Tisha B'Av and the Churban Through the Prism of the Mishnah

This source sheet is a study of Mishnayos reflecting the Chachomim's mulit-layered relationship with both the presence and subsequent absence of the Beis HaMikdash. It is based on a survey of Mishnayos related to this topic utilizing an amalgam of commentaries and original insight.

This source sheet remains a work in progress. Comments, questions and criticisms can be sent to [email protected]

Text and most of the translations of the Mishna are from Sefaria. Commentaries used include: Sefaria, R"AV, Tosfos Yom Tov, Peirush HaRamBam L'Mishnayos, Mishna im peirush Siyata D'ishmaya, Yochin u'Boaz, Mishna Mefureshes; Mishna with commentary by Chanoch Albeck, Artscroll/Yad Avrohom, Mishnayos im Biur HaMishna, Mishnayos Tosfos Yom Tov HaMevuar, Mishnas Eretz Yisroel (Safrai), Mishnat Yomi by Rabbi Dr. Joshua Kulp, Yosef Shlomo Zevin, Hamoadim B'Halacha (Hebrew), J. Tabory, Moadei Yisroel B'Tekufas HaMishna v'Hatalmud (Hebrew), Saul Lieberman, Tosefta Kepshutah, Yaakov Nagen, Nishmat HaMishnah (Hebrew), R' Binyamin Lau, The Sages Vol. 2. All mistakes are my own.

A brief perusal of Shisha Sidre Mishna highlights the intense focus and interest the Tannaim had with the Beis HaMikdash. Few, but for the earliest Tannaim, lived during the existence of the Second Temple and the immediate aftermath of its destruction. Yet, its memory loomed large and its rituals captured their imagination. The Mishna recounts in detail the rules, laws, rituals and procedures of the Temple's daily life and sacrificial rites. It expounds on the beauty and measurements of its physical structure and boundaries. The precise movements of the Priests and other functionaries are listed with utmost care. Most importantly, the people's (Hamon Am) relationship, physical* and spiritual, to this sacred space are noted and debated.*^

Less obvious, however, was the impact and effect the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash had on the sages and the people at large. It was considerable but not insurmountable. Astute and wise Sages--such as Rabi Yochanan ben Zakkai** and Rabban Gamliel-- did yeoman's job realigning the nation's focus towards a new, post-destruction era.

As men of law, we would expect, and indeed it was the case, that the destruction manifested itself in the adoption of new and altered laws and ceremonies. Torah learning and congregational worship achieved elevated prominence, fealty to Halacha took precedence alongside a renewed focus on purity laws. Nonetheless, it was imperative for continuity's sake and to orient the future, that historical practice be retained and memorialized when possible.*** Indeed, the bulk of the Mishanyos dealing with the Churban approach it from a purely legal perspective--but at times in surprising and unique ways.

With this in mind, it is possible to identify four categories of Mishnayos dealing with the Churban. First, are those Mishnayos describing the destruction itself and detailing the laws specific to Tisha B'av, the most stringent and mournful of the Fast Days commemorating the destruction. Second, because the destruction was perceived to have wrought cosmic change upon the world--we find a number of Mishnayos detailing the cataclysmic changes to the natural world. Third, are Mishnayos listing those Mitzvos that either remain applicable after the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash or whose applicability ceased as a result. Finally, the destruction is used as an inflection point to modify continuing Halachik practice.

This last category, can be broken down into a number of sub-categories. First, as a time reference, demarcating the change from historical practice during the era of the Beis HaMikdash to new, changing practices post-destruction. Second, to preserve historical practice, current practice was expanded so as to encapsulate, incorporate and mimic the temple practice. Third, in the absence of the Beis HaMikdash and the need to be bound by its protocols, there was some leeway to alter the rigidity of certain practices. Finally, in part to imbue the nation with a sense of anticipation for the imminent rebuilding of the Temple and to ensure that upon its rebuilding people would not inadvertently violate Temple era prohibition, certain practices and rituals were circumscribed.

* The evidence from the Mishnah would suggest, in line with Pharisaic notions of expansive access to the Mikdash, that the masses, at times, were allowed to enter the hallowed spaces. See, e.g., M. Sukkah 4:5 and Chagigah 3:8. For a broad discussion on the contours of this relationship, see Toras HaZar B'Mikdash, edited by Yosef Shimon Presser (Modiin Ilit 5778) Chapter 4, esp. notes 10 and 117.

*^ Detailed discussion of the proprietary sacrificial rites can be found in Seder Kodshim while the daily ritual itinerary and spatial dimensions of the Beis HaMikdash can be found specifically in the collections contained in Mesechtos Tamid and Middos. Other, smaller compendiums including, the third chapter of Bikkurim, the fifth chapters of both Pesachim and Shekalim, large portions of Mesechtas Yoma, various Mishnayos in Sukkah, Rosh HaShana, Chagigah and Sotah discuss specific rituals or functions of the Beis Hamikdash. Most often, these Mishnayos can be identified by their being anonymous and without dispute. On the nature and structure of Mesechtos Tamid see Amnon Dokow, Mesechtas Tamid and the Eighth Day of the Inauguration, Nituim Vol 20 pp. 7-31 (Hebrew); Louis Ginzberg, Tamid: The Oldest Treatise of the Mishnah, Journal of Jewish Lore and Philosophy, Vol.1:1 pp.33-44, Vol. 1:2 pp. 197-209 and Vol. 1:3/4 pp. 265-295 and Meir Bar-Ilan, Are Tamid and Middoth Polemical Tractates?, Sidra Vo. 2989 pp. 27-40 (Hebrew)

**A more fulsome description of RYBZ's activities and his various ordinances is forthcoming. Recent studies include, Lau, The Sages, Vol. 2; Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Yisroel: Rosh HaShanah, appendix 1; G. Alon, N'siaso Shel Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai, in Mechakrim B'Toldos Yisroel, (Tel Aviv 5717-5718) (Hebrew); S. Zeitlin, The Takkanot of Rabban Jochanan ben Zakkai, J.Q.R. Vol. 54:4 (1964) pp. 288-310; J. Neusner, In the Quest of the Historical Rabban Yohanan Ben Zakkai, H.T.R. Vol. 59 (1966) pp. 391-413 and Studies on the Taqqanot of Yavneh, H.T.R. Vol 63:2 (1973) pp. 183-198; Amram Tropper, Yohanan Ben Zakkai, Amicus Caesaris: A Jewish Hero in Rabbinic Eyes, Jewish Studies: An Internet Journal, Vol. 4 (2005) available here. See also, G. Alon, Toldos HaYehudim B'Eretz Yisrael B'Tekufas HaMishna v'Hatalmud, Kibbutz HaM'uchad 1967 (4th Ed.) Vol. 1.

*** For a discussion on various theological responses to the destruction and its contemporary application, see J. Klawans, Josephus, the Rabbis and Responses to Catastrophes Ancient and Modern, J.Q.R. Vol. 100:2 (2010) pp 278-309. Baruch Bokser, based in part on mPe'ah 1:1, argues that, at least from the Mishnah's perspective, the Chachomim made efforts to elide the distinction between pre and post destruction practice--and merely made efforts to remind the nation that extra-Temple or extrasacrifical rites exist and have equal meaning. B. Bokser, Rabbinic Responses to Catastrophe: From Continuity to Discontinuity, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol 50 (1983) pp. 37-61. See also, R' Prof. A. Walfish, Yimei Tzom V'Yamim Tovim L'Yisroel: Iyun B'Mishnah Taanis Perek 4 (and email correspondence with this author) noting other Mishnayos that intermingle both Mikdash and non Mikdash rituals and practices together "in order to indicate that certain aspects of the spiritual provenance of the Mikdash can (and have) been extrapolated to realms and practices that take place elsewhere."

Part I: The Churban and Tisha B'av

Fasting in the Jewish Tradition

Throughout TaNaCh, other than the Biblically ordained fast on Yom Kippur, we find the concept of fasting in connection with a number of scenarios.* First, as a form of religious asceticism in anticipation of and in connection with an encounter with the Divine. For example, Moshe, the Torah relates, fasted for 40 days and nights as he received the Torah on Mount Sinai. Food is seen as creating a barrier between the physical and spiritual worlds and suppressing both its desire and need would facilitate a person's ability to navigate between them. This form of fasting is necessarily personal in nature and stories abound of our Holy Men fasting in order to attain spiritual heights.**

In the same vein, fasting is also perceived as a form of self-sacrifice in which the person himself is viewed as a Korban. For example, the Ma'amodos (the contingent of non-priestly Jews who watched over the Temple Service) would fast during their weekly service to reflect their spiritual unity with the Korban Tamid (See M Ta'anis 4:3).***

Second, are those fast days focused on Teshuva, repentance. The Torah obligates us on one day a year to fast, Yom Kippur. We do not find any other Rabbinically instituted fast days related to repentance but we do find a number of later customs regarding such fasts. Perhaps most famous, are the BaHaB fast days, i.e., the series of fasts beginning on the first Monday, Thursday and Monday of the months following Pesach and Sukkos (see Tur O.C. Siman 492).**** A later custom developed to fast on every Erev Rosh Chodesh as well.

Third, we find fasting to be one component of a larger ritual in which a person or community is seeking Divine intercession or intervention against a negative Divine edict. The fasting usually is accompanied by donning sackcloth, prayer and acts of repentance. Two prominent examples include Esther's ordering Mordechai and the Jewish population of Shushan to fast and pray ahead of her unauthorized meeting with King Achashverosh when seeking to overturn Haman's evil decree.***** Second, is the population of Ninveh's response to Jonah's exhortations of their upcoming destruction.****** Mesechtas Taanis largely occupies itself with such fasts, detailing the rituals associated with communal fasts instituted in times of drought. Lack of rain and the resulting devastation to the nations food stock was viewed as a direct result of Divine punishment--spurring the nation to repent and seek Divine mercy.

Finally, fast days were instituted to specifically commemorate personal, communal or national tragedies. Most well known are the fast days commemorating the destruction of both the First and Second Temples in Jerusalem. But these are not the only ones. Halachik literature is sprinkled with other, less observed or locally observed fast days, commemorating other tragic episodes in Jewish history of which there have been many (See generally Megillas Taanis and Tur and SH"A OC 580 and commentators ad loc.). The most personal of these types of fasts are those observed upon the death of a Torah scholar (see SH"A YD 378:4) and in observance of the Yahrtzeit of one's parent (See SH"A YD 402:12).

* See S. Y. Zevin, HaMoadim B'Halacha, where he identifies a tripartite division of fast days, Repentance, Distress and Mourning/Remembrance. See also, Tabory (Chapter 15) breaking the fasts into two broad categories, those seeking forgiveness and those meant to commemorate. See also, Y. Jacobson, Netiv Binah, Vol. 3, Part 7, Chapter 1. Categories notwithstanding, it is clear that each of the fast days encapsulate a blend of characteristics while necessarily highlighting one particular attribute. For example, despite the prominence of repentance as it relates to Yom Kippur, nevertheless, we find the Kohein Gadol's personal supplication to be focused on the nation's sustenance. In fact, many classic commentators (e.g., Rambam MT Hilchos Teshuva 5:1) view all fast days as opportunities for reflection and introspection as well. See generally, Responsa Chassam Sofer OC 208). See also, R' Y. Shaviv, Ta'anis Tzibut--Yimei T'shuvas HaTzibut, Barkai, Vol. 1 pp. 157-163 (Hebrew) (5743) discussing the nature of the Teshuva to be reflected upon during the fast days.

** The role of asceticism in Jewish life has been a controversial topic from its early days. This ambivalence is reflected in the attitude towards the Nazir and his vow. See generally, Aharon Shemesh, Nezirim v'Nezirus, Aspects in Holiness in Biblical and Rabbinic Literature, Shalom Hartman Institute (Jerusalem 2019) (Hebrew). See also, David Halivny, On the Supposed Anti-Asceticism or Anti-Nazritism of Simon the Just, J.Q.R. Vol. 58, No. 3 (Jan. 1968) (pp. 243-252). For a discussion on the role asceticism during Tannaitic times, see Shmuel Safrai, The Pious and Men of Deeds, Zion, Vol 50 (1985) (pp 133-154). The nature, scope and dispersion of these practices was the focus of a dispute between Urbach and Baer, see, Steven D. Fraade, Ascetical Aspects of Ancient Judaism, in Jewish Spirituality: From the Bible Through the Middle Ages, edited by Arthur Green (Crossroad 1986) (pp 253-88). For evidence from the Bavli, see Yishai Kiel, Fasting and Self-Deprivation in the Babylonian Talmud in Light of Zoroastrian Ideology, JSIS Vol. 12 (Heb).

More recently, the rise of asceticism can be traced to the Medieval Hasidim, Hasidei Ashkenaz. See generally, Joseph Dan, The Ashkenazi Hasidic Movement, in Gershom Scholem and the Mystical Dimension of Jewish History (NYU Press) Chapter 4 and Ivan Marcus, The Historical Meaning of Hasidei Ashkenaz: Fact, Fiction or Cultural Self-Image, in Gershom Scholem's Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism 50 Years After (Tubingen). A major aspect of their doctrine was the idea of penance (Teshuvas HaMishkal). This included both fasting and other forms of self-mortifications. Numerous books and guides were published, the most famous of which are R' Yehudah HaChasid's Sefer Chasidim and R' Eliezer of Worms, Sefer Rokeach and Hilchos Teshuva. On the nature of these books, see Ivan Marcus, On the Penitentials of the Hasidei Ashkenaz, in Studies in Jewish Mysticism Philosophy and Ethical Literature, Presented to Isaiah Tishby on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, (Jerusalem 1986) Magnes Press pp. 369-384 and Haym Soloveitchik, Piety, Pietism and German Pietism: "Sefer Hasidim i" and the Influence of Hasidei Ashkenaz, J.Q.R. Vol. 92 No. 3/4 (Jan. 202) (pp. 455-493). Notably, R' Yechezkiel Landau, the Noda B'Yehudah, famously looked askance at these practices. See Responsa Noda B'Yehudah Vol. 1, OC Siman 35.

***Remnants of this practice remain in our liturgy, through daily practice of saying of the "Ma'amodos." On the evolution of the liturgy see, Ephraim Urbach, Mishmarot and Ma'amodot, Tarbiz Vol. 42:3/4 (1973) (Hebrew) (pp 304-327); Ophir Munz-Manor, From Seder HaMaʿaracha to Seder HaMaʿamadot — The Emergence and Transformation of a Liturgical Rite in the Middle Ages, Tarbiz Vol. 73:2 (2003) (Hebrew) (pp. 293-310); Yakov Yisroel Stahl, The Saying of Nishmas on Weekdays and Every Day, Yeushaseinu Vol 5, Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz, Bnei Brak 2011 (Hebrew) (pp. 201-223).

****The most famous reason for these fasts was to atone, lest a person overstepped his bounds during the holidays and sinned. For an encompassing review of the history and nature of this custom, including its applicability to Shavuous, see R' Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisroel, Vol. 1 Chapter 26. Sperber suggests that reasons for the fasts actually arise from two different sources. For Pesach, its is a remembrance for the three days that the Jews of Shushan fasted in Nissan. For Sukkos, these fasts arose in Europe out of concern for the rainy season in Israel (about which they did not have real time information).

*****This is not the same as the fast on the 13th of Adar, Ta'anis Esther, whose origins are unclear. See RaN, TB Megillah 1b and Rosh, ad. loc. See also, Mitchell First, The Origins of Ta'anit Esther, AJS Review Vol. 34:2 (November 2010) pp. 309-351 tracing its origins to 8th century Babylonia.

******In fact, the Mishnah (Taanis 2:1) utilizes the story of Ninvei as a paradigm for the appropriate response in a crisis situation. Once again, showing the fluidity between categories. For an interesting discussion on the reception of the Yonah story by the later Babylonian and Eretz Yirsroel Amoraim, see Ephraim A. Urbach, The Repentance of the People of Nineveh and the Discussions between Jews and Christians, Tarbiz Vol. 20 pp. 118-122 (Hebrew).

Fasts associated with the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple

The fasts commemorating the destruction of Yerushalyim and the First Temple are of ancient origin and are already attested to by the prophet Zecharya (8:19) כֹּֽה־אָמַ֞ר ה' צְבָא֗וֹת צ֣וֹם הָרְבִיעִ֡י וְצ֣וֹם הַחֲמִישִׁי֩ וְצ֨וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֜י וְצ֣וֹם הָעֲשִׂירִ֗י יִהְיֶ֤ה לְבֵית־יְהוּדָה֙ לְשָׂשׂ֣וֹן וּלְשִׂמְחָ֔ה וּֽלְמֹעֲדִ֖ים טוֹבִ֑ים וְהָאֱמֶ֥ת וְהַשָּׁל֖וֹם אֱהָֽבוּ׃

The Prophet mentions four fast days, listing the months during which they fall. Specifically, Tamuz, Av, Tishrei and Teves. The Navi does not identify the specific events befalling the Jews during those months but it is clear that they relate to the tragedies befalling the Jewish people during the destruction of the First Temple and the ensuing diaspora. Some of the details are provided in other parts of Tanach or filled in by tradition. The aggregate result of these events wrought national upheaval; devastating the nation both physically and spiritually requiring an everlasting commemoration. Tradition identifies the fasts as follows:

1. The fast of Gedaliya (observed on the 3rd of Tishrei) commemorating the death of Gedaliya ben Achikam--destroying the last vestiges of Jewish presence and self-government.* See Yirmiyahu Chapters 39-44.
2. The 10th of Teves commemorating the siege on Jerusalem. Tradition also places a number of other events within the vicinity of the 10th of Teves, including the commissioning of the Septuagint and the death of Ezrah HaSofer.
3. The 17th of Tamuz
4. the 9th of Av

Our first Mishnah will describe the events giving rise to the fast days in Tamuz and Av. While the Prophet is clearly talking about the First Temple, the Chachomim identify a number of Second Temple events that occurred on or about the same dates. This is because in Jewish thought there are no random occurrences. Rather, past and future events are linked in a never ending cycle. Ma'aseh Avos Siman L'Banim---historic time and space can and does influence and affect future realities. Just like there are joyous and auspicious times each year, there are likewise certain, more tragic time periods throughout the course of the year. One of these, is the three-week period beginning with the 17th of Tamuz and ending on the 9th of Av. The Mishnah already acknowledges this when it exhorts us to minimize happiness beginning on Rosh Chodesh Av.

Although our Mishnah presents its list of events as definitive, starting with both Talmudim, classic commentators and other sources already note discrepancies in identifying both the particular events being described and the dates as listed. We will discuss some of the specific issues below, but as already noted by the Tashbetz (Sefer HaTashbetz, Part II 271), under the original, prophetic enactments, the Chachomim, facing multiple events within a single month, had leeway within the designated months to determine the specific date for fasting. Meaning, they could aggregate the events onto a single day for purposes of commemorating the tragedy. The Minchas Chinuch (Mitzvah 301) goes further, suggesting that originally there were, in fact, no set dates for the fast days so long as one observed a fast day during the designated months. In the end, however, relying on their intuition, they established fixed dates, allowing for focused, national expression of the appropriate sentiments.**

* As the Malbim to Zechariah 7:3 already notes, the nature of Tzum Gedaliah, while part of the larger Churban narrative, was nevertheless instituted specifically to commemorate the loss of the final vestige of Jewish sovereignty over Eretz Yisroel--standing apart from the other three fast days. Therefore, he suggests, that is why the the Jews, upon the fitful restart of the building of the Beis HaMikdash, only asked about the three fast days associated with the Churban (but see Responsa of the RaDVaZ, 2:672 where he states that the question was singularly focused on Tisha B'av). By then, the Jews had returned to Eretz Yisroel and, therefore, no longer observed Tzum Gedaliah. Dr. Tova Ginzel likewise identifies the separate basis underscoring Tzum Gedaliah and suggests that the singular inclusion of Tzum Gedaliah in Zechariah's initial response to the Jews' inquiry was meant to emphasize that it is not enough for the nation to simply focus on the rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdash, rather they must remain cognizant of and sensitive to the precarious social status of the burgeoning Yishuv and, more importantly, the need to address the underlying social and moral infirmities that underlay the initial destruction in the first place. Tovah Genzel, The Fast of Gedaliah: Its Continued Observance and Significance in the Restoration Period, Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 20 (Hebrew) (2010) pp. 51-69. See also, Rivkah Nogah, האבכה בחדש החמשי, Beit Mikra: Journal for the Study of the Bible and Its World, Vol. 33:2 pp. 176-178, citing Zer-Kavod, positing that the Jews in Babylonia, having left Eretz Yisroel prior to the murder of Gedaliah, never observed Tzum Gedaliah, hence, they did not inquire about its status.

For further discussion on the timing of the Gedaliah episode, see Genzel, ibid. For a summary of the many views regarding the correct dating of Gedaliah's death see Yair Rosenfeld, תאריכו ותוקפו ההלכתי של צום גדליה, HaMaayan, Vol. 39 (Tishrei 5776) pp. 12-19 (available here: Rosenfeld Tzum Gedaliya).

** The extent to which these fasts were observed during the times of the Second Temple is, as noted, a question already raised during the construction of the Second Beis HaMikdash. The evidence from the Second Temple period and the Mishna as to actual practice is inconclusive and the Talmud's opaque attempt to reconcile the evidence provided ample room for the continuing the dispute among the Rishonim, and Achronim--extending through today. Summarily, the Rambam (Peirush HaMishna to Rosh HaShana 1:3) famously asserts that, at the very least, Tisha Bav was observed during the time of the Second Temple--it is unclear whether observance varied at different times. The other fast days were left to individual choice. The Tashbetz (Loc. cit. Machon Yerushalayim edition, 2002 and footnotes there) vehemently disagrees, arguing that during the Second Commonwealth, none of the fast days were observed and further suggesting that the Rambam contains a Ta'us Sofer (see also SH"uT Divrei Shlomo (R' Shlomo Schenider) Vol. 3 Siman 247 and 411). Most traditional sources fall on the side that these fasts were not observed during this period of time. Scholarly consensus suggests that these fasts days were observed, if not continuously, at least sporadically throughout this time. See generally, Harav N. Gutel, The Fast of the Fifth During the Period of the Second Commonwealth, originally published, Shmaytin vol. 72 (1983) pp. 5-16 (Hebrew) (expanded version received from the author on July 6, 2020); Judah Rosenthal, The Four Commemorative Fast Days, J.Q.R. Vol. 57, pp. 446-459, concluding that is more likely than not that these fasts were observed during this period. But see, Y. Shahar, Rabbi Akiva and the Destruction of the Temple: The Establishment of the Fast Days, Zion Vol. 68:2 (5763) (Hebrew) pp. 145-165 (and email communication with the author) asserting that we have no evidence during the period of the Second Temple of there being any official fast day commemorating the event. See also, Rabbi Dr. N. Lamm, Ha'arah L'Inyan Tisha B'av B'imei Bayis Sheini, Hadarom, Vol. 23 (Nissan 3966) (Hebrew) pp. 213-214, suggesting that whether Tisha B'av was observed during the Second Temple period is a dispute between the Talmud Bavli and Talmud Yerushalmi.

