Siman 552

We have learned in the Mishnah in Taanit (26b): On the eve of Tisha B'Av – a person may not eat two cooked foods, and he may not eat meat, and he may not drink wine. And it is explained in the Gemara (30a) that this is only regarding the meal with which he ceases from eating further, and also after midday. But before midday, even if he ceases with it so as not to eat further, and after midday when he does not cease with it, meaning that he will yet eat the seudah hamafseket – he may eat whatever he desires. And behold, regarding the matter of meat and wine, it has already been explained in the previous siman that we do not eat meat and we do not drink wine from Rosh Chodesh. Therefore, for us, the change regarding the seudah hamafseket is only regarding the matter of two cooked foods, which will be explained as to what they are.

And according to the law of the Gemara: even meat and wine—not all of them are forbidden, only meat that was slaughtered two days prior. But salted meat, which is to say it is the third day from its slaughtering—is permitted. And so too wine from its press, which is to say within three days of its treading—is permitted. And so wrote the Rambam in the fifth chapter of Ta'anit, law 7, see there. And the reason: since this is as a remembrance of the sacrifices and the libations—there is no prohibition except in the manner that the sacrifices were eaten as such. And behold, regarding sacrifices: in shelamim the longest time for their eating is two days and one night, as we learned in the chapter "Eizehu Mekoman." Therefore, anything that is not eaten in shelamim—is permitted. And also wine for libations—is disqualified when more than three days have not passed since its treading. Therefore, it is permitted to drink it. And according to this, also poultry, aside from turtledoves and young pigeons, and so too venison—it is permitted to eat, for behold, sacrifices do not come from them. And so wrote the Tur in the name of the Raviah and the Rashbat, see there.

But the Tur himself disagrees in this matter, and this is his wording: It is not for this reason alone that they forbade meat, but rather in order to increase mourning. And you should know, for regarding another mourner—it is a mitzvah to give him wine to drink; yet here they forbade wine, for if he drinks he will forget his poverty, and it is a mitzvah that he remember the destruction of the Temple and grieve over it. Therefore, for this reason, it is proper to forbid even poultry, just like meat. And in the Semak he wrote: Now that most of our food is meat, after two days have passed over it—it appears that it is forbidden. And it is permitted to drink wine from its press, which is only within three days of its treading; thus far his words. And why was he not as stringent regarding wine as with meat? Because we are not accustomed to drinking wine less than three days from its treading, and also there is no concern that he will drink and forget his poverty, since it does not yet have any strength or the taste of wine. But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 2 wrote that even wine from its press—they practiced to forbid, see there. (And what is written in the Shulchan Aruch "fish"—it is certainly a printing error, and likewise in the Hagahot Asheri. And the Magen Avraham, subsection 2, pressed himself to sustain the version, because in Nedarim it is included in the category of meat. But it is not so except for a place where they are accustomed to such, as is written in Yoreh Deah siman 217. And likewise what he wrote because it rises upon the table of kings—what is the connection between one and the other? And how many good foods are there, and they are permitted. And from our custom it is proven so, for we do not eat meat from Rosh Chodesh, yet we eat fish. And so wrote the Gra that it is an error, and likewise in the Atteret Zekenim.)

Also regarding other drinks besides wine, which are permitted to be drunk during the seuda hamafseket – it is proper to diminish in the seuda hamafseket from what one is accustomed to drink. And also one should not drink beer, unless it is weak. And likewise, one should not eat after his meal radish or salt-fish, things which he is accustomed to at other times, so that he may conduct himself with abstinence. This is the wording of the Rambam there (Halacha 9): The early pious ones, such was their measure: On the eve of Tisha B'Av, they would bring to a person alone dry bread with salt, and he dips it in water, and sits between the oven and the stove and eats it, and drinks a pitcher of water with it, in anxiety, in desolation, and in weeping, like one whose deceased relative lies before him. Like this it is proper for sages to do, or close to this. And in our days we have never eaten a cooked dish on the eve of Tisha B'Av, even of lentils, unless it was on Shabbat. Thus far his words.

