Mourning Practices in

Commemoration of the
Destruction of the
Temple
By Rabbi Joshua Flug

For technical information regarding use of

.this document, press ctrl and click here
I. There are a number of practices that were instituted to commemorate the destruction of
the Beis HaMikdash. In this shiur outline, we will list them and provide some details
about some of the more common practices.
II. The nature of mourning the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash
a. The Gemara notes that the idea of continuing to mourn the destruction on a regular
basis is based on the verse ‫'אם אשכחך ירושלים תשכח ימיני וגו‬. {}
b. The Gemara notes that the mourning should be more expansive than it is but because
the Jewish community cannot handle so many restrictions, the mourning practices
were limited.
c. The Gemara also states that exile and persecution should have led to abandonment of
marriage and procreation so that the Jewish People would eventually disappear, rather
than become victim to persecution. The reason why the rabbis didn't demand that
was ‫מוטב שיהיו שוגגין‬.
i. R. Moshe Sofer (1762-1839) notes that this is very puzzling. Is it really
possible that it is not ideal to get married and have children? Don't we find all
of the Tannaim and all of the leaders of later generations getting married and
having children? Furthermore, how can we try to second guess G-d's
intentions? If he told us to have children, how can we ignore it? Also, how is
it possible for the Jewish People to disappear? What happened to the Bris
Bein HaBesarim? {}
ii. Tosafos were sensitive to these questions and suggest that this idea wasn't to
literally cause the Jewish People to disappear, but to minimize the impact of
persecution by stopping to have children after the fulfillment of p'ru ur'vu. {}
iii. Chasam Sofer suggests that this idea was a plan to combat persecution. God
promised Avraham Avinu that the Jewish People would never disappear, but
he never promised that there would be no exile or persecution. The plan was
to invoke the Bris Bein HaBesarim by refraining from procreating until God
let up on the exile and persecution. It was a plan that would "force" God to
bring the redemption in order to ensure survival of the Jewish People.
However, you can't outsmart God and the plan would have never come to
fruition because as God eases up on persecution, people start to become
assimilated and rather than not observing mitzvos because of coercion (‫)שוגגין‬,
they willingly neglect mitzvos (‫)מזידין‬. Therefore, this plan was abandoned.
{}
1. There is a message in this idea in that the observances of mourning the
destruction of the Beis HaMikdash are not only to reflect on the past.
The idea is to be proactive in finding ways to bring the redemption and
one of those ways is by appreciating and mourning the loss of the Beis
HaMikdash.
 d. R. Yosef D. Soloveitchik (1903-1993) suggests that we commemorate the Beis
HaMikdash in two ways: {}
i. By mourning its destruction. These are the ideas that we are going to discuss.
ii. By performing mitzvos as a zecher l'mikdash in anticipating the redemption.
iii. R. Soloveitchik notes that these two ideas are alluded to in the verse in Eicha
(1:7) that states "‫זכרה ירושלים ימי עניה ומרודיה כל מחמדיה אשר היו לה מימי קדם‬."
The first half of the verse refers to the mourning aspect and the second half
refers to the longing for its rebuild.
III. Tearing K'riah Upon Seeing the Destruction
a. The Gemara quotes a Beraisa that one tears k'riah upon seeing Yerushalayim in its
destruction and then again upon seeing the place where the Beis HaMikdash stood. {}
b. The Gemara adds that one should also tear k'riah upon seeing the cities of Yehuda in
their destruction.
c. Shulchan Aruch codifies the Beraisa and the Gemara and adds that one only tears
k'riah if one is seeing the destruction for the first time or one has not seen it in thirty
days. {}
d. There is a discussion about whether one should tear k'riah for the cities of Yehuda if
they are inhabited:
i. R. Yosef Karo (1488-1575) suggests that perhaps one should not tear k'riah
even if the cities are inhabited by non-Jews. One only tears k'riah if the cities