Evidence from Zechariah

The starting point for the discussion is the episode in Zechariah chapters seven and eight, when the Jews remaining in Babylonia send a question to the Prophet asking whether in light of the renewed construction of the Second Temple, הַֽאֶבְכֶּה֙ בַּחֹ֣דֶשׁ הַחֲמִשִׁ֔י? Zechariya's answer is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, he exhorts them saying " וְכִ֥י תֹאכְל֖וּ וְכִ֣י תִשְׁתּ֑וּ הֲל֤וֹא אַתֶּם֙ הָאֹ֣כְלִ֔ים וְאַתֶּ֖ם הַשֹּׁתִֽים " and " מִשְׁפַּ֤ט אֱמֶת֙ שְׁפֹ֔טוּ וְחֶ֣סֶד וְרַֽחֲמִ֔ים עֲשׂ֖וּ אִ֥ישׁ אֶת־אָחִֽיו ". Nevertheless, he concludes with words of hope, " צ֣וֹם הָרְבִיעִ֡י וְצ֣וֹם הַחֲמִישִׁי֩ וְצ֨וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֜י וְצ֣וֹם הָעֲשִׂירִ֗י יִהְיֶ֤ה לְבֵית־יְהוּדָה֙ לְשָׂשׂ֣וֹן וּלְשִׂמְחָ֔ה וּֽלְמֹעֲדִ֖ים טוֹבִ֑ים וְהָאֱמֶ֥ת וְהַשָּׁל֖וֹם אֱהָֽבוּ ". What is unclear is whether, and how, Zechariya answered the initial inquiry--or more pointedly, what question was he actually addressing? Was he providing an Halachik imperative? If so, was he addressing the present situation or some future, eschatological period? Perhaps, he was simply providing a philosophical and/or ethical response? See, Gutal, ibid. and R' Chaim Karlinsky, The Four Churban Related Fasts in Light of Recent Events, Ohr HaMizrach (Nissan-Ellul 1967) (Hebrew).

Menachem Ben Yashar notes that the original query of the Babylonian Jews was addressed to both the Priest and Prophet. Traditionally, Priests would answer Halachik inquiries and the Prophet, the theological. We do not have the former's response, hence, we do not know the practical result of the inquiry. What is preserved, however, is Zechariah's outlook on the future of the Jewish people. See, Menachem Ben Yashar, על שאלת הצומות בס' זכריה, Beit Mikra: Journal for the Study of the Bible and Its World, Vol. 34: (pp. 140-141). Genzel (Loc. cited) and more so, R' Parush, note that from both the timing of the question, during the second year of the rebuilding project but before completion, and the focus on Tisha Bav, Zechariah discerned the people's angst whether this was truly the start of the next great commonwealth and whether the nation's former glory would, in fact, return. R' Reuven Parush, הַֽאֶבְכֶּה֙ בַּחֹ֣דֶשׁ הַחֲמִשִׁ֔י, Shmaytin, Vol. 127 (Hebrew) pp. 71-75. Zechariah's prophecy was meant not only to assuage their concerns but also to admonish them that this undertaking could not simply be dictated by G-d. Rather, they themselves needed to take an active role in facilitating the environment for this to happen.

Evidence from Megillas Ta'anis and the Tosefta

MT seemingly converts two of the fast days into semi-holidays. The first being the 9th of Av--a holiday associated with the Korban Eitzim to commemorate those dedicated families willing to support the burgeoning Beis HaMikdash. The holiday was then later moved to the 15th of Av. This, reference, however, is inconclusive, as, at least according to another manuscript, the original holiday was always set for the 15th of Av (See our discussion of mTa'anis 4:5 below). Similarly, MT lists the 3rd of Tishrei as a holiday--also appearing to convert Tzum Gedaliah into a holiday. However, and as noted earlier, there is much discussion as to the actual date of this particular fast and, therefore, no conclusion can be drawn as to its prevalence during this period. At most, we can conclude that there may have been periods during the Second Temple when these days were observed as holidays. But we have no evidence whether fasts were observed at other times. See Genzel, cit. above at 68.

Tosefta Ta'anis 3:6, provides another similarly opaque elusive touchstone for this debate. The Tosefta recounts as follows: אמר רבי אלעזר בר צדוק אני הייתי מבני סנאב בן בנימין וחל ט' באב להיות בשבת ודחינוהו לאחר השבת והיינו מתענין ולא משלימים. The implication from this statement is that the 9th of Av was considered a fast day--which his family was, because their family was celebrating the Korban Eitzim on the 10th of Av, need not complete the fast. The question is, during which period of time did this happen? Pre- or- post destruction? Commentators cannot agree on this point. Tosfos (Ta'anis 12a s.v. Hasam) concludes that this story took place post-destruction; therefore, there is no indication as to what was the status of Tisha B'av during the time of the Beis HaMikdash but implying that it was not observed during the Second Temple period. The RaZah (quoted in R' S. Wohrman, Tisha B'av B'mei Bayis Sheini, Hadarom Vol. 26 (Tisrei 5728) (Hebrew) pp. 211-212) places this story during the pre-destruction period, evidencing strong proof that Tisha B'av was, in fact, observed during that period. See also, Gutel, chapter 6.

Evidence from the Mishnah

Notably, there seems to be somewhat conflicting views arising from the Mishnah. The Mishnah in Rosh HaShana 1:3 includes the month of Av, among the list of months for which the central court would send out messengers to the far-flung locales to inform them of the New Moon. This is to ensure they timely observe Tisha B'av. The Mishnah continues, "וּכְשֶׁהָיָה בֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּם, יוֹצְאִין אַף עַל אִיָּר." Meaning, that during the period of the Second Temple, emissaries would not only fan out for the Month of Av, but also for Iyar. This implies that Tisha B'av was observed during the Second Beis HaMikdash period. In fact, the Rambam, as noted above, clearly rules this way. The Turei Even (bRH 18a) concludes, however, that the correct text excludes the word "Af" and that during the time of the Beis HaMikdash, emissaries did not go out for the month of Av. Gutel, Chapter 5, quotes the Mateh Yehudah that allows for the word "Af" to remain yet, without supporting the Rambam's vew. The Mateh Yehudah explains that the word "Af" is not commenting on the sum total of months, rather, it is merely a comment on the initial month mentioned in our Mishnah, the month of Nissan and simply saying that in addition to the regular Pesach, Beis Din would send out emissaries for the additional Pesach as well.

Another Mishnah much discussed in this context is the Mishnah in Ta'anis (4:5) listing the various days on which the Korban Eitzim was brought. The Mishnah begins " זְמַן עֲצֵי כֹהֲנִים וְהָעָם, תִּשְׁעָה " as if it were about to list nine dates. However, Yaakov Nachum Epstein, (Mevo'os Lsafrus HaTanaim pp 221-222) amends our Mishnah to read זְמַן עֲצֵי כֹהֲנִים וְהָעָם, בְּתִּשְׁעָה בְאָב. In support of this reading he cites to Tosefta in Bikkurim 2:8 specifically dating the Korban Eitzim to Tisha B'av and aligning it with the bringing of Bikkurim as well. He also finds support in Tosefta Ta'anit 3:6 and Megillas Taanis as noted above. Nevertheless, based on Mishnah RH 1:3, he suggests that perhaps they did, in fact, fast the last century prior to destruction. But see, Y. Heinemann, The Meaning of Some Mishnayot in the Order of Moed Tarbiz, Tishrei 5720 99 pp.29-31) where he takes exception to Epstein's emendation to the Mishnah but not to his overall conclusions--his suggestion that the Mishnah cannot possibly be preserving an ancient custom, however, is surprising). With variation, Epstein's view has been adopted by many scholars including, Saul Lieberman, Tosefta K'phutah, Zeraim p 848 (notably, Lieberman points out the ruling in mBikkurim 1:9 that Bikkurim may be brought from Shavuous until Sukkos--and that the midpoint between these two dates is Tisha B'av. Hence it made sense to bring both Bikkurim and Eitzim on the same day); Safrai ad loc., Avraham Walfish, Iyun B'Mishnayos Ta'anis available here and sources cited therein.

Finally, see below for our discussion of Megillah 1:3 and its implications for this topic.

Evidence from the Talmud

As noted above, the Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah 1:3 relates that they used to send out emissaries to announce the new moon for the month of Av to inform the population when to fast. The Talmud Bavli (RH 181-b )asks why was this limited to Tisha B'av and not to the other fast days such as 17th of Tamuz and 10th of Teves? The Gemara concludes that Tisha B'av stands apart from the rest since that day has seen multiple calamities (the Rishonim differ as to the exact meaning of this phrase and whether it means simply that it was the day the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed or for the fact that both Batei Mikdash were destroyed).

As a lead up to the conclusion, the Gemara, quoting Rav Papa, notes that fasting nowadays is no longer a Prophetic imperative. Rather, it is up to individual choice. He accomplishes this by creating a three-tiered scale. When Bnei Yisroel are at "peace," the fast days will be celebrated as holidays. When the Jews are being actively persecuted, it is obligatory to fast. When they are not necessarily at peace but not under any immediate decrees, then it is left to individual choice.

Rav Papa's framework, however, leaves open a dizzying array of questions. How do you define these terms? Are these categories independent of the presence of the Beis HaMikdash, i.e., can you not be in a state of peace even in its presence? Can you be in "peace" after its destruction? Is it nominally a political question? The answers to these questions directly impact ones thinking on both the observance of the fast days and the nature of their observance during the period of the Beis HaMikdash.

The Rishonim and Acharonim deal extensively with these issues, trying to reconcile the varied inferences and implications. Many Rishonim understand "peace" to be a euphemism for the Beis HaMikdash. Hence, no matter the situation, without a Beis HaMikdash, these days can never be holidays and must remain either voluntary or mandatory fast days. Others, like the RaSHba, speak about the Jews living peacefully in their land; thus, having broader application to post-Temple periods. Rashi's position appears contradictory. See Karlinsky, cit. above and Gutel, same.

This issue, was raised most recently following the successful conclusion to the Six-day War. With the recapture of Jewish sovereignty over Yerushalayim and most of Israel, the question arose whether the new circumstance were sufficiently significant to be able to excise the observance of these fast days. See, e.g., R' S. David, Al Chovas HaTaniyos B'Zeman Hazeh, Barkai Vol.3 pp. 86-93 (5746) (Hebrew); R' Y. Zoldan, Geulas Ha'Aretz HaMikdash V'Hatzomos, Emunat Itecha Vol. 24 (Av-Elul 5758) (Hebrew); R' Y. Ariel, Responsa B'Ohala shel Torah 2:74. To a lesser degree, was the proposal by some to alter the traditional text of the Nachem prayer inserted into the Amidah prayer on Tisha B'av. Among traditional, Orthodox circles, this was met with near universal objection. See R' H. Schachter, Nefesh HaRav, Flatbush Beis HaMedrash, 5759, 3rd. Edition, pp.79; R' O. Yoseph, Responsa Y'chava Da'as, 1:43 and Chazon Ovadiah: Arba'ah Ta'aniyos, pp. 377 and S. Brody, The Nahem Controversy: A Brief Summary, Tradition: Text & Texture Blog, available here.

Introduction to Mishnah Ta'anis 4:6

As noted above, the Chachomim designated the 17th of Tamuz and the 9th of Av* as among the fast days commemorating the destruction of Jerusalem and both Temples. In addition, tradition identifies other tragic events in Jewish history occurring on those same dates. Specifically, our Mishnah identifies five events as having occurred on each of those dates.* Other than a few events, the particular events being referenced by the Mishnah is not exactly clear. In fact, it is likely that some of these events happened more than once during the course of the hundreds of years that the Temples stood (e.g., the (temporary) cessation of the Korban Tamid).

