[Avodah] tisha ba-av and aveilut

[Daniel Eidensohn]

R' Eli Turkel wrote:
> Daniel Eidensohn points out that the Teshuvah element may be stronger 
> than the Aveilus element in the Three Weeks, since Aveilus does not 
> require that we feel sad and yet we find sadness as a running theme in 
> Torah regarding this period.>>
> I find this statement confusing. 
I recently discussed this issue with Rav Shurkin. He said that he had 
heard both the view of Reb Moshe and RYBS directly from them and that he 
agreed with RYBS understanding. He noted that he has about 50 pages of 
discussion of RYBS's view in the second volume of Harrei Kedem.
1) Reb Moshe held that Aveilus is an external behavior to show respect 
to the niftar. It does not require any feelings. One does not have to do 
anything to cause or reinforce sadness. 2) RYBS held that Aveilus has 
two components the external which is usually described as aveilus but 
also has the internal component of being upset and the ikkar was the 
feeling.

The Mishna in sixth chapter of Sanhedrin (46b) AND THEY OBSERVED NO 
MOURNING RITES1 BUT GRIEVED [FOR HIM], FOR GRIEF IS BORNE IN THE HEART 
ALONE. Reb Moshe would understand that the mishna is describing two 
separate halachos. The criminal does not have the outer activity known 
as aveilus but the inner state known as aninus is permitted. RYBS would 
say that the external component of Aveilus is prohibited but the inner 
aspect of aveilus is permitted.

The footnotes in "Shiurei HaRav for Aveilus and Tisha B'Av" acknowledge 
that RYBS view seems at odds with Rashi in Kesubos.

My point is that if you take Reb Moshe's view then it makes no sense to 
say that "proper mourning for the destruction of the Temple requires 
feeling sad and that it is problematic not to be sad about the event." 
However it would make sense to say "since the purpose of commemorating 
the destruction of the Temple is to repent for the sins that led to its 
loss than if one dosn't feel upset than he is not doing proper teshvua." 
However from RYBS point of view the first statement would also make 
sense. It is not clear to me what the  actual source of R' Soloveitchiks 
understanding.  In terms of the halacha I have been told by a posek that 
Reb Moshe's view is that found  in the halachic literature. A number of 
rabbbonim consulted all agreed that aveilus and aninus are two distinct 
halachos and are not different aspects of aveilus.


Daniel Eidensohn