanding to properly grieve, perhaps applies to the fast of Tisha B’Av. But it makes more sense to say that the obligations of Tisha B’Av and the Three Weeks are essentially for the honor the Temple and for the fact that we are unable to keep all of the mitzvot that depend on the Temple. And this applies even to children who do not have the understanding to properly grieve… |
All of the content in The Lindenbaum Center for Halakhic Studies is released with a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. It is open for reuse with the following attribution: "Authored by [name of author] from The Lindenbaum Center for Halakhic Studies at YCT.
Rabbi Haggai Resnikoff (YCT ’14) is a Rebbe and Director of Community Learning at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. After spending several years in Israel doing graduate coursework in Hebrew University's Talmud Department and learning in various batei midrash in Jerusalem, he then trained at YCT. Rabbi Haggai graduated from YCT in 2014, and joined the faculty immediately thereafter. Rabbi Resnikoff headed up the Torat Chovevei Community Learning Project for four years and, as an outgrowth of that, has spearheaded YCT's groundbreaking effort to raise the priority level of the climate crisis in the Orthodox and larger Jewish community.
Rabbi Avram Schwartz learned at Yeshivat Hahesder Yerucham in Israel and received semikha from Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School in 2017. He and his wife Britany live in Richmond, VA.
3700 Henry Hudson Parkway, 2nd Floor
Riverdale, NY 10463
Phone: (212) 666-0036
Fax: (212) 666-5633
Email: office@yctorah.org
Click here to sign up to receive updates from YCT straight to your inbox.