are desolate. He then states that if the cities are in non-Jewish hands, they are
still considered ‫בחורבנן‬. {}
ii. R. Avraham Gombiner (c.1633-1683) writes that even if there are Jewish
inhabitants but under Jewish rule, one tears k'riah. The implication is that if
there is Jewish rule, there is no requirement to tear k'riah. {}
iii. R. Hershel Schachter notes that the issue of whether to tear k'riah for the cities
of Yehuda nowadays depends on the reason for the institution to tear k'riah for
those cities:
1. R. Yoel Sirkes (Bach 1561-1640) implies that the reason for tearing
k'riah for the cities of Yehuda is that those cities used to be under
Jewish rule and now they are not. {}
2. R. Mordechai Yoffe (Levush, c. 1530-1612) implies that the reason for
tearing k'riah is that those cities are considered an extension of
Yerushalayim. {}
3. R. Schachter notes that according to Bach, now that those cities are
under Jewish rule, there is no requirement to tear k'riah. According to
 Levush, tearing k'riah is a function of the destruction of Yerushalyim
and the Beis HaMikdash and one would still be obligated to tear k'riah.
R. Schachter notes that the minhag is to refrain from k'riah, implying
that we follow the Bach. {}
e. R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (1910-1995) notes that a similar question is raised about
Yerushalayim and adds that as long as the Jewish government doesn't have the power
to uproot mosques and churches from Yerushalayim, it is still considered ‫בחורבנה‬. {}
IV. Leaving a Portion of the House Unfinished
a. There are three Beraisas that discuss a prohibition of finishing the house with
limestone: {}
i. The first Beraisa states that one should not finish the house with limestone (‫אין‬
‫ )מסיידין‬one should not create three dimensional images with limestone (‫אין‬
‫ )מכיירין‬and one should not draw colorful pictures (‫)אין מפייחין‬.
ii. The second Beraisa states that one should not finish one's house with
limestone, but if one mixes in sand, it is permissible. R. Yehuda maintains
that even if sand is mixed in, it is prohibited.
iii. The third Beraisa states that one can finish the house with limestone and leave
over a small part. The Gemara states that this is an amah by an amah.
b. There are a number of explanations regarding the three different Beraisas:
i. Rambam (1138-1204) writes that one should not build a building like homes
of kings. Rather, one should coat the house with cement, then cover it with
limestone and leave over and amah by an amah. {}
1. R. Ya'akov ben Asher (Tur, 1269-1343) quotes Rambam's opinion and
infers from Rambam's opinion that leaving an amah by amah doesn't
work if the entire house is coated with pure limestone. Tur disagrees
with this conclusion. {}
2. Beis Yosef defends Rambam's position and offers two interpretations
of Rambam and how he quoted the Beraisa: {}
a. The initial Beraisa states that one cannot use limestone for
covering the house and additionally one cannot make three
dimensional or colorful images. This is only true if there is
limestone underneath. The second Beraisa defines limestone
and the third Beraisa teaches that one must still leave over a
small portion.
b. The initial Beraisa prohibits covering the entire building with
limestone or having three dimensional images or colored
images (covering limestone). There are two solutions
presented in the Beraisa. One is presented in the second
 Berasia to mix the limestone with sand. The other solution is
presented in the third Beraisa to leave over a portion.
c. In Shulchan Aruch, R. Karo quotes Rambam verbatim and
does not give any indication as to which interpretation he
follows. {}
d. Rama (1520-1572) writes that we follow the opinion of Tur
that if one leaves an amah by an amah, it is permissible to do
whatever one please with the rest of the building. {}
ii. R. Yosef ibn Chabib (Nimmukei Yosef 14th-15th century) writes explicitly that
if one mixed the limestone with sand, there is no need to leave over a portion.
{}
1. R. Yisrael M. Kagan (1838-1933) writes that those who don't leave
over an amah rely on the opinion of Nimmukei Yosef. However, he