With its mention of the capture of Beitar, this Mishnah was clearly taught well after the most of the events mentioned happened. For events occurring during the times of the First Temple, the Chachomim either drew on events described in Tanach or tradition. For events said to have occurred during the end of the Second Temple and later, it could well be that the author himself witnessed the event or personally knew eyewitnesses.

The vast majority of the events listed relate in some way to the destruction of the Temples or other tragedies surrounding the the ultimate destruction of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. Notably, the first events relate not to the Temple service, but rather the smashing of the Luchos upon Moshe's descent from Mount Sanai--i.e., the desecration of the Torah-- and the disregard for the land of Israel via the story of the Meraglim.**

One innovation of the post-Temple world was the emphasis on Torah study and its heightened place in the hierarchy of Jewish spiritual engagement. So long as the Temple remained standing, the nation's spiritual focus was tied to the Temple Service. Post-destruction, however, Torah study would take precedence. As Rabi Yochanan ben Zakkai famously requested from Vespasian during the last throes of the siege, in a bid to ensure the survival of the nation: תן לי יבנה וחכמיה. Henceforth, Torah study would guide the people forward. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Chachomim begin their list--and suggest a root cause to the ensuing tragedies--in the Jews historic disregard for the Torah itself.

17th of Tamuz

1. The smashing of the Luchos: Upon Moshe's apparent delay in descending from Mount Sinai (after spending forty days and night receiving the Torah) the Jews, in a misguided attempt to create a new intermediary, fashion the Golden Calf and enact a holiday in its celebration. As Moshe descends from the mountain he hears the commotion in the camp and, upon learning its cause, he takes the Luchos he is holding--upon which the Aseres HaDibros are written--and smashes them. This event, which tradition places on the 17th of Tamuz, was the first major break between the people and Hashem and set the tone for this most ignominious day.
2. Cessation of the Korban Tamid: In addition to the cessation of the Korban Tamid in late stages of the sieges on Yerushalyim, the Talmud Yerushalmi also notes that during the succession battle between John Hyrcanus II and his brother, Aristobulus II, during the late Chashmonaim period, the bring of the Korban Tamid also ceased.
3. Breach of the Jerusalem City Walls: Although Jeremiah mentions that during the First Temple siege the city walls were breached on the 9th of Tamuz, the Mishnah may be referencing the Second Temple siege.
4. The burning of the Torah by Apostumos: The exact nature and timing of this event is unclear, including whether the final two events were undertaken by Apostumos or are they separate occurrences.

• First, which "Torah" is the Mishnah referencing? The Tiferes Yisroel (ad. loc.), not giving a specific date, suggests that it was the special Torah, written by Ezra HaSofer, kept in the Beis HaMikdash and from which all all other Sifrei Torah were copied or checked (See Mishnah Moed Katan 3:4; see also M. Keilim 15:6 where this particular Sefer was exempted from the rules of Tumas Seforim). Obviously its destruction would be a fundamental breach in the Mesorah of the Torah. Alternatively, he suggests that this Roman official undertook to burn as many copies of the Torah as he could get his hands on. The later explanation would be in consonance with other Talmud/Torah burning episodes that occurred throughout history and for which we say a special Kinnah (lament) on Tisha B'av.
• R' Zev Wolf Rabinovich, Sha'arei Toras Bavel, edited by E. Melamed, (Jerusalem 5721) pp. 79, suggests this took place during the reign of Antiochus as it would tie the cessation of the Tamid, burning of the Torah and erecting an idol in the sanctuary into a single time frame. Although he also notes that these do not necessarily have to have happened concurrently.
• Josephus (War of the Jews Book II pp. 228-331) records a story during the Roman procurator's Cumanus' reign (48-52 AD) a particularly politically unstable period in which a Roman soldier, burned a Sefer Torah during a police operation. This event--which followed an earlier provocation at the Temple on Pesach--swiftly became a flashpoint between the Jews and the Roman ruler.
• Rabinovich alternatively suggests (in connection with the next event) this is referring to the time of the Bar Kochba revolt and that it was undertaken by a general serving under Julius Severus (himself a colleague of Quintus Tineius Rufus), Postinus.

1. Placing of an Idol in the Temple Sanctuary: Like the prior event, the exact time and nature of this terrible breach of the Temple's sanctity is a matter of dispute. The Talmud already indicates the existence of alternative readings of the Mishnah. One, suggesting that this event is not related to the prior and happened far in the past during the reign of wicked King Mennasheh. The other reading, seemingly ties this event to the prior one, i.e., that they happened at the same time. The issue, however is that we do not have clear historical evidence of such an event happening during the Second Temple. Some suggest that this refers to events during the Kitos Wars (a Jewish Diaspora revolt that took place about a decade prior to the Bar Kochba Revolt) and is not referring to an actual idol (as the Temple was no longer standing) but rather to the early stages of converting Yerushalyim to the Roman city, Aelia Capitolina during the reign of the general Posthumius (serving under Quadratus). Alternatively, it may be referring to the times of the Bar Kochba revolt when Hadrian officially established Aelia Capitolina. (It is noteworthy, that Hadrian banned all Jews from the city except for one day a year, Tisha B'Av).

9th of Av (Tisha B'Av)

The 9th of Av is the single most mournful date on the Jewish Calendar. If, for nothing else, it is the date upon which tradition stipulates that both Batei Mikdash were destroyed. Its observance evokes intense feelings and, importantly, as seen from the varied Kinnos we recite on the day, Tisha B'Av has grown to encompass a day of mourning for all ensuing tragedies that have befallen the Jewish nation.****

Like the 17th of Tammuz, the Mishnah lists five events that took place on the 9th of Av:

1. Report of the Spies: Tradition places the return of the spies from their casement of Israel on the 9th of Av. Their ignominious report deflated the Nation's desire to travel to the Land and caused them to reject their destiny. The Jews were then condemned to die in the desert as they wandered their for 4o years.
2. Destruction of the First and Second Temples: Their destruction was really spread over a number of days, with the final acts of destruction taking place on the 10th of Av.
3. Beitar is Captured: Beitar was the center and stronghold of Bar Kochba's revolt against the Roman's and as part of their effort to quash the rebellion, the Roman's destroyed Beitar. Tradition has it that the Roman's refused to allow the Jews to bury the dead for many years and upon being granted permission to do so, the Jews composed the fourth blessing of Birchas HaMazon.
4. The City (I.e., Yerushalyim) is plowed over. The Babylonian Talmud (and Josephus) places this event in the hands of Terentius Rufus (known in the Talmud as Turnus Rufus) at the time of the capture of Shimon ben Giyora--upon whose capture Rufus plowed over the sanctuary. The Yachin, citing no source, suggest it was the period of 52 years following the first Beis Hamikdash's destruction when Eretz Yisroel lay dormant. Finally, Talmud Yerushalmi (supported by both Lau (Sages pp 328) and Safrai, based on its placement after Beitar in the Mishnah), suggests that it is referring to the times of Hadrian who charged the Roman Senator and provincial governor, Quintus Tineius Rufus (also referred to as Turnus Rufus), to establish Aelia Capitolina. As per Roman custom, as part of the dedication ceremony, two oxen would plow the city center as a sign of Roman dominance.*****

* As noted earlier, the exact dating of the fast days, especially following the destruction of the First Temple, and perhaps until a generation or two beyond the destruction of the Second Temple, is uncertain. The first attributable statement can be found in the Jerusalem Talmud, Ta'anis 23a-b, in a statement made by Rabi Shimon bar Yochai in the name of Rabi Akiva identifying the Fast of the "Fourth" as the 17th of Tamuz and the fast of the "Fifth" as Tisha B'av. See, Shahar, Rabi Akiva.

**The number five is found frequently in the Mishnah when grouping similar item together. See e.g., Terumot 1:1, Challah 1:1, Pesachim 7:4, Bava Kama 1:4 and 8:1, Bava Metziyah 4:8, Eduyot 6:1, Pirkei Avot 2:8 and 6:10, Menachot 13:3, Keritot 2:3, Meilah 4:2, Middot 1:3; Niddah 2:6 and Zavim 2:4. Therefore, it may well be that the events did not take place specifically on these dates but the Chachomim, for purposes of making it easier to recall these important historical event, grouped them together; designating a single date upon which to remember them.

*** It may also be the case that by focusing on historical events rather than their present day circumstances, the Chachomim were trying, in part, to placate and comfort the people in whose times the Temples were destroyed. Tying the devastation to the past suggests a certain inevitability that was always beyond their ability to prevent. In addition, it also may suggest that just like the nation recovered from those instances, i.e., they renewed their covenants with both the Land and the Torah, so to they should expect the same in the future.

**** In recent history, the idea of a unified day of mourning is especially relevant when discussing a national response to the Holocaust. There was a great debate whether a new, specific day of remembrance should be established or, should the Holocaust join the litany of tragedies commemorated on Tisha B'av. For a clear and thorough overview of this debate, see Jacob J. Schacter, “Holocaust Commemoration and Tish’a be-Av: The Debate Over ‘Yom ha-Sho’a,’” Tradition 41:2 (Summer 2008): 164-197.

*****Our Mishnah's placement of the plowing of the city following the capture and destruction of Beitar, suggest that the later was result of the former. Meaning, one consequence of Bar-Kochba's revolt was that the city of Jerusalem was razed. Recent archeological evidence, however, suggests that the plowing of Jerusalem took place prior, and was, instead, one of the underlying causes of the rebellion itself. See, H. Eshel, "Bethar was Captures and the City was Plowed:" Jerusalem, Aelia Capitolina and the Bar Kokhba Revolt, Eretz Yisroel: Archeological, Historical and Geographical Studies, Vol. 28pp 21-28 (5768 Hebrew), suggesting that the evolution of Jerusalem into the Roman pagan city was a slow process and that the final stages took place following the rebellion. For further discussion of the possible dating of this event, see Leah Di Segni, Epiphanius and the Date of Foundation of Aelia Capitolina, Liber Annus, Vol. 64 (2014) pp. 441-451.

Shahar (Rabi Akiva), argues that Rabi Akiva's adamant support for the revolt arose from the confluence of his belief in the temporary nature of the Temple's destruction and its imminent reconstruction and the reinstatement of the Sacrificial cult (citing both M. Pesachim 10:6 and the Bavli at the end of Makkos 24a in which Rabi Akiva strongly identifies with and applies Zechariah's prophecy to his present situation). Shahar argues, Rabi Akiva established both the 17th of Tamuz and the 9th of Av as fast days reflecting the erstwhile hope of imminent rebuilding. In fact, both these days reflect days upon which Korbonos ceased to be brought, the 17th of Tammuz, the Korban Tamid and the Ninth of Av, the national celebration of the Korban Eitzim.

Following the start of Jerusalem's conversion into a Pagan colony, Rabi Akiva's hope was sapped and he became a strong supporter of the Bar Kochba revolt (as evidence Shahar points to numismatic evidence aligning with Rabi Akiva's ruling in m. Sukkah 3:4). During the ensuing years, in the generation of Usha, we find the rules of Tisha B'av remaining in flux (indicative that prior to then there was no consensus on how to observe the day) but, as suggested by our Mishnah, Tisha B'av, with the attribution of other events, began transforming its persona into the national day of tragedy.

Laws Regarding the Observance of Tisha B'Av

The following series of Mishnayos describe some of the unique laws associated with Tisha B'av and its observance.*

The period of mourning does not begin with Tisha B'av. Rather it is an evolving set of restrictions meant to evoke a deepening feeling of sadness and mourning. The Mishnah does not recognize a "three-week" period of mourning. The Mishnah begins with Rosh Chodesh Av when we are told to minimize our rejoicing. As Tisha B'av approaches, we layer on further restrictions until we get to Tisha Bav; setting the stage for the more practical, tangible aspects of the mourning rituals. **

Following Rosh Chodesh Av, the Mishnah (Ta'anis 4:7) progresses to the week during which Tisha B'Av falls*** and notes that we stop cutting our hair and washing our clothes except on Thursday**** in honor of Shabbos. We must alter our typical eating habits for the Seudah HaMafsekes and Rabi Yehudah goes so far as to require us to turn over our beds in a sign of the most intense mourning. The Mishnah (Pesachim 4:5) notes a custom to not work on Tisha B'Av.****^ It would seem that it was not widespread and its adoption required the Chachomim's constant encouragement.***** Finally because of the intense nature of the mourning, the Mishnah (Megillah 1:3)****** rules that if Tisha B'Av were to fall on Shabbos we do not observe the fast before Shabbos. Rather, we defer its observance until Sunday so as not to accelerate the mourning. Similarly, the Mishnah (Ta'anis 2:10) subjugates Tisha B'Av to Shabbos by allowing a person, if Tisha B'Av were to fall on Friday, to break their fast slightly early so as not to enter Shabbos ravenously.

The final Mishnah in this category (Sotah 9:14) moves beyond the immediacy of Tisha B'Av and highlights the fact that the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash and the ensuing devastation gave rise to a number of universal ordinances meant to limit our rejoicing throughout the year. This is what we would refer to Zecher L'Churban, those actions, that when viewed mindfully and in the proper perspective, highlight the fact that in the absence of the Beis HaMikdash our national and personal connection to our Creator is missing some element as well. By self-limiting, we are acknowledging this idea and, more importantly, creating constant reminders of what we had and what we still hope to achieve.

* Missing from these Mishnayos are the five "Iyunim," we commonly associate with and refrain from doing on Tisha B'Av: eating, drinking, anointing, washing, wearing leather shoes and marital relations. We do, however, find these restrictions in connection with fasts in times of distress (M. Ta'anis 1:4-6) and repentance (M. Yoma 8:1). We find a similar set of restrictions associated with personal mourning rituals (See R"av to M. Moed Katan 3:6). So while not initially associated with Tisha B'av and other public remembrance days, it appears that they were added to add a dimension personal mourning to these days. For a discussion on the multi-layered and variegated Tannaitic approach to mourning on Tisha B'av, see, D. Herman, The Different Approaches of the Rabbis in Yavneh, Lod and Galilee Regarding the Ninth of Av as Reflected in the Laws of the Day, H.U.C.A. Vol 73 (2002) (Hebrew) pp. 1-29.

Disagreeing with Shahar, Herman views the development of the mourning rituals associated with Tisha B'av in three stages. First, is the generation immediately the destruction (i.e., Yavneh) where we see little, if any, in the way of Halchakic and literary pronouncements on the matter; focusing instead on ensuring Jewish continuity. Second, was the Lod generation, where Herman suggests these Chachomim taking an overly restrictive view. Finally, the post-Beitar generation we see the relaxing of some of these rules--especially among the students of Rabi Akiva.

** This is the inverse of mourning the dead: where it starts off intensely with the the sadness fading over time.

*** The Talmud (b. Ta'anit 29b) bring a dispute whether these restrictions last only until the fast day or even for the entire week beyond Tisha B'Av.

**** Most commentators assume that this talking in a case when Tisha B'Av falls on Friday, otherwise you could wait until Friday. According to those cited above who extend the restrictions beyond Tisha B'Av, it makes no difference when Tisha B'Av falls. The dispensation to ready oneself for Shabbos already on Thursday is found in other places in the Mishnah. See Ta'anis 1:6 and 2:7. Shahar, Rabi Akiva, sees in our Mishnah an echo that during the times of the Beis HaMikdash, Tisha B'av was celebrated as a national holiday for the Korban Eitzim. Similar to the Anshei Mishmar and Ma'amad in Ta'anit 2:7, the entire week was to be celebrated in anticpation of the holiday.

****^ Herman, Different Approaches, suggests this Mishnah is from the last strata of development--i.e., easing restrictions during the later generations following the destruction. As a general proof, he notes that Rabi Yehudah HaNasi sought to abolish the practices of Tisha B'av (in whole or in part).

*****Once again, Shahar, Rabi Akiva, see this as another reference to Tisha B'av having been celebrated as a holiday and, like any person bringing a Korban, once must refrain from work on that day. The Jerusalem Talmud (Pesachim 25a) learns this rule from the Korban Pesach, but it also applies to Korban Eitzim as well: האומר הרי עלי עצים למזבח וגיזורים למערכה אסור בהספד ובתענית ומלעשות מלאכה בו ביום. For a comprehensive overview of this topic, see Toras HaZar B'Mikdash, citied above, Chapter 5 and note 13.

***** The Mishnah (Megillah 1:3) lists a number of rituals that are delayed if they fall on Shabbos. These include Korban Eitzim, Tisha Bav, Chagigah and Hakhel. These are an odd grouping. Three of the four are ceremonies that take place in the Beis Hamikdash while Tisha Bav obviously does not (see discussion above whether Tisha b'av was observed during the Second Temple period). Second, two of the four are talking about delaying Korbonos (Eiztim and Chagigah) the other two are not. The Turei Even (Megillah 5a) similarly asks, based on the assumption that during the times of the Beis HaMikdash Tisha B'Av was not observed as a fast day, why would the Mishnah group three ceremonies applicable during the period while the Beis HaMikdash was standing and one, Tisha B'Av, when it wasn't.

Perhaps the reference to Tisha B'av in the Mishnah in Megillah is not to a stand alone event, but rather as an identifier for the Korban Eitzim. Meaning, Korban Eitzim of Tisha B'av that falls on Shabbos is delayed. This would be in consonance with the berayso in Megillas Taanis that identifies the 9th of Av as the original date for Korban Eitzim and the Tosefta cited above recording that Rabi Elazar ben Tzadok recollects his family's observance of their Korban Eitzim celebration on the 10th of Av superseding the deferred fast day of Tisha B'av that fell on Shabbos. As the "original" date for the Korban Eitzim (see above citing Epstein and others), the Mishnah was purposefully highlighting that even that great, original date, gets pushed/delayed in light of Shabbos (and ipso facto, all other Korban eitzim days). This idea would have the benefit of the making all of the events listed in the Mishnah ritualistic. See Responsa Divrei Malkiel, 3:26, intimating this as well.

As noted above, R Saul Lieberman (Tosefta Kepshutah Bikkurim 2:9) observes that Bikkurim can be brought from Shavuos to Sukkos, but the midpoint is Tisha B'av--the same day on which the Korban Eiztim was to be brought. The Mishnah in Bikkurim also says that Bikkurim require a Korban--so perhaps the Mishnah in Megillah 1:3 when referencing Tisha B'av is really a reference to Bikkurim ceremony and the associated Korban. This would then make 3 of the 4 cases in the Mishnah referencing a Korban.

Prof. A. Walfish (private communication) disagrees with the above approach and instead, points out, that the listing of these four events actually works as a bridge between Mesechtas Ta'Anis and Chagigah, the two Mesechtos surrounding Megillah. Ta'anis references the Korban Eitzim and Tisha B'Av while Chagigah speaks to the Chagigah and, in a Berayso, Hakhel. Further, he notes, that it is not unusual to find grouping of both Mikdash and non-Mikdash events listed together.

R' Reuven Margolis, (עוללות Siman 19 p. 51 and in ניצוצי אור p. 93) cites the Turei Even's question (and further questions why the Mishnah in Megillah specifically chose Tisha B'Av and not the earlier fast day of Shiva Asar B'Tamuz to teach us the Halachah) and answers, like the Rambam, that Tisha B'Av was, in fact observed as a fast day during the times of the Second Beis HaMikdash (see his נפש חיה Siman 51 Sif 9) so there is no inconsistency with the four listed ceremonies. However, he also notes that Korban Eitzim is tied to Tisha B'Av since, according to his calculations, the first Korban Tamid offering brought upon Ezra's return was on Tisha B'Av. Accordingly, he says, that day should have been a holiday with celebratory Korbonos but because it was a fast day, had they brought Korban Shelamims, they would not have been able to eat them that day --having to wait to nightfall, which impinges on the proper way of eating the Korban--hence, they created the Korban Eitzim (which implies there was no actual Korban associated with the Eitzim, rather the wood itself was the Korban--unlike Rashi in Megillah 5a) which did not require eating.

Part II: Cosmic Changes

The Beis HaMikdash was the epicenter of the nation. It was from here that holiness radiated throughout the land and the further removed you were, the less its spiritual impact. (See Mishnayos Keylim 1:6-9).* In fact, being on just the other side of the Temple's doorstep was seen by some Ta'anim as being too far away from the Temple. (See Mishnah Pesachim 9:2). Therefore, not surprisingly, the Chachomim viewed the destruction of the Second Temple as an inflection point in the history of the Jewish Nation. Time would forever be demarcated as being either pre or post destruction.** In addition to the legal ramifications affected by the destruction, the Chachomim perceived a change in the natural order of the world. This effected both nature and the people themselves. In the absence of the Beis HaMikdash, senses were dulled, nature was impaired, peoples' capacity for spiritual growth was limited and goodness itself was overridden by more sinister elements.

The following two Mishnayos, Sotah 9:12 and 9:15 set forth some of these changes. Mishnah Sotah 9:13 lists a number of other changes that occurred once the people stopped observing ritual purity and the tithing obligations. While seemingly also tied to the destruction of the Temple, they aren't explicitly tied to that event and may have happened at a later date (see, e.g., M. Ma'aser Sheini 4:2 indicating that agricultural gifts continues past the destruction.).

* As part of a discussion of M. Keilim 1:6, many ask why our Mishnah, in addition to the Omer, Shtei HaLechem and Bikkurim, does not list the many other Mitzvos HaTiluyos B'Aretz, such as Teruma, Challah and Ma'asros. Rav Yosef Dov Solovechik has a novel understanding of these Mishnayos, refocusing our attention from the land to the Beis HaMikdash. He suggests that the ten levels of holiness are not merely steps on a ladder of Holiness; rather, they are concentric circles of holiness, all emanating from a central source, the Beis HaMikdash. The "Temple Holiness" that Eretz Yisroel has is that certain Korbonos (and Bikkurim) are brought to the Beis HaMikdash. Hence, because it is not about the holiness of the land per se, all other Mitzvos HaTeluyos are irrelevant from this perspective and are not listed. (See Nefesh HaRav, pp. 76 and Shiurei HaRav on Mesches Challah, Hilchos Terumah, Perek 1 Halacha 5, pp. 131). See also, R' Menachem Zemba, (Kuntros Otzar HaSifri, Ois Aleph) differentiating between קדושת הארץ וקדושת המקדש.

** See e.g., Mishnah Gittin 8:5, where the Mishnah prohibits dating a Get to the building/destruction of the Temple. Nonetheless, you can infer that it was common practice to date documents to these events. Finally, the Mishnah in Nazir 5:4, in discussing when a person can nullify his Nazir status based on a change in circumstance, uses the example of a Nazir not knowing that the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed (and hence, his inability to fulfill his post-Nazir rituals).

The following Mishnah contains a lengthy recitation of various Chachomim known for particular different character traits and how, after they passed, that trait was no longer evidenced in its prime. For purposes of this sheet, I have excerpted only those portions directly dealing with the Churban.

Part III: Mitzvos Tied to the Existence of the Beis HaMikdash

The observance of any number of Mitzvos may be restricted by time, person and place. Shabbos and Holidays are fixed in the the calendar, certain commandments, for instance, may only be performed by a Kohein, while other may only be performed while in Eretz Yisroel.

