The Three Weeks

Keeping The Experience With Us

By Rabbi Yochanan Zweig

The Three Weeks is a mourning period for Bnei Yisroel, beginning with the fast of the Seventeenth of Tammuz, and culminating with the fast of the Ninth of Av. During this period we find a transition from less intense to more intense forms of mourning. The Three Weeks begins with the curtailing of various forms of rejoicing. We refrain from getting married, listening to music, and cutting hair. During the Nine Days the prohibitions against eating meat and drinking wine are added. The week of Tisha B’Av has more severe halachic ramifications, and Tisha B’Av itself requires us to impose upon ourselves restrictions which are akin to those on Yom Kippur.¹ This appears to be the opposite of the normal manner in which mourning is observed. When a person dies, the first phase which the mourner enters is referred to as “aninus”. The mourner is prohibited from consuming meat. The next phase which the mourner enters comes after the burial, and is referred to as the “shiva” period. Although it is less restrictive than aninus, the shiva period is more restrictive than the “shloshim” - the twenty-three days which follow the seven day shiva period.² Here we find that mourning is moving from a more intense to a less intense observance. How do we resolve the difference between the mourning of the Three Weeks and the mourning following the passing of a relative?

The question is asked why we count the Omer - the period beginning with the second day of Pesach and culminating with receiving the Torah on Shavuos - in ascending order (one, two, three, etc.). Since we are counting towards the receiving of the Torah, would it not be more appropriate to count in descending order, i.e. forty-nine, forty-eight, forty-seven, thereby displaying our anticipation of the upcoming event?

Although it is true that when one counts towards an event which he is anticipating, he counts in descending order, this is only true if the event is one which will be over at the conclusion of the counting, as in a count down to a rocket launch where the anticipation is to complete the event. However, when we count towards an event which continues to grow with us even after its occurrence, we count upwards rather than downwards. Such an event is not a conclusion; it is a beginning.

The same is true concerning mourning. Normally, the mourning period is a catharsis; it allows a person to move on with his life. Therefore, we observe a mourning that decreases in intensity with time, signifying the need to come to a closure. However, regarding the mourning which is observed for the destruction of the Temple and the ensuing exile, we are obligated to internalize the experience and continue to relive it throughout our lives. This is the concept of “zeicher lemikdash” - “remembering the destruction“. This is signified by a mourning process which intensifies as it proceeds.

¹ Orech Chaim 560:1
². See Yorah Deah, Hilchos Aveilus

MOURNING THE LOSS OF A MARRIAGE

The Talmud relates that Moshe ascended Mount Sinai on the sixth of Sivan at which time Bnei Yisroel heard the Ten Commandments. Moshe ascended the mountain for a second time on the following day, and he spent forty days learning the Torah and receiving the Tablets. Upon his descent, he found Bnei Yisroel serving the Golden Calf. Moshe threw the Tablets to the ground, smashing them. That date in history was the seventeenth of Tammuz,¹ a day which we spend involved in fasting and introspection.

What is the significance of the breaking of the Tablets? What was Moshe’s purpose in breaking the Tablets? We are bound by the Sinaitic covenant irrespective of whether or not the Tablets are intact! A more basic question must be raised: What is the notion of having a physical representation of the Ten Commandments altogether? Even if the Ten Commandments represent a synopsis of all of the precepts,² they are already recorded twice in the Torah.³ Moreover, they seem to have had no practical use, for they remained locked away in the Ark, never to seen by man.

Upon his return from the Binding of Yitzchok, Avraham, sensing the need for K’lal Yisroel’s continuity, sent Eliezer, his trusted servant to find a wife for Yitzchok. The Torah goes into extensive detail describing the matrimonial gifts that Eliezer gave to Rivka.⁴ The Midrash, quoted by Rashi attributes symbolic significance to each one of the gifts. Concerning the bracelets, the Torah records that there were two bracelets weighing a total of ten gold shekels, symbolizing the two Tablets containing the Ten Commandments.⁵ What is the significance of the comparison between the bracelets and the Tablets?

The message we are being taught is the following: What Eliezer gave Rivka corresponds conceptually to what Hashem gave Bnei Yisroel. The Tablets represented the beginning of a marital relationship. Amongst the various relationships that Bnei Yisroel established with Hashem at Sinai, a husband-and-wife bond was being formed. Moshe’s breaking the Tablets symbolized the destruction of this relationship, leaving Bnei Yisroel’s relationship to Hashem as one of a subject to a king. Our Sages illustrate the notion that the sin of the Golden Calf was an attack on the husband- wife relationship in the following manner: The Talmud, expounding upon a verse in Shir Hashirim, likens the sin of the Golden Calf to a bride being unfaithful under the wedding canopy.⁶ This can be further understood by the Midrash that teaches that by placing the Tablets side by side the Commandments can be read straight across, i.e. the first one can be read with the sixth, the second with the seventh, etc.⁷ The prohibition against idol worship would match up with the prohibition against adultery. Both are forms of infidelity.

Moshe’s intention in breaking the Tablets was the following: If the Tablets would have been delivered to Bnei Yisroel, then the marital bond would have been complete. Moshe broke the Tablets in order to benefit Bnei Yisroel, for once the bond was broken, we were viewed only as subjects to the king, rather than as His spouse.

Betrayal of a spouse is far more severe than a subject betraying the king.

¹Taanis, 28b
²2.See Rashi Parshas Mishpatim, 24:12
³.Yisro, 20:1; V’Eschanan, 5:6
⁴. Chayei Sarah, 24:22
⁵. Ibid.
⁶. Sotah
⁷7. Pesichta Parshas Yisro