questions whether it is applicable in his time when the houses are
covered with pure limestone. He then suggests that there are different
types of limestone, but writes that one should not rely on this
distinction. {}
2. R. Yechiel M. Epstein (1829-1908) also justifies the practice based on
the fact that limestone is generally mixed with sand. {}
c. Does the prohibition apply to painted or wallpapered houses?
i. In the U.S., most houses don't use limestone to cover the wall. The walls are
made with drywall and then painted or wallpapered. [The spackle between
the drywall sheets is 65% limestone, but it is generally not used to cover the
entire drywall sheet.]
ii. R. Avraham Gombiner (c.1633-1683) is of the opinion that painting the entire
house is also included in the prohibition. He further states that one cannot
paint an amah by amah black spot because that is also considered painting. {}
1. R. Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986) justifies the practice of painting a
black spot as a zecher l'churban. He suggests that the purpose of
leaving over an amah is not to make the house less beautiful. Rather
the purpose is to provide a symbol as a reminder that we are in exile.
As such, a black square is also sufficient. {}
2. R. Shimon Sofer (1850-1944) suggests that there is no prohibition
against painting the house if it is a thin coat. He writes that the
prohibition against painting only applies to thick three dimensional
paintings. {}
 iii. R. Eliyahu D. Rabinowitz-Teomim (Aderet 1845-1905) writes that it is
preferable to use wallpaper rather than limestone because wallpaper was never
included in the rabbinic institution. {}
iv. R. Gavriel Tzinner writes that in our homes (in the U.S.), one must leave an
amah without paint. {}
V. Listening to Music
a. The Mishna states that when the Sanhedrin was exiled, music was banned from the
banquet halls. {}
b. The Gemara questions whether music is permissible and concludes that only
instruments are prohibited. Song without instruments is permissible. {} The Rishonim
have various interpretations of the Gemara:
i. Rashi writes that this discussion refers to the prohibition against music at
banquet halls. {}
ii. Rambam seems to understand that this discussion is separate from the
prohibition against music at banquet halls. Normally it is prohibited to listen
to music from an instrument as a zecher l'churban. Singing without
instruments is permissible. At banquet halls, which Rambam defines as
anywhere where there is wine, even singing without instruments is prohibited.
Rambam adds that it has become common practice to sing words of praise on
wine. {}
iii. Tosafos basically follow the opinion of Rashi. However, they add that it is
prohibited to listen to music in a manner similar to princes who wake up and
go to sleep to music. Tosafos also note that at a simcha, music is permissible,
even if there is wine. {}
iv. Rif (1013-1103) quotes the opinion of R. Hai Gaon (939-1038) that the
prohibition against music only applies to love songs and similar types of
music. Music that expresses praise for G-d is permissible. {}
c. Practical Halacha
i. Shulchan Aruch follows the opinion of Rambam. {}
ii. Rama follows the opinion of Tosafos.
iii. R. Moshe Feinstein rules against Rama and favors the opinion of Rambam. {}
iv. R. Shmuel Vosner (b. 1913) suggests that we are all overexposed to music and
therefore, one cannot rely on the opinion of Tosafot. However, one may rely
on the opinion of R. Hai Gaon that if the music expresses praise for G-d, it is
permissible. {}
VI. There are other forms of mourning that will be discussed in a future shiur outline (these
are summarized by R. Yechiel M. Tukaczinski (1874-1955) in Ir HaKodesh
V'Hamikdash:
a. Breaking a glass under the chupah.
b. Breaking a plate at the writing of the tena'im.
c. Placing ashes on the head of the chasan.
d. Leaving a small space of the table empty when having guests for a meal.
e. Women refraining from wearing all of their jewelry together.
f. Certain types of crowns are prohibited for a chasan and kallah.
 ‫‪ .4‬חתם סופר בבא בתרא ס‪:‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬בבא בתרא ס‪:‬‬