Starting with the Tabernacle (Mishkan), the sacrificial rite (Korbanos) was centralized with minor exceptions (see Mishnah Megillah 1:11 and Zevachim 14:4-8).* Therefore, it is not surprising that upon the Temple's destruction, the sacrificial rite came to a halt.** In fact, as noted above, one of the events giving rise to the fast on the 17th of Tamuz was the abolition and cessation of the daily Tamid sacrifice.

The absence of sacrifices brought about an existential and theological disconnect for many as they could no longer seek and receive forgiveness (communal and personal) for their sins by bringing Korbonos. The Bavli (Megillah 31b) already notes a tradition infusing the recitation of the biblical passages relating to the Korbonos as having similar religious power as the actual sacrifices. Nevertheless, the Jews yearned for the reinstatement of sacrifices, and much of the established Teffilos make reference to, or pray for, such an outcome.

In addition to Korbanos, the Mishnah identifies a number of other Mitzvos that, in the absence of the Beis HaMikdash, can no longer be fulfilled. The Mishnah in Shekalim (8:8) mentions two, Shekalim and Bikkurim. Shekalim is obvious given that, according to the Chachomim, the entire purpose of contributing the half-shekel to the public fisc was to ensure the general public's participation and, more importantly, representation in the public Korbanos. Therefore, with no Beis Hamikdash and Korbanos, there is no longer a need to contribute the half-shekel.

The second Mitzvah is Bikkurim, the obligation to bring the first fruits up to the Beis HaMikdash and, after reading the Torah portion related to Bikkurim, leaving them behind for consumption by the Kohanim. Again, in the absence of the Beis HaMikdash this Mitzvah could no longer be performed.***

Finally, there are a number of Mishnayos that highlight that a particular Mitzvah is applicable regardless of the presence of the Beis HaMikdash.**** Their connection to the Beis HaMikdash is not immediately obvious, although they can be grouped into Mitzvos pertaining to either the non-ritual slaughtering of animals and animal-related gifts to the Kohein. Given the Beis HaMikdash's focus on animal sacrifice perhaps these Mishnayos are simply reminding you that these Mitzvos are independent of the Beis HaMikdash.

* The Mishnah makes note of an "auxiliary" temple in Egypt but its use was not countenanced by the Chachomim (See Mishnah Menachos 13:10). Its wide spread use is well documented in other sources, including Josephus. In TB Megillah 10a, Rav Yitzchok reports that he heard that the sacrificial cult was alive and well in Beis Choniav. Tosfos (ad. loc. s.v. Sh'mati) goes so far to suggest that, similar to the actual Beis HaMikdash, some of the purity laws were relaxed at this temple as well.

** There is a thread in the Mishnayos suggesting that Korbanos can be brought even in the absence of the Beis HaMikdash (See below, Mishnah Eduyos 8:6), but it is unclear whether the Tana is stating a practical reality or simply the theoretical possibility. Further, it may be that the Tana is referencing the period after the Babylonian exile when the the Jews first began to rebuild the temple--i.e., allowing the bringing of Korbanos while the Temple was being built. See e.g., Sha'arei Toras Bavel, R' Zev Wolf Rabinovich (edited by E. Melamed, Jerusalem 5721) pp 190 commenting on this Mishnah). The implications of this Mishnah have been much discussed in present times regarding the re-institution of Korbanos. See generally, R' Shlomo Yosef Zevin, Hamoadim B'Halachah (Hebrew) pp 363-364 and references there. For a survey of responsa literature on this topic see, R' Yisroel Schepansky, Eretz Yisroel in the Responsa Literature, Vol. 3, Chapter 8, pp. 308-343 (Hebrew) (Jerusalem 1978).

Specifically with respect to the Korban Pesach, there is ample evidence suggesting that despite the absence of the Beis HaMikdash many continued the observance of this Korban. See Mishnah Pesachim 7:2 and 10:4 and Beitza 2:7. Whether they did so in a formal, sacrificial way or simply as a remembrance of historical practice remains an open question.

*** See also, Bikkurim 2:3. Although the Mishnah in Bikkurim (2:2) seemingly equates Bikkurim and Ma'aser Sheini in that they both need to be brought to the Beis HaMikdash and Yerushalyim, respectively, as noted in our Mishnah (and Bikkurim 2:3) and as shown below, the obligation to set aside Ma'aser Sheini did not cease with the destruction of Yerushalyim. At most, its consumption was merely curtailed.

**** See generally:

1. Bikkurim 2:3 (Terumah and Ma'aser Sheini)
2. The series of Mishnayos in Chullin that begin the following Perakim:

• 5th (prohibition of killing both a mother and child animal on the same day),
• 6th (laws of covering the blood of fowl and wild animals),
• 7th (prohibition of consuming the sciatic nerve),
• 10th (gifting of certain animal parts, even from non-sacrificial animals to the Koehin),
• 11th (first shearings of fleece must be given to the Kohein) and
• 12th (Sending away the mother bird prior to taking its eggs)

1. Bechorot 9:1 (animal tithes) (This Mishnah seems to be from the same compendium of Mishnayos as those in Chullin). The Bavli (TB Bechoros 53a) already notes that there was a decree in place to forbid the practice of Ma'aser B'heima in later generations.

Part IV: Jewish Practice in Light of the Destruction

As noted in the introduction, the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash brought about both subtle and substantive changes to Jewish practice. Assuredly, both Torah learning and communal prayer gained prominence. Sacrificial rites essentially disappeared. When it came to other Mitzvos as well, the Chachomim, led by Rabi Yochanan ben Zakai and Rabban Gamliel, instituted changes for a number of reasons.

In the following collection of Mishnayos we will try and identify a number of basic categories. First, are those Mishnayos simply noting historical, non-sacrificial practices related to the Beis HaMikdash. Second, although not directly tied to the Beis HaMikdash, certain consecrated items required the presence of the Beis HaMikdash to ensure their sanctity. Third, are those changes specifically meant to model historical Temple practice. Fourth, is the reversion of those practices which had previously been altered to conform with Temple procedure or other exigencies and, unfortunately, need no longer conform. Finally, certain restrictions and ordinances were put into place to both infuse hope in the imminent rebuilding of the Temple and to guard against inadvertent violations of Temple Code that might take place upon its revival.

A. Remembering Rituals as Practiced During the Times of the Beis HaMikdash

The following Mishnayos recall certain, non-sacrifical practices that existed during the times of the Beis HaMikdash or were unique to the Temple itself.

Rosh Chodesh:

The first two Mishnayos, discussing the Court's procedures related to the New Moon (Rosh Chodesh), highlight the need for continuity of the calendar. Any deviation was likely of high concern to the leadership, post-destruction. During the time of the Beis HaMikdash each of the holidays and Rosh Chodesh were clearly celebrated via the sacrificial rites--with all eyes on Yerushalyim and the Beis HaMikdash. Even those not present knew where they should be focused. In its absence, it would be easy for the nation to splinter into many groups and watch the centralized calendar and national celebrations dissipate.

Messengers

The Jewish calendar is a lunar calendar, meaning it follows the phases of the moon as it orbits the earth. This orbit takes approximately 29.5 days. When the first tiny sliver of the moon reappears, it is called the “Molad,” the birth of the new moon. If witnesses testify to having seen the Molad, the Beis Din will declare the day to be Rosh Chodesh. As a result, a Jewish month lasts either 29 or 30 days--so that Rosh Chodesh is either on the 30th or 31st day of the preceding month. Knowing on which day Rosh Chodesh falls is important for many reasons--most importantly, to set the calendar.

While today it is easy to instantaneously disseminate information over the phone, internet and social media, back in the times of the Mishna, communication was much, much slower. The main way of sending information was by messenger--which could take weeks to reach its destination.

And because the Jewish People lived not only in Eretz Yisroel but in many far-away lands, the Beis Din had to make sure the information timely reached these communities. Our first Mishnah*^ details how for many of the months of the year the Beis Din would send messengers. For our purposes, the Mishnah notes that during the times of the Beis HaMikdash, messengers would also be sent out for the Month of Iyar since the holiday of Pesach Sheini fell within the month.** This was of course only applicable during the time of the Beis HaMikdash since its observance was limited to simply bringing the Korban Pesach without any of the ensuing restrictions of Pesach.

Desecrating Shabbos

Because declaring the new moon was the key to setting the Jewish calendar, it was very important that the Beis Din be made aware as quickly as possible when the new moon appeared in the sky. This would allow the Beis Din to declare Rosh Chodesh on the correct day and send out the messengers to the distant communities. In the times of the Beis HaMikdash, there was an additional reason as well: to make sure that the special Korban of Rosh Chodesh was brought on the correct day.

Generally speaking, one is not allowed be מחלל שבת (desecrate Shabbos). This includes not carrying, traveling long distances or riding on an animal. However, because of the importance of maintaining the calendar, witnesses who saw the new moon on Friday night were allowed to be מחלל שבת in order to travel to the Beis Din in order to testify. Our second Mishnah notes that during the times of the Beis HaMikdash witnesses were permitted to desecrate Shabbos for each month to ensure that he sacrifices for Rosh Chodesh were brought at the right time.

Seder Night:

The next Mishnah, describing the Pesach Seder, notes the various foods brought in front of the leader throughout the night. (For a more fulsome explanation of this Mishna see my commentary here.) Presumably recalling a post-destruction Seder, the Mishna notes that during the times of the Beis HaMikdash, there was an additional food, the Korban Pesach itself, that was brought to the table. (See Yachin ad loc.). This Mishnah may also be referring to the times of the Beis HaMikdash and simply referencing a Seder taking place outside the environs of Yerushalyim.

Berochos:

There are a number of Mishnayos detailing the peculiar nature of Berochos in the Beis HaMikdash. First, the Mishnah in Berochos 9:5 discusses the unique closing formulation of Berochos made in the Beis HaMikdash, in which they would add the words " מִן הָעוֹלָם ." This practice was later altered to " מִן הָעוֹלָם וְעַד הָעוֹלָם " to counteract any perceived acquiescence to the Sadduccees' theological opposition to the existence of the World To Come.***

Second, the Mishnah in Yoma 7:1 (and Sotah 7:7) notes the addition by the Kohein Gadol of a special Blessing at the closing of the reading of the Torah in honor of or in respect of the Beis HaMikdash. Similarly, the Mishnah in Sotah 7:8 states that the King, following the Hakhel ceremony, adds a similar blessing in respect of the Beis HaMikdash.

Finally the Mishnah in Sotah 7:6 (and Tamid 7:2) note a number of differences between the daily Priestly blessing as performed in the Beis HaMikdash and elsewhere.

Bechor

The first born child of a kosher animal must be given to the Kohein. If blemish free, the Kohein must bring it as a Korban, otherwise, he may keep it and eat the animal. The Mishnah in Bechoros 4:1 teaches that a Yisroel, prior to turning the animal over to the Kohein, must first raise it for some minimal amount of time, depending on the type of animal. In fact, he is prohibited from turning the animal over to the Kohein early in exchange for the Kohein agreeing to raise the animal. However, if there is a possibility for the Kohein to eat the animal at that moment, then the Yisreol is permitted to turn the animal over. The Mishnah notes, therefore, a distinction between the pre and post Temple era. During the time of the Beis HaMikdash, if the animal was unblemished, the Kohein could request the animal to bring as a sacrifice (after the 8th day). Whereas, after the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, if the animal has a blemish, the Kohein and wants to consume it, then he has a right to ask for it as well.

