Going to a baseball game during the "three weeks"
- Login or register to post comments
-
- Printer-friendly version
Rabbi Alan Yuter of the Orthodox Congregation of Downtown Baltimore responded to a question about the permissibility of attending a Baltimore Oriole baseball game during the three weeks between the 17th of Tammuz and the 9th of Av. Since the three weeks are not far off (Tammuz 17 is on July 9), I thought readers would be interested in Rabbi Yuter's responsum. It has ramifications beyond the Baltimore Orioles, and beyond baseball.
Question: Is it proper to attend baseball games during the summer
three week mourning period between the 17th of Tammuz and the 9th of Av?
Answer: While there are those who choose to be “strict” and avoid
all pleasure, joy, entertainment, or enjoyment during this mournful season, these strictures reflect culture usage and not religious law, mandate, or obligation. Furthermore, it is not permitted to present a culture usage as if it were Oral Torah law.
The Mishna [Taanit 4:6] teaches that one diminishes joy
commencing with the first of Av. Religiously obligatory restrictions begin after Shabbat Hazon, [3:7], the Shabbat before the fast. Even avoiding meat and wine only applies by law to the meal before the 9th of Av fast that is eaten in the afternoon.
Magen Avraham Orah Hayyim 493:1 asserts that one
does not listen to music during sefira, the seven weeks between Passover and Shavuoth that became a mournful period in post-Talmudic thought. By extension this restriction was applied to the “three weeks” period.
It is reported in the name of Rabbi Joseph B.
Soloveitchik that the three weeks of mourning parallel and are therefore equivalent to the 30 day mourning period while the Nine Days reflect the more intense Shiv’a seven days of mourning. This intriguing conjecture is aesthetically compelling, but it has no Oral Torah precedent which would assign legal valence to the “three weeks.”
People are free to adopt whatever permitted practices that
they wish. But according to Jewish law,
religiously binding laws of mourning follow lenient tendencies, not post-Talmudic restrictive usages;
· the three week mourning period is unattested in the Talmud---
· therefore, the “three weeks” period may not be construed as the moral or legal equivalent of the thirty day mourning period, and the week of the 9th of Av is not really the equivalent of the seven days of mourning, for the following reasons:
§ the “three weeks” period is really post-crusade innovative custom
§ the customs are established by reasoned local legislation and not by lomdus/conjecture
§ the individual mourning rites are law and diminish in intensity from the seven day to thirty day periods, unlike the proposed analogy that compares the “three weeks” to personal mourning
· The innovation regarding music, reported by Magen Avraham, has no basis in the Oral Torah canon and its observance is a matter of personal discretion, not law. To present this policy as law misstates and mistakes the law
* Therefore, there is no Halakhic restriction regarding attending a Baltimore Oriole baseball game. And given the historical record, even those who would avoid attending baseball games may be lenient when watching the Orioles, because their performance is usually quite mournful.
- Login or register to post comments
-
- Printer-friendly version
Conclusion
Minhag
I think one additional thing we need to realize about minhag is that there's no such thing as minhag avot. In the traditional literature, we find only mention of the entire tzibur having to be uniform in practice, for social cohesion and poresh min ha'tzibur, etc. That is, there was ever only minhag ha'makom.
For example: when the Sephardim left Spain, most left for North Africa or Turkey or the like, but a few instead traveled to Ashkenazi areas. The Sephardi immigrants often outnumbered the Ashkenazi natives, and so the question arose: should the minhag follow the more numerous immigrants or the less numerous natives? But NO ONE suggested that everyone should do what his own fathers did; NO ONE suggested having Sephardi and Ashkenazi minhag present in one locale. Rather, everyone was to do one and the same thing, but no one could agree what that one same thing ought to be. Therefore, the concept of minhag avot is a perversion of traditional Judaism.
Given the dislocation of organic communal existence following the world wars - the very same dislocation that gave rise to non-traditional "hadash assur min ha'Torah" Haredism (Orwellian Newspeak, anyone?) - there is no longer any such thing as minhag ha'makom anymore.
(This loss of organic communal existence led to the perversion of tradition, via an emphasis on textualism over mimesis. This trend, of course, has its precedents in the previous codifications of halakhah, and so Rabbi Dr. Eliezer Berkovits would call of these developments - ancient (Mishnah, Gemara, Rambam, Tur, Shulhan Arukh) and modern (Haredism) alike - as leading to our being "Karaites of the Oral Law".)
So there is only minhag ha'makom; there is no such thing as minhag ha'avot, and the latter is one of the Torah-forbidden innovations whose only warrant and basis is the Orwellian expression, "Hadash assur min ha'torah". (Translation: innovation is forbidden, except when we've rewritten history so as to make our innovation appear traditional.)
So unless the entire community engages in a given practice, there is no obligation for anyone in particular to engage in that activity. (I emphasize "obligation", because one certainly has permission to continue his minhag avot, if one so chooses. But there is no compulsion.) Case in point: if Sephardim can walk down the street eating kitniot, then, ipso facto, there is no minhag ha'makom to avoid such consumption, and so Ashkenazim have an absolute heter. I later saw that Rabbi David bar Hayim of Machon Shilo in Jerusalem uses similar logic to arrive at the same conclusion.
I will admit a difficulty in my position: while the formal law contained in those halakhic texts unequivocally supports my conclusion, the *reasons* given in those texts do not. That is: the texts call for minhag ha'makom, which supports my thesis. On the other hand, however, their reasoning is that the practices of the Jewish people are sacrosanct and inviolable, and that there is holiness in the historical tradition and habits of the Jewish people. According to this, minhag avot is legitimate, as a substitute for the no-longer-functional minhag ha'makom. (Dislocation of communities, and the presence of many people of disparate origin in one locale, frustrate minhag ha'makom.) That is: we are caught in a dialectic between the letter of the law and its spirit. I have chosen to uphold the letter, for its convenience, but I must concede that the spirit seems to oppose me. Of course, we might note that Haredi textualism and abandonment of mimesis (e.g. - textualism is exemplified in the Mishnah Berurah, while mimesis is in the Arukh haShulhan) is at least as severe if not egregious, so we at least will not be worse off than the Haredim. I would insist - though I am not sure why - on upholding minhag ha'makom over minhag avot, the letter over the spirit. Perhaps my only justification is that this would constitute an assault on Haredism, but this surely is a worthy purpose; eit la'asot lashem. Tzarich iyun.
We will also note that Rabbi Haim David Halevi seems to have staunchly upheld minhag avot - see Rabbi Angel's book on him. But I have never been one to be awed by authority or charisma, and so I will not be driven to abandon my position, no matter how much I respect Rabbi Halevi. But I do respect him enough to acknowledge the fact that he - someone far greater than I am - does in fact disagree with me; the same cannot be said of most of my opponents. With all due respect to Rabbi Halevi - and I do truly mean this with all sincerity - Rambam tells us in his letter on astrology that we should not put aside proven matters only because someone greater than oneself spoke words to the contrary.
"It is reported in the name
"It is reported in the name of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik that the three weeks of mourning parallel and are therefore equivalent to the 30 day mourning period while the Nine Days reflect the more intense Shiv’a seven days of mourning."
I think that for this school of thought the three weeks in meant to be parallel to the 12 month mourning period and the nine days are meant to be parallel to the 30 day mourning period. In terms of the customs/laws of each of those times, that parallel fits much better.
Pretty funny
Pretty funny, especially the line at the end about the Orioles being mournful. I'm a Yankees fan myself, and I'm glad to know there is no Halakhic restriction preventing fans from attending baseball games, so I will feel free to cheer on my team during this holy time!