69
edits
Zecher LeChurban: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Leaving one's home unfinished
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
#One who sees the Kotel in it’s destruction should rip his shirt a tefach and not have it sown up. Many poskim say that this still applies nowadays. <ref>S”A O”C 561:2 writes that when one sees the place where the Mikdash used to stand and now remains in it’s destruction, one must rip one’s shirt a [[Tefach]]. Even though Sh”t Bet Mordechai 33 is lenient not to rip one’s shirt nowadays since Har HaBayit is under Israeli control as is Rav Shlomo Aviner (Tal Chermon on Moadim, page 218) almost all achronim including Rav Ovadyah in Chazon Ovadyah (Arba Taaniot pg 438, Aveilut v. 1 p. 266), Rav Moshe Feinstein in Sh”t Igrot Moshe O”C 4:70:11, Rav Vosner in Sh”t Shevet HaLevi 7:78, Rav Hadayah in Sh”t Yaskil Avdi 8:25:4(4), and Zichron Betzalel pg 143 agree that even though Har HaBayit is in Israeli control, it’s still an obligation to rip one’s shirt upon seeing the Makom HaMikdash. Moadim UZmanim (Vol 7 pg 209-11) writes that the Minhag not to rip one’s shirt can rely on those who say that really the ground that the Bet Hamikdash once stood and not the Kotel which is just a wall of Har HaBayit. (so writes Rav Tukachinsky in Eretz Yisrael 22:5). Another leniency which isn’t LeHalacha but just to defend the minhag is nowadays we don’t feel the churban like those who live in Yerushalyim unless it’s our first time or it’s been 12 months. Sh”t Mishnat Halachot 6:110 defends the minhag similarly by saying that in our sorry state a person would feel worse for the loss of his shirt than for the loss of the churban, however, someone who feels for the loss of the Churban should rip the shirt and fulfill the Halacha. </ref> There is a dispute as to what a person has to see to be obligated in tearing. <ref>R. Yisrael ben Shmuel of Shklov in Pe'at HaShulchan 3:2 maintains that one should tear one's garments upon seeing the Dome of the Rock. </ref> | #One who sees the Kotel in it’s destruction should rip his shirt a tefach and not have it sown up. Many poskim say that this still applies nowadays. <ref>S”A O”C 561:2 writes that when one sees the place where the Mikdash used to stand and now remains in it’s destruction, one must rip one’s shirt a [[Tefach]]. Even though Sh”t Bet Mordechai 33 is lenient not to rip one’s shirt nowadays since Har HaBayit is under Israeli control as is Rav Shlomo Aviner (Tal Chermon on Moadim, page 218) almost all achronim including Rav Ovadyah in Chazon Ovadyah (Arba Taaniot pg 438, Aveilut v. 1 p. 266), Rav Moshe Feinstein in Sh”t Igrot Moshe O”C 4:70:11, Rav Vosner in Sh”t Shevet HaLevi 7:78, Rav Hadayah in Sh”t Yaskil Avdi 8:25:4(4), and Zichron Betzalel pg 143 agree that even though Har HaBayit is in Israeli control, it’s still an obligation to rip one’s shirt upon seeing the Makom HaMikdash. Moadim UZmanim (Vol 7 pg 209-11) writes that the Minhag not to rip one’s shirt can rely on those who say that really the ground that the Bet Hamikdash once stood and not the Kotel which is just a wall of Har HaBayit. (so writes Rav Tukachinsky in Eretz Yisrael 22:5). Another leniency which isn’t LeHalacha but just to defend the minhag is nowadays we don’t feel the churban like those who live in Yerushalyim unless it’s our first time or it’s been 12 months. Sh”t Mishnat Halachot 6:110 defends the minhag similarly by saying that in our sorry state a person would feel worse for the loss of his shirt than for the loss of the churban, however, someone who feels for the loss of the Churban should rip the shirt and fulfill the Halacha. </ref> There is a dispute as to what a person has to see to be obligated in tearing. <ref>R. Yisrael ben Shmuel of Shklov in Pe'at HaShulchan 3:2 maintains that one should tear one's garments upon seeing the Dome of the Rock. </ref> | ||
#If one forgot to tear while he was standing next to the kotel he could still do so all while but the minhag is only to do so while standing by the kotel.<ref>Avnei Yishfeh 2:54 cites Rav Debelisky who says that one can still tear within a half hour of seeing it, then he cites the Radvaz 838 who implies that one should tear the entire day, and then quotes him rebbe that the minhag is only to do so while standing next to the kotel.</ref> | #If one forgot to tear while he was standing next to the kotel he could still do so all while but the minhag is only to do so while standing by the kotel.<ref>Avnei Yishfeh 2:54 cites Rav Debelisky who says that one can still tear within a half hour of seeing it, then he cites the Radvaz 838 who implies that one should tear the entire day, and then quotes him rebbe that the minhag is only to do so while standing next to the kotel.</ref> | ||
