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

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 01:33:15PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: No, it's nothing to do with aveilus for anybody or anything.  He's
: not cholek with anyone, he just says that regardless of whatever
: aveilus anyone is or isn't observing, and even bizman habayis when
: there is no aveilus, one should let his hair grow during the whole
: sefirah, and then cut it on the 49th day.
: 
: Who's RMC?

A typo for RCV, R' Chaim Vital, our source for all things Ari. You
mentioned the Peri Eitz Chayim; I tried to refer to its author.

: >If this is your own supposition, then one needs to prove the Ari was
: >choleiq with the norm -- there is a burden of proof. Perhaps one can
: >prove the reverse; that the Ari held that it was aveilus, that preparing
: >for a Yom Tov deOraisa overrules the minhagei aveilus, but Lag baOmer
: >isn't even Purim or Chanukah, and therefore doesn't.

: On the contrary, the Ari was very much a booster of Lag Ba'omer as a
: day of actual simcha, simchas Rashbi, rather than merely hafsakas avelus
: for talmidei R Akiva.  Hence it starts with the previous night, and
: therefore there is no tachanun at the previous mincha, whereas according
: to those who are merely ceasing to mourn for TRA it starts in the morning
: and therefore there is tachanun at the previous mincha, as there is
: before any day whose specialness only starts by day (Pesach Sheni, Erev
: RH and YK, Erev Pesach if there were tachanun in Nissan).

But I said nothing about Lag baOmer being a hafsaqas aveilus. You're
arguing a straw man. I said it wasn't enough of a chag to interrupt
aveilus.

...
: So if not cutting hair was mishum aveilus the Ari would definitely have
: permitted it on LB.  He allows weddings, which are surely more chamur
: than haircuts.  But he forbids haircuts because the entire sefirah is
: not a time for them.

"Not a time" is an end-run around the question of the point of the issur.

On the bulletin board you pointed us to, RMArmoni says that it is not
for aveilus, and then brings a raayah from Peri Eitz Chaim who says
it is for aveilus -- and that sei'ar more relates to losing R' Aqiva's
talmidim than other aveilus practies.

We lost much of the shalsheles of R' Aqiva, the one who produced talei
talin shel halakhos al kol qotz veqotz. This is meramez in hair, which is
yotzi min ha'ayin. The students died because they didn't fulfill the Torah
which comes from the yeish. They died during the omer which is the meqor
hayeish. Also, "omer lagulgoles" ties saaros haelyonim to this period.

Again, if the Ari held that it was some other causal connection between
their death and the practice of omer, wouldn't RCV had to have explicitly
said that it wasn't the aveilus asserted by the ge'onim and rishonim? Is
it usual in PEC to disagree with the rov and not be clear about it?

(See the sources in the Beis Yoseif on OC 493.)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 10th day, which is
micha at aishdas.org        1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  judgment bring balance and harmony?