It is customary to eat lentils or cooked eggs, which are the foods of mourners. Some are accustomed to eat hard and cold eggs, which are also the foods of mourners. Likewise, it is customary to eat round bread called "beigel," for with this we provide the meal of consolation to mourners among us, because of their roundness—to hint that mourning and death are a wheel that turns in the world. Some are stringent to dip bread in ashes after the meal and eat it, based on the verse, "He has broken my teeth with gravel, He has pressed me into the ashes" (Lamentations 3:16). And so it is found in the Yerushalmi at the end of Ta'anit (Chapter 4, Halacha 6), that Rav did so, see there. And one should be careful to take ashes from dairy foods, and not ashes of a mixture of meat and milk, as is written in Yoreh Deah siman 89, see there.

It is the custom to sit upon the ground during the seudah hamafseket, like one who is an onen over the deceased in a state of lowliness; but he should not remove his shoes like a mourner, for mourning does not take effect until the night. Therefore, after the meal – he sits upon the bench. And one must be careful that three should not eat together at the seudah hamafseket and become obligated in zimun; rather, each one should sit alone and recite the blessing for himself. And if it happened that three ate as one – they should perform zimun. Thus ruled the Tur. And in the name of the Ri, he wrote that they should not perform zimun, and the Tur wondered at this, see there. And some say the reason is: that it is not considered a fixed gathering unless they reclined or sat at one table, as I have written in siman 167. And here, it is not their intention to establish a fixed gathering, since each one eats at a small table by himself (Magen Avraham, subsection 9). Therefore, if it happened that three ate at a small table as one – they certainly perform zimun.

And what constitutes two cooked foods? Behold, things that are eaten raw, such as fruits and vegetables that are eaten raw—they are not included in the category of cooked foods, and one may eat many types of them, for a cooked food is only a "cooked food," as its name implies, that which is cooked. And if one cooked them, even if they are eaten raw—they are considered a cooked food. This is not like those who say that something eaten as it is raw is not considered a cooked food even when one cooked them, as in the matter of the cooking of idolaters, for here we do not descend to that, and many good dishes are made from this, and therefore they are considered a cooked food (Tur). And there is reason to doubt whether pickled and salted items are considered a cooked food, such as a salted fish called herring, or a vegetable pickled in vinegar, or in water, for twenty-four hours. And in my humble opinion, it seems that this is not in the category of a cooked food, though there is one who forbids in the case of pickling (She'elat Teshuvah in the name of Knesset HaGedolah). And his reasoning seems to be: because we hold that pickling is like cooking. But in my opinion, there is no connection between these, for that is only regarding the matter of absorption and discharge, and not regarding the status of a cooked food. And the proof is from Nedarim, for one who vows against cooked food is only forbidden in a cooked food that is roasted, or seethed, or cooked—and not in pickled or salted items, as is proven in Yoreh Deah siman 217, see there. And since the sages only forbade two cooked foods, pickling and salting are not included in this. And so it seems to me to be the primary view. And even though regarding the matter of eruv tavshilin pickling is also effective, as I wrote in siman 527, this is not a comparison. For behold, there a cooked food with which one does not eat bread is not effective, such as porridge, as I wrote there. But here it is certainly considered a cooked food. Rather, there is no connection between these, for there it depends on that with which one eats bread, and with pickling one certainly eats bread. But here it depends on the status of a cooked food, and pickling does not have the status of a cooked food.

Two cooked foods are forbidden, even two types of cooked foods in one pot. For example, if one cooks fish and eggs in one pot—it is considered two cooked foods, and anything similar to this. In what case are these words said? Regarding things that are not normally cooked together always. But things that are always cooked together, such as among us where they cook fish with potatoes which are called "bulbes," or where they cook a type of groats with potatoes, or two types of groats, or groats with legumes, for such is the way of their cooking—it is only considered one cooked food. Or according to the ancient times, when they would put onions and eggs inside seeds, and so too anything similar to this. And there is one who wrote that dumplings filled with cheese—are two cooked foods (Magen Avraham, subsection 4). And it is a matter of wonder, for all dumplings are indeed filled with cheese, or with eggs and onions, as is known. And it is possible that in the previous time it was not so. However, in our time, this is certainly only one cooked food. Therefore, it is permitted to eat fried "kreplach," or "blintzes" filled with cheese, or with eggs and onions, and so too anything similar to this.

And likewise, one dish in two pots is forbidden, such as one dish cooked and fried, where in this pot they cooked it, and in this pot they fried it. Or roasted and cooked, such as if one desires to eat cooked fish, and roasted or fried fish. But fried items alone, even if one fried them with butter and milk – it is considered one dish, because such is their manner. Or if one cooked one food in two pots with a variation, such as in one its consistency is thick, and in the second its consistency is thin; but when they are completely equal – it is not relevant to call them two dishes. And one may eat one dish with several types of fruits, and seeds, and raw vegetables. And therefore, according to our custom that we eat eggs – it is forbidden to eat another dish. And the drinking of tea and coffee – it appears to me that it is not considered a type of dish at all, for this is nothing other than like the drinking of water, or other permitted beverages besides wine. And there is one who is uncertain regarding this, and I do not know why. (See Sha'arei Teshuva, that such is the simple custom in the Land of Israel and in Egypt to drink coffee at the seuda hamafseket.)

And all these matters apply to the seuda hamafseket, when his intention is not to eat another fixed meal after it, and also that it is after midday. But if it was before midday, or after midday and his intention is to eat a fixed meal after it – he does not need to be careful in all the matters that have been explained, as I wrote in section 1. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 9: That the custom is to eat a fixed meal before mincha, and afterwards they pray mincha, and they eat the seuda hamafseket. And they are accustomed to increase somewhat in the first meal, so that the fast will not harm them, since they cease while it is still day as on Yom Kippur. And there is some proof for this from Midrash Eicha Rabbati. However, one who is able to afflict himself, and knows that the fast does not harm him, and is stringent upon himself – is called "holy"; thus far his words.

But many and great ones complained about this custom, and the Ramban, of blessed memory, applied to them the verse: "But the belly of the wicked shall want" (Proverbs 13:25). And this is nothing but a mere artifice. And we, Heaven forbid, do not practice so; rather, we eat the entire meal on the ground, and we eat bread with something that is eaten as it is raw, and we eat eggs according to the custom. And that which they are accustomed to cook lokshen with milk – we do not eat it at the time of the seuda hamafseket, because with the eggs there would be two cooked dishes. And thus it is proper to practice. Our teacher, the Rema – was a lover of Israel, and he exerted himself to justify the custom. But it is not correct. And that which he wrote as a proof from a Midrash, it is in the introduction to Eicha Rabbati (siman 17), and this was during the Second Temple when they had this day for joy and gladness, as it will be in the future. And they would drink and become intoxicated, and despite all this they read Megillat Eicha in memory of the destruction of the First Temple. Thus wrote the commentators, and it is correct. (And I wonder at the Magen Avraham: in subsection 11 he alluded to this, so why did he exert himself over the Midrash in subsection 12?)

If Tisha B'Av falls on the first day of the week, or if it falls on Shabbat and is postponed to Sunday – one eats meat and drinks wine in the seuda hamafseket, and may bring to his table even like a feast of Solomon in his time. Nevertheless, one should not conduct himself with joy as on other Shabbats, and should not sit in a meal of friends. And if a mila falls on that Shabbat – they should make the meal before mincha (Magen Avraham subsection 14). And he must also cease while it is still day, before sunset.

One who accepted upon himself a fast on Monday and Thursday all the days of the year, and it occurred that the eve of Tisha B'Av fell on a Monday—but on a Thursday it is impossible, for Tisha B'Av cannot fall on the eve of Shabbat, but when Tisha B'Av falls on a Tuesday, the eve of Tisha B'Av is on Monday—and it is difficult for him to fast two days as one, he should ask a sage regarding his vow and he shall release him, or he should borrow his fast for another day and pay it back. And even though in such a case one should not borrow, as will be explained in siman 568, nevertheless, where there is no choice, one must necessarily do so. And the Geonim wrote that he fasts until after the Mincha prayer, and eats the seuda hamafseket before the setting of the sun, and conducts within it all the stringency of the seuda hamafseket. And he shall not eat two times because of the vow. And such is the law regarding a dream fast, or a yahrtzeit, for one who is accustomed to fast. And some say that regarding a vow, in any case, he should complete it on another day (see Taz subsection 4). And the more correct way is to ask regarding his vow, and so he should do (Magen Avraham subsection 17).

We do not say Tachanun during Mincha on the eve of Tisha B'Av, because it is called "Moed." And likewise, we do not say "Tzidkat-cha Tzedek" during Mincha of Shabbat on the eve of Tisha B'Av. And also on Tisha B'Av itself, it is so. And the matter is as a sign that we are confident in Hashem, may He be blessed, that these days will yet be transformed into festivals, and joy, and Yamim Tovim.