Purity

With some exceptions, the purity rules, as applied to the Beis HaMikdash were generally very stringent. As the Mishnah in Yoma 3:2-3 teaches, simply entering the the Azarah, even if already ritually pure, required a second, intentional Tevillah.**** On the other hand, certain forms of rabbinic impurity were dispensed with in the Beis HaMikdash, including Tumas Mashkin (the rabbinic decree that liquids that become impure take on the status of first-degree impurity having the capacity to contaminate other items) and Tumas Seforim. See Eduyos 8:4***** and Keilim 15:6.******

Ein Shvus B'Mikdash

The final set of Mishnayos are a grouping highlighting a single idea, that certain Shabbos related prohibitions are dispensed with in the Beis HaMidkash. Meaning, certain action otherwise prohibited from being performed on Shabbos are permitted within the Beis HaMikdash. The general reason for this is that we assume that the Kohanim, especially in the presence of the Sanhedrin, would remain zealous and careful not to violate a biblical prohibition. These Mishnayos may be found in Eiruvin 10:11-15.*******

* For further background and discussion on Rosh Chodesh, see my Mishnayos Rosh HaShanah with Running Commentary available here.

*^ See discussion above regarding the implications of this Mishnah and whether Tisha B'av was observed during the period of the Second Beis HaMikdash.

** Notably, the Meleches Shlomo to Rosh HaShanah 2:2, to reconcile a perceived conflict, posits that our Mishnah is not describing what actually occurred during the times of the Beis HaMikdash (i.e., that messengers were actually sent out in Iyar), rather, the Mishnah is theorizing that, in accordance with its views, had messengers been sent during the time of the Beis HaMikdash they would have also sent out messengers for Iyar.

*** See Tosefta Berochos 6:27. Safrai, ad. loc. noting that the Tosefta (Berochos 6:28) has an alternative understanding of this discussion and the question is not about the formulation of the closing Blessing but, rather, the listener's response to the blessing itself. The Tosefta rules that in the Mikdash one did not respond to a blessing with Amen and some formulation as proposed in our Mishnah was the preferred response. Why the standard endings or responses were changed is unclear. S. T. Lachs, Why was the "Amen" Response Interdicted in the Temple?", Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period, Vol. 19:2 (December 1988) pp. 230-240 suggests that the closing reformulation and interdiction of Amen was a way by the Peirushim to control the intent of Sadduccean priests. Much like Rabban Gamliel's introduction of Birchas HaMinim to the Amidah and the attention to certain words during the Tefillah (See Berochos 5:3) were meant to ensure proper intent in the Synagogue framework.

****See R' Yisroel Schepansky, HaTakonos B'Yisroel, Mossad Harav Kook (1992) Vol. 2 Chapter 6, pp. 175 and notes, collecting sources whether this rule applies only when entering the Azarah to perform ritual work or even or more broadly. For a discussion on the presence of numerous Mikvaot outside the Temple walls and the implications for the heightened ritual purity evinced by our Mishnah, see the debate between Eyal Regev, The Ritual Baths Near the Temple Mount and Extra Purification Before Entering the Temple Courts, Israel Exploration Journal Vol. 55:2 (2005) pp. 194-204, and Yonatan Adler, The Ritual Baths Near the Temple Mount and Extra Purification Before Entering the Temple Courts: A Reply to Eyal Regev, Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 56:2 (2006) pp. 209-215.

*****See commentators ad. loc. for a discussion on whether the liquids remain pure or if they simply lack the capacity for making other items impure. It may be that since the entire source of the original decree making liquids Tamei arises from "Ma'ayonos Hazav" and a Zav is not permitted in the precincts of the Beis HaMikdash, the Chachomim so no reason to expand their original decree to the Beis HaMikdash in the first instance.

***** For a discussion on Tumas Seforim, see my Running Commentary to Mesechtas Yadayim, available here. As noted above, Tosfos in TB Megillah 10a s.v. Sh'matee, posits a further dispensation of Tumas Eretz Ha'amim in the Temple of Choniav.

*******The same issue arises when taking the Lulav, the Aravah and blowing Shofar in the Beis HaMikdash. For a discussion of the parameters of this dispensation, see R' Aryeh Leib Ginzburg (the "Shaagas Aryeh"), Turei Even on Rosh HaShana, 29b s.v. V'Rabanan. See also, Mishnah Pesachim 5:8 and R' Elisha Horowitz, Bei Chayei, Lawrence 2008, Vol. 2 pp. 160-161. This broad dispensation from the rules of Shabbos should not be seen as a wholesale sense of laxity for the sanctity of Shabbos in the Beis HaMikdash. In fact, we find that even in the Beis HaMikdash they would sound the Shofars to announce the imminent start of Shabbos to distance people from inadvertently performing prohibited work. See M. Sukkah 5:5 and Yachin ad. loc.

B. Dealing with Consecrated Items Post Destruction

One area of concern the destruction of the Temple raised for the Chachomim was the masses' potential cavalierness when relating to and dealing with consecrated items such as Terumah, Ma'aser Sheini, Ma'aser B'Heima and Hekdesh. These items generally require a higher level of purity and holiness when touching, eating or engaging in commercial activity. From the Mishna it is clear that even when the Temple stood these rules were not universally kept. Certainly post-destruction, the level of observance would decline.

The following three Mishnayos focus on Ma'aser Sheini whether it could be properly consumed in Yerushalyim after the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash.

As noted briefly above, the Mishnah in Bikkurim (2:3) states that the obligation to set aside Ma'aser Sheini is not contingent on the existence of the Beis HaMikdash. There is a question as to what can be done with the fruits and/or the redemption money following the destruction of Yerushalyim and the Beis HaMikdash, i.e., can they be consumed The Talmud (Makkos 19a) brings a view that one may not eat Ma'aser Sheini, even in Yerushalyim, once the Temple has been destroyed. The Mishna in Ma'aser Sheini (1:5-6) supports this view; ruling that if a person intentionally purchased, outside Yerushalyim, food or animals with Ma'aser Sheini money, then he must let them rot or die, respectively, rather than bringing them up to Yerushalyim. The assumption is that bringing them up to Yerushlayim is of no moment since he cannot consume them in any event. (What's not clear is what is the rule if he purchases the items in Yerushalyim).

However, the Mishnah in Eduyos (8:6) records a Tradition that one may consume Ma'aser Sheini in Yerushalyim even if there are no walls (presumably meaning the Beis HaMikdash is also not standing). The Tosfos Yom Tov suggests a resolution to this seeming contradiction by explaining that the Mishnayos in Ma'aser Sheini are merely accommodating a Rabbinic stringency not to eat Ma'Aser Sheini (or at least not transport it to Yerushalyim) since it is likely that after the destruction, people were less vigilant with purity laws and the fruit would become Tamei. (Perhaps, if the person was already in Yerushalyim he was permitted to purchase food since there may have been a heightened awareness of purity laws when in Yerushalyim).

The concern of not being able to properly deal with consecrated items is also found in a Berayso (quoted in Bechoros 53a) where it states that nowadays people should refrain from consecrating items lest they end up dealing with them improperly. The Gemara also notes that at some point, the practice of Ma'aser B'Heima ceased as well.

C. Remembering Temple Practice

In our earlier discussion regarding Tisha B'Av and its observance we noted that in addition to the annual mourning period over the Beis HaMikdash's destruction, culminating with Tisha B'Av, the Chachomim instituted a series of general decrees and restrictions focused on limiting certain celebratory extravagances while imbuing the nation with a constant reminder of our national loss. While at the specific moment in time people acutely felt the Beis HaMkdash's loss (see generally Tosefta Sotah 15:5 here) such intense longing would surely dissipate over time. Cognizant of this reality, the Chachomim instituted minor reminders that would stand the test of time. This is what we term, Zecher L'Churban.*

On the other hand, there was a strong desire not to forget the pomp and circumstance of the Beis HaMikdash, especially those times and instances in which the Temple took center stage, such as during Holidays. The Mishnah is replete with laws, regulations and anecdotes detailing these veritable awesome, joyous and festive occasions. Precisely because of the centralized nature of their celebration, once the Beis HaMikdash was no more, questions arose how best to refashion the Mitzvos associated with the Holidays to allow for a broader experience. In the Mishnah, we find two examples of Mitzvos that were expanded beyond their original scope thereby allowing a more fulsome experience by the general population.

First, was the blowing of the Shofar on Rosh HaShana that falls out on Shabbos. (Mishnah Rosh HaShanah 3:1). During the times of the Beis HaMikdash, Shofar blowing was practiced even outside the Beis HaMikdash, however, when Rosh HaShana fell on Shabbos,it was only permitted within the Temple's precincts. Thus, only those present in the Beis HaMikdash (or Yerushalayim) would hear the Shofar. Those living outside would skip hearing the Shofar that year. Clearly, once the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed, there would ostensibly be no place able to blow Shofar on Rosh HaShana that falls on Shabbos. This presented a problem for the population. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai, therefore, instituted a rule that the Shofar could now be blown in Yavneh--the new center of Jewish leadership.** This would have the effect, at least, of preserving the Mitzvah of Shofar.

Second, was the taking of the four species on Sukkos. (Mishnah Rosh HaShanah 3:3 and verbatim at Sukkah 3:12). During the times of the Beis HaMikdash, the general population would take the Lulav on the first day of the Holiday. However, in the Beis HaMikdash they would take it for seven days. Again, after the destruction, Rabi Yochana ben Zakai broadened the Mitzvah so that people would take the Lulav all seven days (although they seemingly did not take it on Shabbos).***

These expansions are referred to collectively as Zecher L'Mikdash, meaning, ritual was expanded so as to model the type of ritual experienced in the Beis HaMikdash.****

* See generally, Herman, Different Approaches.

** The Mishnah (Rosh HaShanah 3:1) does note a dispute as to the exact nature of the decree and whether it was limited to only Yavneh or to any place with an established court. According to both Talmudim, this decree may have less to do with modelling after the Beis HaMikdash and, rather, magnifying the importance of the Beis Din now that the Beis HaMikdash no longer functioned as the center of religious guidance. This reasoning would suggest that the Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai's decree, while innovative, was less expansive than one might think. If the original dispensation for blowing the Shofar in the Beis HaMikdash was tied to the presence of the main Beis Din, then, in its absence, the power center of the Nation needed to be moved--and it was only natural that it would be reestablished with the new court.

Others, however, based on the Mishnah in Sukkah 5:5, suggest that sounding the Shofar in the Beis HaMikdash was part and parcel of the Korban Mussaf service--i.e., part of the sacrificial rites associated with Rosh HaShana. Once the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed, there was no further reason to sound the Shofar. Under this theory, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai's decree was not simply a practical reconfiguration of the Mitzvah but, rather, it was a wholesale realignment of the nature of the Shofar itself. See, R' Tzvi Pesach Frank, Responsa Har Tzvi, Orach CHaim Vol. 2 responsa 90; Alon, Toldos, Vol. 1 pp. 67-68.

*** These Mishnayos note an additional decree related to the Korban Omer. This decree will be dealt with in more detail below.

****Interestingly, only the decree involving the Lulav uses this terminology. The case of the Shofar does not. This might indicate that, the practice of blowing Shofar in the Mikdash, was not specifically tied to the Mikdash ritual per se. See discussion above. Also see Tosfos Yom tov ad loc. and Mishnas Rabi Nosson (Rabbi Nosson Adler) ad loc. for potential reasons why this is so. In fact, the terminology is used very infrequently in Tannaitic literature.

D. Changes in Post-Destruction Practice

The Mishnah contains a number of examples of practices which, post destruction, were adjusted to reflect the new reality of life without a Temple. These changes did not arise from a change in legal or Halachik status, rather, they merely incorporated the fact that certain restrictions and requirements that were put in place while the Beis HaMikdash was standing were no longer necessary.