‫‪ .2‬חתם סופר בבא בתרא ס‪:‬‬

‫‪ .5‬רשימות שיעורים סוכה מא‪.‬‬

‫‪ .3‬תוס' בבא בתרא ס‪:‬‬

‫‪ .6‬מועד קטן כו‪.‬‬

‫ב"ח או"ח ס' תקסא‬ ‫‪.10‬‬ ‫‪ ...‬אמר ר' אלעזר הרואה ערי יהודה‬
‫בחורבנן אומר ערי קדשך היו מדבר‬
‫וקורע ירושלים בחורבנה אומר ציון‬
‫מדבר היתה ירושלם שממה וקורע בית‬
‫המקדש בחורבנו אומר בית קדשנו‬
‫ותפארתנו אשר הללוך אבותינו היה‬
‫לשריפת אש וכל מחמדינו היה לחרבה‬
‫וקורע‪.‬‬
‫‪ .7‬שלחן ערוך או"ח תקסא‪:‬ה‬

‫‪ .8‬בית יוסף או"ח ס' תקסא‬

‫לבוש או"ח תקסא‪:‬א‬ ‫‪.11‬‬

‫‪ .9‬מגן אברהם תקסא‪:‬א‬

 ‫טור או"ח ס' תקס‬ ‫‪.16‬‬ ‫בעקבי הצאן ס' יח‬ ‫‪.12‬‬

‫בית יוסף או"ח ס' תקס‬ ‫‪.17‬‬

‫מנחת שלמה א‪:‬עג‬ ‫‪.13‬‬

‫שלחן ערוך או"ח תקס‪:‬א‬ ‫‪.18‬‬

‫דרכי משה או"ח תקס‪:‬א‬ ‫‪.19‬‬

‫בבא בתרא ס‪:‬‬ ‫‪.14‬‬
‫נמוקי יוסף בבא בתרא לג‪.‬‬ ‫‪.20‬‬

‫‪ .21‬משנה ברורה תקס‪:‬ב‬

‫ויש מקילין על ידי חול דבסירא להו דהיכא‬
‫דעירב חול שוב לא מקרי בשם סיד‪ .‬והנה‬
‫בזמננו לא נהגו לשייר ואפשר משום‬
‫דסומכין על היש מקילין ועל כל פנים תמוה‬
‫שהרי מלבנין הבתים בסיד לבד ואפשר‬ ‫רמב"ם הל' תענית ה‪:‬יב‬ ‫‪.15‬‬
‫דדוקא במיני סיד הנקרא גופ"ש שהוא לבן‬
‫ביותר אסור מה שאין כן סיד שלנו אך כל‬
‫זה דוחק וצריך עיון על מה נוהגין היתר‬
‫והיכא שהוא טח בטיט לבד לכולי עלמא‬
‫אין צריך לשייר כלל‪.‬‬
 ‫התעוררות תשובה ג‪:‬שסג‬ ‫‪.25‬‬ ‫ערוך השלחן תקס‪:‬ד‬ ‫‪.22‬‬

‫מגן אברהם תקס‪:‬ג‬ ‫‪.23‬‬

‫קונטרס עובר אורח ס' תקס‬ ‫‪.26‬‬

‫אגרות משה או"ח ג‪:‬פו‬ ‫‪.24‬‬

‫נטעי גבריאל הלכות בין המצרים צט‪:‬ט‬ ‫‪.27‬‬

‫מש' סנהדרין מח‪.‬‬ ‫‪.28‬‬

‫גיטין ז‪.‬‬ ‫‪.29‬‬

‫רש"י גיטין ז‪.‬‬ ‫‪.30‬‬

‫אגרות משה או"ח א‪:‬קסו‬ ‫‪.35‬‬ ‫רמב"ם הל' תעניות ה‪:‬יד‬ ‫‪.31‬‬

‫תוס' גיטין ז‪.‬‬ ‫‪.32‬‬

‫שבט הלוי ו‪:‬סט‬ ‫‪.36‬‬

‫רי"ף ברכות כא‪:‬‬ ‫‪.33‬‬

‫שלחן ערוך או"ח תקס‪:‬ג‬ ‫‪.34‬‬