# The tear should be done with one's hand on the left side while standing.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 561:4, Mishna Brurah 561:13</ref> | |||
===Old City of Jerusalem=== | ===Old City of Jerusalem=== | ||
| Line 29: | Line 30: | ||
Kovetz Ohr Yisroel 4, p. 89 writes that you can also leave an amah by an amah unpainted to fulfill this institution</ref> | Kovetz Ohr Yisroel 4, p. 89 writes that you can also leave an amah by an amah unpainted to fulfill this institution</ref> | ||
#Many in Klal Yisrael are unaware of this halacha and have their house completely finished. Some lament the Minhag and some defend the Minhag. <ref>Shaarei Teshuva laments the fact that so many are unaware of this law and don't abide by it. Aruch HaShulchan defends the lenient practice considering the fact that the first Beraita in the gemara holds that if the building is made out of a mixture of sand in the lime/cement there is no requirement to leave an Amah by Amah unfinished. Kaf HaChaim 560:11 concurs. Aruch HaShulchan argues that the second Braitta which is quoted as halacha by the Rif, Rosh, Rambam, and Shulchan Aruch agrees with that idea that for a mixture it's permissible. The Aruch HaShulchan brings support from the Nemukei Yosef and Ran and leaves it as a Tzarich Iyun why Shulchan Aruch didn't mention this leniency. </ref> | #Many in Klal Yisrael are unaware of this halacha and have their house completely finished. Some lament the Minhag and some defend the Minhag. <ref>Shaarei Teshuva laments the fact that so many are unaware of this law and don't abide by it. Aruch HaShulchan defends the lenient practice considering the fact that the first Beraita in the gemara holds that if the building is made out of a mixture of sand in the lime/cement there is no requirement to leave an Amah by Amah unfinished. Kaf HaChaim 560:11 concurs. Aruch HaShulchan argues that the second Braitta which is quoted as halacha by the Rif, Rosh, Rambam, and Shulchan Aruch agrees with that idea that for a mixture it's permissible. The Aruch HaShulchan brings support from the Nemukei Yosef and Ran and leaves it as a Tzarich Iyun why Shulchan Aruch didn't mention this leniency. </ref> | ||
# The unfinished portion should be visible. It should not be placed too high, and if it cannot be placed across the entrance then it should be done above the entrance. <ref> Yalkut Yosef, page 574; Ach Tov VaHessed, Year 5783, page 211 </ref> | |||
#The blank portion should preferably be at least one amah by one amah. However, some poskim write that an area of a square amah is sufficient even if one side is less than an amah [e.g. 2 x ½ amot, which is an area of a square amah] <ref>Rav Yisroel Belsky (Piskei Halachos, Vol 1, p. 113, quoting Sefer Habayis, p. 215, footnote 11) </ref> | #The blank portion should preferably be at least one amah by one amah. However, some poskim write that an area of a square amah is sufficient even if one side is less than an amah [e.g. 2 x ½ amot, which is an area of a square amah] <ref>Rav Yisroel Belsky (Piskei Halachos, Vol 1, p. 113, quoting Sefer Habayis, p. 215, footnote 11) </ref> | ||
#If the house is bought one doesn't need to change the structure to leave an Amah by Amah unfinished. <ref>Shulchan Aruch 560:1 </ref> | #If the house is bought, one doesn't need to change the structure to leave an Amah by Amah unfinished. <ref>Shulchan Aruch 560:1 </ref> This is because we assume it was originally built for a non-Jew and thus escaped the requirement. However, if the house was built for a Jew, one is required to go back and peel off an Amah by Amah. <ref>M"B 560:4</ref> Some poskim argue that a Jewish builder who intends to sell to the public is not required to leave an Amah by Amah unfinished, and the buyer would then not be required to peel off an Amah by Amah. <ref>[https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14676&st=&pgnum=394 Igrot Moshe OC 3:86]</ref> | ||
==Leaving something out at a meal== | ==Leaving something out at a meal== | ||
