Q&A: Studying Physics on Tisha B’Av
Studying Physics on Tisha B’Av
Question
Hello Rabbi. I wanted to know the Rabbi’s opinion on this issue. I heard that some prohibit it because it distracts one from mourning (and therefore they would also prohibit it for a mourner). And so they also prohibit reading newspapers and engaging books, which means that in practice the only thing permitted on Tisha B’Av is to sleep or to study Torah on topics that are not joyful, even though in principle Torah study is forbidden on Tisha B’Av (because “the precepts of the Lord are upright, rejoicing the heart” — that is, the very act of study brings joy regardless of the content. That also affects how one studies the sad topics — one may not delve deeply into them, and so on). So it comes out, oddly, that a person will study more Torah on Tisha B’Av than on a regular day, on a day when in principle Torah study is forbidden…
I have in fact already been following Rabbi Melamed’s view for the past two years, according to which this is indeed forbidden, until I reach my own conclusions on the matter — but it is very hard for me, because I need to take my mind off the fast itself, which is difficult for me.
So what, in the Rabbi’s view, counts as distraction from mourning? Is it like distraction from tefillin (which is forbidden)? Or distraction that would require washing one’s hands again (which I heard some say is expressed only in speaking between the washing and the blessing over the bread, and not in any other way)?
I have some thoughts about this, but I would be happy to hear the Rabbi’s opinion.
Thanks in advance
Answer
In principle, you are not supposed to study Torah about sad topics, but rather to think about the destruction and its implications. True, they permitted studying passages about the destruction, but it seems to me that this is permitted not because of the sadness involved, but more because it is engagement with the destruction and therefore does not distract from the mourning. Sad passages unrelated to the destruction, such as whom one judges and how in cases involving stoning penalties, were not permitted for study.
However, the Tur, section 554, cites the view of Nachmanides, who permitted studying the baraita of Rabbi Ishmael and reciting the sacrificial passages because this is part of the prayer service. And people have already wondered about this permission. But according to my approach, it makes sense, since if one is engaged in prayer, there is no distraction from mourning here (not more than in prayer itself).
However, the Talmud in Ta’anit says that it is also permitted to study Job (as well as Lamentations and matters of destruction in Jeremiah), and apparently that implies that even ordinary sad material is permitted for study, even if it is not directly connected to the destruction. Perhaps there is some connection between the ideas in Job and the destruction, and this requires further analysis.
As for washing the hands, distraction there means an interruption between one thing and another. In mourning, we are not talking about an interruption between two acts, but about turning one’s thoughts in a different direction from the desired one. So it is not exactly the same thing.
In any case, the question is what you are actually able to do. If the alternative is to do pointless things or just sleep, then in my opinion it is certainly possible to study physics or read. Sleep too is a distraction from mourning. If I were not hesitant, I would even permit Torah study.
Discussion on Answer
Not necessarily. Doing labor is not different from prayer in the sense that there are activities that are in themselves legitimate and therefore are not considered a distraction, as I wrote regarding Nachmanides’ permission to recite the sacrificial passages in prayer. Not because there is no distraction there, but because they are considered necessities of life that we were not required to forgo. Like the permission to work or to rest and recuperate without that being considered neglect of Torah study.
Quite apart from the practical Jewish law, does the Rabbi think that an ordinary mourner is also supposed to occupy himself with the meaning of his personal mourning? It seems strange to me that for seven days (which is rabbinic) he should be occupied with that. Either one day is enough, or seven certainly won’t be enough. It also seems a bit that mourning is a state of mind, like when you have tefillin on and are aware of it (and therefore behave differently when they are on us — it’s not just the sensation of the weight on your head). According to this, there is nothing to distract from on Tisha B’Av, because for most people there is no mourning in the heart (and quite justifiably — it doesn’t make sense to mourn inwardly for something you never lost because you never had it. Despite the well-known homiletic sayings every year, some of which contain a grain of truth, they don’t get beyond the level of nice sayings. In the end, someone born blind cannot really be said to mourn the lack of sight, even if there are others who can see).
I think that at least on the practical level, there is no room to compare Tisha B’Av (= old mourning) to ordinary mourning (= new mourning). On Tisha B’Av we are supposed to internalize the mourning and try to experience it, whereas in fresh mourning we already have mourning and are supposed to cope with it. In The Bridge of Life it is explained that the laws of mourning were essentially instituted in order to set boundaries so that we would not overdo the mourning. Therefore, it seems to me that in fresh mourning, distraction is not really relevant. On the contrary, by nature a person will not distract himself.
If we were not required to give up life-needs like labor because of the concern for distraction, why are we required to give it up when the local custom is not to do labor?
On the contrary: if that is the local custom, then apparently in their view it is not such a fundamental need, or not such a severe demand, and therefore it counts as distraction and should be forbidden. I already explained that it is indeed a distraction, except that fundamental needs (and also prayer, which is a fundamental religious need) are sufficient reason not to demand that one avoid this kind of distraction.
But according to that, it would seem that if someone lives in a place where the custom is not to do labor, but for him labor is a fundamental need, then for him it should be permitted. And conversely, someone who lives in a place where the custom is to do labor, but for him it is not such a fundamental need, then for him it should be forbidden.
Not necessarily, because in Jewish law (like any normative system), an individual’s personal view is set aside in relation to everyone else. The law is determined according to the reasonable person in that environment.
Maybe one could also bring proof from the permission to sleep. Since sleep is permitted on Tisha B’Av even though it distracts from mourning, any activity similar to sleep in terms of being a distraction should also be permitted — meaning any ordinary secular activity.
Indeed; see the last paragraph of my first reply. Necessary sleep is like prayer in this regard. And unnecessary sleep (just because there is nothing to do instead) is certainly no better than Torah study.
From the fact that actual labor is permitted on Tisha B’Av (except in a place where the custom is not to do labor, where it is forbidden because of the custom), it would seem that there is no prohibition at all against distracting oneself from the mourning, and consequently any secular subject like physics should obviously be permitted to study, no?