The centrality of the Beis HaMikdash and Yerushalyim played a vital role in both the spiritual and commercial spheres of life. From a ritualistic perspective, even slight deviations of protocol could render a sacrifice or other ritual incomplete or, worse yet, invalid. Many safeguards, therefore, were put in place to ensure that things operated smoothly. The Mishnah (Rosh HaShana 4:4) tells us of one safeguard put in place, to ensure that the Levi'im sing the proper daily hymn (after an incident in which the Levi'im were confused), was to limit the time during which witnesses could testify that they saw the new moon (their testimony being accepted would cause that day to be Rosh Chodesh). Limiting testimony up until Mincha (rather than to nightfall) would curtail any confusion that may arise--even if it meant that the people would have to keep two days of Rosh Chodesh. Post-destruction these concerns were no more and Rabi Yochanan ben Zakkai re-instituted the original rule of accepting witnesses all day.*

Economically, Yerushalyim functioned as a center of commerce if, for no other reason, the magnitude of provisions required to keep the Beis HaMikdash running and providing for all of the necessary inputs for Korbanos (See generally Mesechtas Shekalim). Alongside, there was a certain pride associated with Yerushalyim and its overflowing markets (See e.g., Menachos 10:5). Once destroyed, it is likely that Yerushalyim's economic advantages disappeared as well. The Mishnah (Ma'aser Sheini 5:2) tells us that during the times of the Beis HaMikdash there was a general regulation that one could not redeem Kerem Revai** within a one-day radius of Yershalyim. Rather, it must be brought to Yerushalyim. The reason was two-fold. First, gathering the grapes in Yerushalyim would help ensure a steady supply of pure wine for use in the Beis HaMikdash. Second, the Chachomim wanted the marketplaces of Yerushalyim to look full, bursting with fruit. This regulation, however, was conditional. It only applied during regular times but when there was already an abundance of crops, people were free to redeem Kerem Revai even if they were just outside the city's gates. Rabi Yose states that post-destruction, and with Yerushalyim in Roman hands and with no need for sacrificial wine, this regulation--meant to economically benefit and beautify Yerushalyim--was no longer apropos and Kerem Revai may be redeemed anywhere. Once the Beis Hamikdash is rebuilt, however, we will revert back to the original regulation which makes redemption conditional on prevailing market conditions.

Finally, the Mishnah tells of us a very personal ritual that was effected by the destruction. The rule is that upon the death of a close relative a person is supposed to mourn for seven days. However, sometimes the Jewish ritual calendar interfered with or usurps this mourning period. For instance, the weekly Shabbos, although mourning is prohibited, nonetheless, counts as one of the days of the Shiva. Pesach and Sukkos, with their week long celebrations and required pilgrimage to the Temple, cut off the mourning period completely. So, for instance, if the death occurs a day or two prior to the holiday, the Shiva period comes to a close with the start of the holiday. The Mishnah (Moed Katan 3:6) discusses the holiday of Shavuous. Biblically, the holiday lasts a single day. However, during the times of the Beis HaMikdash, the holiday was extended for another 6 days, i.e., people lingered and were permitted to bring their obligatory sacrifices during this time. Hence, for mourning purposes, Shavuos likewise cuts off the Shiva.*** Post-destruction, our Mishnah notes a dispute whether that remains true. According to Rabi Eliezer, since without the Beis HaMikdash Shavuos was merely a single day holiday, it was more similar to Shabbos and while one could not mourn, it would simply count as a day of the Shiva. Whereas the Chachomim's opinion is that Shavuos, like the other two primary pilgrimage holidays, cuts off Shiva.****

* See Safrai ad loc. for a more in depth understanding of this Mishnah and the consternation over singing the wrong song.

** The Torah prohibits the fruits of a newly planted tree for three years. In the fourth year, the fruits may be eaten but have the status of Ma'aser Sheini and must be eaten in purity while in Yeushlayim. Like Ma'aser Sheini, you are allowed to redeem Kerem Revai and bring the money to Yerushalyim and use it their to purchase foodstuffs. Whether these rules apply to all fruits or just grapes is the subject of much discussion and beyond the scope of this sheet. However, it may be that the original regulation covered only grapes (ensuring a supply of pure wine) and was later extended to all fruits to enhance the Yerushlayim marketplace.

*** In "Simchas HaRegel B'Talmudam Shel Tanaim" Dovid Henshke, Jerusalem 2007 pp 294-301, Prof. Henshke proposes an alternative understanding of the Mishnah. Instead of the traditional understanding of Rabi Eliezer that Shavuous, post destruction, did not cut off Shiva because it was only a one day celebration, he posits a reason based on the character of Shavuous itself. Unlike Sukkos and Pesach which besides for their Temple based ceremonies also had broader participatory Mitzvos i.e., Matzoh, Sukkah and Lulav), Shavous' only distinguishable character was the special Breadloaf Korban (Shtei HaLechem). Post-destruction, there was no other feature of the holiday other than the cessation of work--which is similar, if not exactly like, Shabbos. He therefore suggests, that Rabi Eliezer, post-destruction, viewed Shavous like Shabbos--hence it would no longer cut off Shiva. Whereas, his disputants would argue that the absence of the Temple service does not change the inherent character of the holiday and therefore, it would cut off Shiva like the other holidays.

**** We must recall the broader context of this issue. For those who strictly complied with the pilgrimage requirements (the obligation to be Oleh Regel thrice yearly and a separate obligation to bring Bikkurim) the Temple demanded significant time commitments. During the spring, summer and fall seasons, the Temple was the focus and life likely revolved around these pilgrimages. Without the Beis HaMikdash, that focus was missing and most assuredly it required a significant reconfiguration of their lives and their relationship to time and space. (The extent of compliance with pilgrimage rituals is a mater of debate among scholars and is well beyond the scope of this sheet).

E. Anticipating the Redemption

The destruction of the Beis HaMikdash brought about unmitigated levels of anguish and despair for the Nation. The Tosefta at the end of Sotah relates the depths of people's mourning whereby many were willing to forgo eating meat and drinking wine forever. Rabi Yehoshua understood, however, that such intense mourning could not last forever and would eventually push the memory of the Temple into oblivion. Rather, he counseled that people take on small, achievable commitments to commemorate the destruction. He then proposed a series of minor accommodations such as leaving a small portion of the interior of the one's house unfinished or, when planning a party, leaving out a single element. These little alterations could be easily incorporated into practice and be an eternal reminder of the destruction.

Like the masses confronted by Rabi Yehoshua, the Chachomim acutely felt the absence of the Beis HaMikdash. And, as noted in the introduction, because the Chachomim were essentially legal scholars and almost always viewed even social change in light of Halachik practice, it is not surprising that their mourning over and yearning for the Beis HaMikdash would express itself in legal discourse. No doubt there was concern that the Temple and its regulations and restrictions would fade into oblivion over time. Ingeniously, then, and using the language they understood best, the Chachomim used an Halachik ruling to enshrine hope in the people that the Temple would be rebuilt speedily and their day.

Specifically, the Chachomim identified certain practices, like a Kohein drinking wine that, in the absence of the Beis HaMikdash, were fully permitted. Yet, they ruled that a Kohein should not drink wine lest the Beis HaMikdash suddenly be rebuilt, and if he is drunk it would prevent that Kohein from serving in the Beis HaMikdash " מהרה יבנה בית המקדש ובעינן כהן הראוי לעבודה וליכא" (Bavli Ta'anis 17b). Thus, the prohibition on drinking provided a constant reminder and flicker of hope of the Temple's imminent rebuilding. *

We also find in the Mishnah, Menachos 10:5, an ordinance put in place to prevent people from accidentally violating the law when the Beis Hamikdash is rebuilt encompassing this duality of purpose. The Chachomim chose to use the consumption of new grain as the point of departure for the masses. After the long winter, food stockpiles would grow low and the eyes of the nation would turn to the new harvest (typically ripening around Pesach time). However, while the Beis HaMikdash was standing, the people were prohibited from consuming the new crop until after the bringing of the Korban Omer. Once sacrificed, the people could enjoy the new crop of grain. Obviously, the Korban Omer was a significant ritual in the life of the nation and the Mishnah in Menachos painstakingly describes the ritual and its related pomp and circumstance.**

Importantly, in the absence of the Beis HaMikdash when are you allowed to eat the new grain? The answer is not obvious. Without the Korban Omer to permit the grain how was it to become permitted? According to Rabi Yochanan ben Zakkai, the grain is actually permitted starting at daybreak of the 16th of Nissan. Meaning, the absence of the Korban did not hinder the ability to start using the new grain. However, what was once a beloved ritual would fall by the wayside if people grew accustomed to eating the new grain immediately and people would forget the central role the Beis HaMikdash played in their physical, let alone spiritual, lives. " מהרה יבנה בית המקדש ויאמרו אשתקד מי לא אכלנו בהאיר מזרח השתא נמי ניכול ".

Therefore, Rabi Yochanan ben Zakai out of concern that when the Beis HaMikdash would be rebuilt people may forget to wait until after the Korban Omer was offered to start eating new grain--resulting in a violation of a biblical prohibition--instituted a rule that you must wait until the eve of the 17th of Nissan (or 18th outside of Israel) before eating the new grain. This, he hoped, would have the desired effect of keeping the memory of and the yearning for the Beis HaMikdash in the hearts and minds of the people especially when they were feeling particularly joyous over the new crop. ***

* It also ensured that someone would be available to work in the Beis HaMikdash upon its being rebuilt. We see a similar idea in Bavli Bechoros 53b when concluding why it is we cannot inflict a blemish on all animals (to prevent the need for Ma'aser B'Heima) "אפשר דשדי ביה מומא בכולי עדריה מהרה יבנה בית המקדש ובעינן בהמה להקרבה וליכא".

** During the times of the Beis Hamikdash, for those living in and near Yerushalyim it was easy to ascertain when the Korban was brought, allowing the consumption of new grain. For those living further away, they waited until Noon to eat the new grain because surely by then the Omer would have been brought.

*** The Mishnah also notes that Rabi Yehudah, on the other hand, understood the words עַד־עֶ֙צֶם֙ הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה עַ֚ד הֲבִ֣יאֲכֶ֔ם אֶת־קָרְבַּ֖ן as providing two trigger points for permitting the new grain. When there is a Beis HaMikdash, the bringing of the Korban frees the grain. However, in the absence of the Beis HaMikdash, biblically you have to wait the entire day. As a practical matter, both Rabi Yehudah and Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai require you to wait until the eve of the 17th of Nissan. For an article summarizing the Takkanah of R' Yochanan ben Zakkai on Chodosh, see Prof. Eliezer E. Goldschmidt, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai's Regulation on New Grain [Hebrew], Hama'yan, Vol. 221, Nissan 5777 [57:3], pp10-19. http://www.machonso.org/hamaayan/?gilayon=45&id=1332

We find a second discussion in the Bavli, related to the Mishna (Beitza 1:1) and whether the prohibition against consuming an egg laid on the first day of the holiday remains prohibited on the second day even after Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai's decree allowing for testimony of the New Moon be received all day. The Talmud brings a tradition that indeed it remained prohibited: "מ"ט מהרה יבנה בית המקדש ויאמרו אשתקד מי לא אכלנו ביצה ביום טוב שני השתא נמי ניכול ולא ידעי דאשתקד שתי קדושות הן והשתא קדושה אחת היא".

Notably, the Chachomim were similarly concerned with one-off practices that may give rise to confusion under different circumstances, especially as regarding the Beis HaMikdash. See, e.g., TB Pesachim 78b, TB Pesachim 92a and TB Menachos 46b. For a discussion of the commonalities and guiding principles underlaying these concerns, see R' Yisroel Dandrowitz, M'Heira Yibaneh HaMikdash V'Yomru Eshtaked, Moriah Vol. 35:7-8 (Nissan 5777) pp. 246-253.