Joy & Sorrow, mirror images

States of mourning and (nuptial related) joy are both regulated by halacha in precisely the same temporally delineated gradations as it relates to the intensity of nihugei aveilus and simcha.

It is reflective of how emotions and feelings are initially acute and how they become progressively weaker with the passage of time.

Specifically, they share 5 stages in the progression of their individual laws.

They are as follows:

The day of the death/chasuna; the first 3 days; 7 days; 30 days and finally a year.

(They share the concept of "פנים חדשות" which has to do with the strong feelings of joy/sorrow becoming aroused again due to their [the פנים חדשות] appearance and participation.)

The strong emotions which are generated by these major life events register most poignantly closest to the moment of death/marriage and gradually get more attenuated as time goes on and one gets farther away from the traumatic/ecstatic event. 

This is manifested in halacha with corresponding legislation prescribing the outward expression of joy and sorrow, respectively.

Koheles states (3:4) עֵ֤ת לִבְכּוֹת֙ וְעֵ֣ת לִשְׂח֔וֹק עֵ֥ת סְפ֖וֹד וְעֵ֥ת רְקֽוֹד with Rashi commenting: עת ספוד – בימי אבל 

ועת רקוד – בחתנים וכלות reinforces this parallelism. 

They both have the distinction of being the only two things one disturbs Torah study for מְבַטְּלִין תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה לְהוֹצָאַת הַמֵּת וּלְהַכְנָסַת הַכַּלָּה which also indicates their relatedness. 

Interestingly, this sequence of 3, 7 & 30 days is also mentioned by physical trauma as it relates to chillul shabbos for a woman that has given birth.

(I came across the following in the Torah Temimah to Devarim 24:5 ר״ל אחרי דעל כל השנה אמרה תורה ושמח. וכתב הטור באה״ע סי׳ ס״ב דהאידנא ערבה כל שמחה נכונה ולכן אין אומרים שהשמחה במעונו אלא בשבעת ימי המשתה. וכתב בס׳ רה״ז דהא דאבל אסור בשמחה י״ב חודש הוא מפני שהוא היפך השמחה ששיעורו י״ב חודש, והוא ע״ד הכתוב והפכתי חגיכם לאבל וכו׳ וכמו שדרשו מה חג שבעה אף אבלות שבעה, כך מה שמחה י״ב חודש אף העדר השמחה באבל י״ב חודש, ודו״ק)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sukkos: Pesach in the fall

This piece attempts to uncover an entirely new way of looking at the significance of Sukkos in what essentially amounts to a paradigm shift about the chag Vayikra 23:42-43 בַּסֻּכֹּת תֵּשְׁבוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כׇּל הָאֶזְרָח בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשְׁבוּ בַּסֻּכֹּת. לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ דֹרֹתֵיכֶם כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי י"י אֱלֹהֵיכֶם. There is no other biblical record of our forefathers ever having stayed in booths, certainly not immediately after the exodus. The rishonim (ad loc) quote a disagreement (bavli sukkah 11b) between R Eliezer and R Akiva as to the identity of the pasuk's obscure referent: כי בסכות הושבתי – איזו סכות היו, ר' אליעזר אומר ענני כבוד היו, ר' עקיבא אומר, סכות ממש then saying that it works out acc to R Eliezer but acc to R Akiva what exactly are we celebrating?; see there for various solutions. The rishonim have in common an understanding that the holiday is somehow related to hitherto un
Read more

Are Jews innately unique

This write up attempts to explain why Haman planned for genocide whereas the Greeks opted for religious suppression As reflected in the differing formulations of al hanissim for Purim and Chanuka respectively, Haman was out for Jewish blood whereas Antiochus was for eradicating Jewish rites and rituals.  Practically speaking, Judaism would have been a relic of the past had either of them had their way.  That different approaches were employed may have been a function of most Jews having been religiously observant during the Purim story as opposed to during the Chanukah story when most were already hellenized—easier to annihilate a people than to get them all to change their ways as opposed to by the Chanukah where only a minority were still practicing it made more sense to just stamp out what remaining observance there was than to exterminate an already mostly hellenized nation.   Perhaps a more philosophical approach can be suggested: There's a well known divide amongst Jewish thi
Read more

Zionism done right

This piece attempts to provide some color to a comment of Chazal regarding the Bnos Tzelafchad's חיבת הארץ as well as explain away an apparent inconsistency in a specific Amora's approach to it Bamidbar 27 opens with the daughters of Tzelafchad making their case to share in the distribution of EY by inheriting their sonless father Tzelafachad's portion instead of his brothers. Chazal posit a love for the land of Israel as their motivation, explaining that the reason this narrative is juxtaposed with the previous chapter owes to it being illustrative of an inferred contrast therein that only the men died out in the midbar as only they had cast aspersions on the land (to the extent of wanting to return to Egypt) as opposed to the women that were lovers of the land and wanted to proceed apace even after the report of the spies. Namely, ibid 26:64: וּבְאֵלֶּה לֹא הָיָה אִישׁ מִפְּקוּדֵי מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר פָּקְדוּ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִדְבַּר סִינָי with Rash
Read more