[Avodah] Who First Said It? 7 - Mourning during Sefirah

[rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com]

Me RRW:
> At any rate my thesis is primarily that the observences were motivated
> by ChhM considerations * and not for aveilus - which I primarily see as
> having evolved later on

Micha:
> It began being about bedavqa weddings. Of all the things one doesn't
> do on ChhM, why weddings?



Q: to Micha:
Do you have a source that issur nissuin was observed w/o the other 2
namely tispores and m'lachah?

Also Hypothesis' sort of Addresses this:
RRW
> A: an alternate [hypothesis'] version is - that ChhM and Aveilus
> were both there day one, and the minhag originally was designed to take
> on the aspects of the common denominators»

------------------------

How can I butress my argument?

1 The drasha on sheva shabbassos and the term atzeres for shavuos -
both indicating that
2 Since shavuos ends Passover
therefore the intervening days are a kind of "ChhM"

But not ChhM mamash! - because it was not shayach to
Keep it so long - so only a subset was kept. 

C note that psoqim on Elu m'galchim point ouut that not shaving on ChhM
can count those days towards shloshim - though not for shiva.

Q: Dear Rabbi Wolpoe
Why not go with the "R Akiva" hypothesis?

A: Well the Talmud does mention the deaths but NOT the minhag - suggesting
that the connection may have been retrofitted later

The weak link is that Gaonim made this connection as opposed to the
victims of the crusades - which is a minus for my position.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile