The Days of Bein Hametzarim
[1] (Halacha 1129)
Meat and Wine
Question: From when is it forbidden to eat meat and to drink wine? (1)
Answer: A) Seudah mafsekes: - The Mishnah in Maseches Taanis1 states: 'On Erev Tishah B'Av a person may not eat two cooked dishes; he may not eat meat and may not drink wine'.
And the Gemara explains2: 'Rav Yehudah said: They taught this only from six hours onward, but from six hours and earlier — it is permitted. And Rav Yehudah said: They taught this only regarding the seudah with which one concludes, but at a seudah with which one does not conclude — it is permitted'.
That is, according to the law of the Gemara, the prohibition of eating meat and drinking wine applies at the seudah hamafsekes on Erev Tishah B'Av after chatzos.
> However, we already find in the days of the Geonim that there were communities that were accustomed to be stringent and to move earlier the time at which they do not eat meat and drink wine, as follows:
B) From the morning of Erev Tishah B'Av: -
The Gemara in Taanis there relates: 'Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: This was the minhag of Rabbi Yehudah bar Rabbi Ilai: on Erev Tishah B'Av they would bring him dry bread with salt, between the oven and the stove, and he eats, and drinks a jug of water with it, and he would appear like one whose deceased relative lies before him'.
That is, Rabbi Yehudah bar Rabbi Ilai was stringent with himself, and throughout the entire Erev Tishah B'Av he ate only dry bread and water.
In Otzar HaGeonim3 a responsum of the Geonim is cited: 'And regarding meat and wine on Erev Tishah B'Av, the widespread halacha is that it is forbidden only at the seudah with which one concludes, provided that this seudah is from six hours onward; but if a person ate the seudah with which he concludes before six hours, he is permitted meat and wine .. Nevertheless, there are many who are stringent with themselves, not because they are obligated, but as an extra measure; and we have never eaten meat on Erev Tishah B'Av'.
And the Orchos Chaim wrote4: 'And there are perushim who refrain from all kinds of accompaniments to bread and eat only bread with salt and water in measured amounts .. And some are accustomed not to eat meat and not to drink wine, as we have written. And even though the conclusion of the halacha is that meat and wine are forbidden only at the seudah with which one concludes, provided he holds it from six hours onward, nevertheless the early authorities instituted in most places not to eat meat that entire day, except for one who was weak or ill'.
C) The week in which Tishah B'Av falls: - The Rambam wrote5: 'And the Jewish people have already been accustomed not to eat meat during this week ..'.
And the Maggid Mishneh wrote: 'This minhag has not spread in these lands with regard to eating meat, for they refrain only on the eve of the fast'.
D) Rosh Chodesh Av: - In the Yerushalmi6 a minhag is cited that they were accustomed to prohibit from Rosh Chodesh, and there are Rishonim whose version of the words of the Yerushalmi7 is that this concerns eating meat.
And the Ri"tz Gias8 wrote: 'And Mar Rav Hai was asked: they are accustomed in these places, that even though they refrain from eating meat from Rosh Chodesh Av until the fast ..'.
And so it is written in Sefer HaPardes9: '.. our great teacher R. Yitzchak son of R. Yehudah, of blessed memory .. and from Rosh Chodesh until the fast he would not eat meat ..'.
And so wrote the Rambam there: 'And there are places where they were accustomed to cease shechitah from Rosh Chodesh until the fast'. And so wrote many Rishonim10.
E) The 17th of Tammuz: - It is written in Sefer HaPardes there: 'And Rav Saadiah told me that the three weeks from the 17th of Tammuz until the 9th of Av are [alluded to in Daniel], who fasted three weeks — that one must fast from meat .. And so it is found in the Talmud Yerushalmi: the master said, these women of ours who do not drink wine from the 17th of Tammuz until Tishah B'Av; and most of the Geonim in Lothaire are accustomed not to eat meat and not to drink wine. When Av enters, we diminish in joy, and on Erev Tishah B'Av bread with salt and water; and there are those who begin earlier, from the 17th of Tammuz, to conduct themselves thus'.
And in the Hagahos Maimonios11: 'And as for the practice of people not to eat meat from the 17th of Tammuz until Tishah B'Av, it is found in the name of Rav Saadiah Gaon, for they are alluded to in Daniel'. This minhag is mentioned in other Rishonim as well12.
> Thus we have seen the law of the Gemara regarding the prohibition of eating meat on Erev Tishah B'Av after chatzos at the seudah hamafsekes, and that over the generations various communities among the Jewish people were stringent with themselves not to eat meat already before then. In the next halacha we will see how the halacha was ruled.
Notes:
1 26b ↩
2 30a ↩
3 Taanis, siman 95 ↩
4 Chelek 1, Hilchos Tishah B'Av, os 6 ↩
5 Hilchos Taaniyos, perek 5, halacha 6 ↩
6 Pesachim, perek 4, halacha 1 ↩
7 See Avudraham, Seder Tefillas HaTaaniyos ↩
8 Hilchos Tishah B'Av ↩
9 Hilchos Tishah B'Av ↩
10 See Ra'avyah, chelek 3, Hilchos Taanis, siman 882. Rokeach, siman 310. HaManhig, Hilchos Tishah B'Av. HaParnes, siman 424. Ramban in Toras HaAdam, Sha'ar HaEvel - Inyan Aveilus Yeshanah. Ritva, Taanis 26b. Mordechai, Taanis, remez 639. Rabbeinu Yerucham - Toldos Adam VeChavah, nesiv 18, chelek 2, 164c ↩
11 Hilchos Taaniyos, perek 5, halacha 3 ↩
12 See Shibbolei HaLeket, siman 266 ↩
[2] (Halacha 1130)
Meat and Wine
In the previous halacha we saw the sources of the minhogim regarding the time from which they were accustomed not to eat meat during this period of Bein HaMeitzarim.
Question: What is the practice in actuality? (2)
Answer: The Mechaber wrote1 the law of the Gemara: 'On Erev Tishah B'Av, at the seudah hamafsekes, which one eats after chatzos, a person may not eat meat, may not drink wine, and may not eat two cooked dishes'.
In addition, the Mechaber cited2 the various minhogim regarding moving the time of the prohibition earlier: 'Some are accustomed not to eat meat and not to drink wine during this week, and some add from Rosh Chodesh until the fast, and some add from the 17th of Tammuz'.
> And in practice, the minhag in Ashkenaz is to be stringent from Rosh Chodesh Av, including Rosh Chodesh itself, as follows:
It is written in a gloss in the Maharil3: 'And we practice the prohibition of meat and wine from Rosh Chodesh until Motza'ei Tishah B'Av. And Rosh Chodesh itself is forbidden'.
And so it is cited regarding the Arizal4 [who did not eat meat or drink wine already from the 17th of Tammuz] that he was stringent on Rosh Chodesh itself as well: 'I also saw that my teacher, of blessed memory, would not eat meat nor drink wine from the 17th of Tammuz until Motza'ei Tishah B'Av, Motza'ei Tishah B'Av included, unless it was postponed, in which case he would eat on Motza'ei Tishah B'Av. And this he practiced on weekdays, and even on the day of Rosh Chodesh Av, but not on Shabbosos'.
And so it is written in Seder HaYom5: 'And even on the day of Rosh Chodesh itself, even though it is Rosh Chodesh and it is a day of joy, this Rosh Chodesh is different, for it is the head of the month of calamity'.
And the Magen Avraham wrote6: 'It appears to me that as soon as the congregation has davened Maariv on Motza'ei Shabbos, even though the individual has not yet davened, he is forbidden meat and wine, and the same applies to Rosh Chodesh according to our practice .. And some refrain after sunset'.
And the Pri Megadim wrote in Eshel Avraham: 'And some refrain after sunset, meaning the beginning of sunset, even though it is still bein hashmashos and he has not davened Maariv, etc.'.
[And the Mekor Chaim (Bachrach) wrote7: 'And it does not appear as gluttony that in large communities they call out in the street on Erev Rosh Chodesh to eat meat'].
> However, the Sefardim were accustomed to permit eating meat and drinking wine on the day of Rosh Chodesh itself, as follows:
The Knesses HaGedolah wrote8: 'It is not clarified in the words of the poskim whether Rosh Chodesh is included in the prohibition, or whether on Rosh Chodesh it is permitted. And by force of reasoning it appears that it is not proper to practice matters of mourning on Rosh Chodesh; and so is the widespread minhag in Kushta to eat meat and drink wine on Rosh Chodesh, even though they refrain from Rosh Chodesh onward. And it appears to me that even those who refrain from eating meat and drinking wine from the 17th of Tammuz onward are permitted to eat meat and drink wine on Rosh Chodesh, just as on Shabbosos, when they are permitted to eat meat .. And I am among those who are accustomed not to eat meat and drink wine from the 17th of Tammuz onward, and on Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh I eat meat and drink wine .. And it appears that since this matter is only a minhag — when they accepted upon themselves not to eat meat and drink wine, they accepted it upon themselves from Rosh Chodesh onward, and Rosh Chodesh is not included'9.
And so wrote the Chida10: 'On Rosh Chodesh Av we have been accustomed to eat meat in honor of Rosh Chodesh'. And HaGaon R. Chaim Palagi wrote11: 'Who is greater for us than Yosef the righteous, who wrote in Moreh B'Etzba, os 233, that on Rosh Chodesh Av we have been accustomed to eat meat in honor of Rosh Chodesh'.
And the Ben Ish Chai12 wrote: 'And here in our city of Baghdad, may Hashem protect it, Amen, they practice the prohibition from the night of the second of the month of Av'.
And HaGaon R. Ovadiah Yosef wrote in Yechaveh Daas13: 'And in Yerushalayim they were accustomed not to eat meat beginning from Rosh Chodesh Av, except that on the day of Rosh Chodesh Av itself they were accustomed to permit it, as written in Sefer Shulchan Melachim, and cited in Sefer Pri HaAdamah, chelek 4 (8:4) .. Nevertheless, the minhag among us in Yerushalayim is to be lenient on Rosh Chodesh Av regarding eating meat, and nothing stands against the minhag'.
> Thus in practice, according to the minhag of the Ashkenazim, one does not eat meat or drink wine from Rosh Chodesh Av, including Rosh Chodesh itself14. And according to the minhag of the Sefardim, one does not eat from the 2nd of Menachem Av onward.
And the Rashba wrote in a responsum15: 'And greater than this, your fathers, may their souls rest, were accustomed not to eat meat once Av enters. And even though there is no prohibition here at all according to the law of the Talmud .. even so, one who eats meat in all the places where they were accustomed to the prohibition breaches the fence of the early ones, and ופורץ גדר ישכנו נחש ("one who breaches a fence, a snake shall bite him") of their words'.
And based on this, the Mechaber wrote16: 'Anyone who eats meat in a place where they are accustomed to the prohibition is a breacher of the fence, and a snake shall bite him'.
Notes:
1 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 552, se'if 1 ↩
2 There, siman 551, se'if 9 ↩
3 Hilchos 17 B'Tammuz VeTishah B'Av ↩
4 Sha'ar HaKavanos, Inyan Bein HaMeitzarim, in gloss 4 ↩
5 Inyan 17 B'Tammuz U'Bein HaMeitzarim ↩
6 There, se'if katan 26 ↩
7 Siman 551, se'if 9 ↩
8 Shiyarei Knesses HaGedolah, Hagahos Beis Yosef, Orach Chaim there, os 26 ↩
9 And see Ma'amar Mordechai, se'if katan 9 ↩
10 Moreh B'Etzba, os 233 ↩
11 Moed L'Chol Chai, siman 10, os 7 ↩
12 Shanah Rishonah, Devarim, se'if 15 ↩
13 Chelek 1, siman 41 ↩
14 Note what is written in Darkei Chaim VeShalom, os 666, regarding the author of the Minchas Elazar: 'He conducted himself, and said that such was the view of his holy fathers and teachers, to eat meat at the Rosh Chodesh seudah even without a siyum masechta — see his reason in Sha'ar Yissachar (Ma'amar Chodesh Tammuz-Av, os 9) — but he revealed his view that this applies specifically to those who conduct themselves like our teachers, the disciples of the Baal Shem Tov, who hold an expanded seudah in public on every Rosh Chodesh, and it is a seudas mitzvah that should not be cancelled even now' ↩
15 Chelek 1, siman 306 ↩
16 There, se'if 11 ↩
[3] (Halacha 1131)
Meat and Wine
Question: Are poultry and fish included in the prohibition of eating meat at the seudah hamafsekes [and likewise in our minhag of refraining from eating it earlier, already from Rosh Chodesh]?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Taanis1 states: 'He may not eat meat and may not drink wine. It was taught: but he may eat salted meat and drink wine from his vat. Salted meat — until when? Rav Chinena bar Kahana said in the name of Shmuel: as long as it is like shelamim'.
And the Ra'avyah wrote2: 'And it was taught: but he may eat salted meat and drink wine from his vat. Meat, as long as it is like shelamim — two days and one night — is forbidden to eat, for regarding shelamim "שמחה" (joy) is written, as we say in Arvei Pesachim that when the Beis HaMikdash stood there was no joy except with meat, as it says "וְזָבַחְתָּ שְׁלָמִים" ("And you shall slaughter shelamim"). And in Perek Ben Sorer U'Moreh we also say that he is not liable unless he eats a tartemar of meat, and only meat that is like shelamim, in which there is joy; and it continues after it: Rava said, if he ate poultry he does not become a ben sorer u'moreh. And we learn in Perek [Kamma] of Chagigah [halacha]: Yisroel fulfill [the obligation of rejoicing] with nedarim [and the rejoicing] of those that contain joy — excluding poultry, which contain no joy. And it appears that the same applies to the seudah hamafsekes, that it is permitted; and so ruled Rabbeinu Shab"t3.
> Thus, according to his words, the entire prohibition of eating meat at the seudah hamafsekes applies only to the meat of domesticated animals, and not to poultry.
However, his student the Or Zarua4 cited his words and wrote: 'And my teacher, Rabbeinu Avi HaEzri, wrote that it is permitted to eat poultry at the seudah hamafsekes .. And even though this is the truth, even so it is not proper to do so, and Heaven forbid that any God-fearing person should eat at the seudah hamafsekes salted meat, or drink wine from his vat, or eat poultry or fish; and there is also a prohibition, for our forefathers were already accustomed to refrain from all of these, and this involves "בל תטוש תורת אמך" ("Do not forsake the teaching of your mother")'.
And the Hagahos Asheri cited it5: 'Even though from the halacha it is implied that it is permitted to eat at the seudah hamafsekes salted meat, or poultry and fish, and to drink wine from his vat, meaning as long as it is fermenting, nevertheless it is not proper to do so, and there is also a prohibition because of "בל תטוש תורת אמך" ("Do not forsake the teaching of your mother"). Or Zarua'.
And there are those who disagreed with him on the law itself, as Rabbeinu Avraham Childuk wrote in his Sefer HaMinhagim6: 'On Erev Tishah B'Av a person may not eat at the seudah hamafsekes meat and wine, nor two cooked dishes such as eggs .. And there are those who wish to infer from there that it is permitted to eat poultry on Erev Tishah B'Av, since it contains no joy. And HaRav R. Baruch says: Who tells us that the halacha follows Rav Ashi, who derives it from that reason, that they contain no joy? Perhaps it follows the one who concludes there that it is because the chagigah offering does not come from them. And furthermore, even if the halacha follows Rav Ashi, perhaps that reason applies regarding the rejoicing of Yom Tov, which requires extra joy, as it is written "וְשָׂמַחְתָּ" ("And you shall rejoice"), and it speaks of the time when the Beis HaMikdash stood; and regarding a ben sorer u'moreh too, we require something that draws him on. But regarding Tishah B'Av, which is because of mourning, one may say that even the slightest joy, such as poultry, [is forbidden]'.
And even more than this, the Mordechai wrote7 [cited by the Agur8]: 'And it appears in my humble opinion that for us, who practice the prohibition, it is forbidden from Rosh Chodesh even with salted meat and fermenting wine, and the same applies to poultry'.
And the Tur wrote9: 'It appears that even though it contains no joy, it is forbidden, for they did not forbid meat because of joy alone, but rather in order to increase mourning. Know this, for regarding another mourner, it is a mitzvah to give him wine to drink, as we say: wine was created only to comfort mourners with it, for it is a mitzvah to comfort him so that he forgets his pain; and 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 Beis HaMikdash and grieve over it. Therefore, for this reason one should forbid even poultry, like meat. And in the Semak he wrote that now, since most of our food is meat, after two days have passed over it, it appears that it is forbidden'.
And the Beis Yosef wrote10: 'And from the words of the Mordechai, which I will write in the following siman, it appears that for those who practice the prohibition of meat and wine from Rosh Chodesh or from the 17th of Tammuz, even poultry, or salted meat and fermenting wine, are forbidden. However, if when he began the practice he stipulated that he would not be bound regarding poultry and the like, it is obvious that he is not bound regarding them'.
> Thus we have seen that the Ra'avyah wrote that it is permitted to eat poultry at the seudah hamafsekes; however, his student the Or Zarua wrote that despite this it is not proper to do so [and in his words he mentioned refraining from fish as well]; and there are Rishonim who disagreed with the Ra'avyah and wrote that it is forbidden by law; and the Mordechai added that for those who are stringent not to eat meat from Rosh Chodesh, poultry too is included in this. And in the next halacha we will see how the halacha was ruled.
Notes:
1 30a ↩
2 Hilchos Taanis, siman 888 ↩
3 Rabbeinu Shmuel ben Natronai ↩
4 Chelek 2, Hilchos Tishah B'Av, siman 415 ↩
5 Taanis, perek 4, siman 35 ↩
6 Minhagei Tishah B'Av VeTaanis Tzibbur ↩
7 Taanis, remez 639. (What is cited below is from the Mordechai HaShalem, Machon Yerushalayim edition; and see there in the notes the variations from the printed Mordechai, as it appears in the Beis Yosef, siman 552) ↩
8 Hilchos Tishah B'Av, siman 830 ↩
9 Orach Chaim, siman 552 ↩
10 Orach Chaim, siman 551. And see also his words in siman 552 ↩
[4] (Halacha 1132)
Meat and Wine
In the previous halacha we saw that there are Rishonim who wrote to permit eating poultry at the seudah hamafsekes; on the other hand, some wrote that it is forbidden and also mentioned fish, and some wrote that for those who are stringent not to eat meat from Rosh Chodesh, this includes poultry as well.
Question: How was it ruled as halacha?
Answer: The Mechaber wrote1, regarding the minhag to begin the abstention from meat and wine earlier: 'There is one who says that those who are accustomed not to eat meat on the aforementioned days are permitted a cooked dish in which meat was cooked, but are forbidden poultry, salted meat, and fermenting wine; and it is permitted to drink the wine of Havdalah and of Birkas HaMazon'.
And regarding the seudah hamafsekes on Erev Tishah B'Av, the Mechaber wrote2: 'Even salted meat over which more than two days and one night have passed, and poultry and fish, and wine from its vat, that is, which is not more than three days old — the custom is to forbid'.
> Thus the Mechaber, regarding the minhag to be stringent before Erev Tishah B'Av, wrote that there is one who says that poultry is forbidden, and regarding Erev Tishah B'Av he mentioned that the custom is to forbid fish as well.
The Ateres Zekeinim3 wondered about the Mechaber: 'This requires further study, for is it not obvious that fish is not included in "meat"? And I did not find any one of the Acharonim who wrote "fish"; and likewise our teacher the Rema, in the Darchei Moshe, did not cite "fish" in transcribing the words of the Hagahos Asheri. And possibly he means that any choice food is forbidden to eat at the seudah hamafsekes, just as the Tur forbids any food that is eaten as a mark of honor; and this is the reason that one may not eat two cooked dishes, according to the words of the Ri"tz Gias, even a cooked dish of lentils; [and] the Rambam wrote4: "In all our days we did not eat even a cooked dish of lentils on Erev Tishah B'Av unless it fell on Shabbos"; see there. Rather, it is fitting to be stringent like Rabbi Yehudah bar [Ilai], to whom they would bring dry bread with salt, and he would drink a pitcher of water. Therefore it appears to me that for this reason the Hagahos Asheri forbids a dish of fish at the seudah hamafsekes, because it is a food of honor that is served at the table of kings; and now, in our times, fish is more of a food of honor than beef and poultry'.
And the Nachalas Tzvi5 wrote: 'And one may wonder: is it not obvious that fish is not included in the meat of animals and poultry? If so, why is the custom to forbid it? For according to the reason the Mordechai wrote for forbidding poultry — since we are accustomed to forbid it from Rosh Chodesh — it is obvious that one should not forbid eating fish at the seudah hamafsekes, since we are not accustomed to forbid fish from Rosh Chodesh. And also according to the reason that the Tur wrote for forbidding poultry, there is likewise no reason to forbid fish; and also all the Acharonim did not mention a prohibition to eat fish at the seudah hamafsekes; this requires further study'.
And the Magen Avraham wrote6: 'The Nachalas Tzvi wrote that it is a scribal error, and it should read "and young goats". But it is difficult to say that one error fell into all the books of the Rav Beis Yosef, the Shulchan Aruch, and the Hagahos Asheri; and furthermore, the Hagahos Asheri wrote that according to the strict law it is permitted, and if you would think that it refers to young goats, why would it be permitted? It is meat according to all opinions. Therefore it appears to me that the reading "fish" is the main one, because there is a context in which fish is included in meat7, as written in Yoreh De'ah, siman 217, se'if 8; and furthermore, it is served at the table of kings and it is a joy to a person'8.
However, the Eliyah Rabbah9 wrote: 'However, this requires further study, for here the Shulchan Aruch added fish to the prohibition, whereas in truth the Levush, se'if 2, wrote "and salted fish", and from the Tur it is clear that it is permitted; and it is difficult to distinguish between salted meat and salted fish. And furthermore, we say in Perek HaSefinah10: "Salted fish is beneficial; salted meat is not beneficial". And the Magen Avraham did not notice this, and forbids fish because they are a joy. Also, regarding what he wrote, and this is his wording: "The Nachalas Tzvi wrote that it is a scribal error and it should read 'and young goats', but it is difficult to say that one error fell into all the books of the Beis Yosef and the Shulchan Aruch; and furthermore, if it refers to young goats, why is it permitted according to the strict law?" — end of his words — I examined the Nachalas Tzvi, and he did not write at all that it is a scribal error; rather, in the Beis Yosef itself, in the Venice printing that is before me, it reads "young goats"'.
The Bigdei Yesha11 agreed with the Eliyah Rabbah and wrote: 'Therefore it appears to explain that the reading "young goats" should not be erased; and if you will say: this is obvious, for meat was already forbidden from Rosh Chodesh — that is from minhag, but here the Shulchan Aruch writes what is from the strict law of the Gemara; and what the Hagahos Asheri wrote, that according to the strict law it is permitted, refers to salted meat after two days and one night have passed over it; and consider this carefully'12.
On the other hand, the Chida13 wrote: 'And regarding what the Rav Magen Avraham wrote, that there are those who emend it to "young goats", and that in print, in some manuscript, there is such a reading — that reading and the aforementioned emendation do not exist; and the truth is that we read "fish", and one should not permit it at all, as Maran wrote; and see what the Rav Eliyah Rabbah wrote'.
And in the Kaf HaChaim14 he wrote: 'Specifically unsalted ones, but salted fish are permitted, and it is not comparable to salted meat .. And so it is implied from the words of the Mo'ed Lechol Chai, siman 10, os 30, who wrote: "And also fresh fish that are not salted are forbidden to eat at the seudah hamafsekes"; end of his words — implying that salted fish are permitted. However, one may question this from what is written in Maseches Basra, daf 74b: "Salted fish is beneficial; salted meat is not beneficial"; and if so, since salted meat is forbidden, all the more so fish. And possibly not all salted fish are equal, as it is stated there in the Gemara: "If you wish, say: a salted female is beneficial"; and furthermore one may say that specifically when salted as needed it is beneficial, but if it is not salted as needed — too much or too little — it is not beneficial. And nevertheless, we have not seen anyone who is lenient in this; and possibly in a case of need, for instance where he cannot eat other foods, one may be lenient if those fish are inferior to fresh ones'.
> Thus we have seen that according to the opinion of the Mechaber it is forbidden to eat poultry and fish at the seudah hamafsekes, and some Acharonim wrote to be lenient regarding fish; however, the Magen Avraham and other poskim agreed with the words of the Mechaber to forbid fish as well15.
--------------
Notes:
1 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 551, se'if 10 ↩
2 Ibid., siman 552, se'if 2 ↩
3 Ibid., se'if katan 2 ↩
4 Hilchos Taaniyos, perek 5, halacha 9 ↩
5 Shulchan Aruch, ibid., se'if 2 ↩
6 Ibid., se'if katan 2 ↩
7 The Acharonim (see Yad Efraim, Nesiv Chaim, Machatzis HaShekel, Gilyon Maharsha) remarked that seemingly the words of the Magen Avraham here contradict what he wrote in se'if katan 4: 'It appears to me that most of the time one puts onions and eggs into peas, just as it is customary to fry dough with eggs, *but fish may not be fried with eggs*, since most of the time they are cooked without eggs, as written in the Tur, and everything similar'. And in the glosses of HaGaon R. B. Frenkel he wrote to distinguish: 'One may say that this refers to small fish that are not served at the table of kings, as stated regarding bishul akum in Yoreh De'ah, siman 113 (Taz, se'if katan 12; Shach, se'if katan 16), for regarding them importance and joy are not relevant, and it is permitted to eat them even according to the minhag that the Mechaber wrote in se'if 2, that the custom is not to eat fish, according to the reading of the Magen Avraham and the Ateres Zekeinim. And pay attention to the words of the Ateres Zekeinim, the main point of whose words is that now, in our times, fish is more of a food of honor than beef and poultry. And see Rashi at the end of Parshas Pinchas (Bamidbar 29:36) on the pasuk [פר אחד איל אחד] ("one bull, one ram"), where Rashi departed from the wording of Chazal (Tanchuma there, os 17) regarding the importance of a seudah of fish as opposed to the meat of an animal, for everything is according to the time' ↩
8 See what is written in the gloss of the Mahar"tz Spitz (printed together with the Ateres Zekeinim), and what the Ma'amar Mordechai, ibid., se'if katan 2, replied to him. (And note the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, Orach Chaim, siman 499, Kuntres Acharon, se'if katan 3) ↩
9 Siman 552, se'if katan 1 ↩
10 Bava Basra 74b ↩
11 See also Aruch HaShulchan, ibid., se'if 3: 'And what is written in the Shulchan Aruch, "fish", is certainly a printing error, and likewise in the Hagahos Asheri; and the Magen Avraham, se'if katan 2, strained to uphold the reading because regarding vows it is included in meat — but it is not so, except in a place where people are accustomed so, as written in Yoreh De'ah, siman 217; and likewise what he wrote, because it is served at the table of kings — what does one have to do with the other? There are many good foods and they are permitted. And from our minhag 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 so in the Ateres Zekeinim' ↩
12 Machazik Bracha, ibid., se'if katan 4 ↩
13 Ibid., se'if katan 18 ↩
14 See also Yalkut Yosef, Dinei Seudah Mafsekes, din 1 ↩
[5] (Halacha 1133)
Meat and Wine
Question: Is it possible to be lenient in a case of need, for instance for the sick, regarding eating meat and drinking wine?
Answer: Regarding a sick person, the Orchos Chaim wrote1: 'And some are accustomed not to eat meat and not to drink wine, as we wrote; and even though the conclusion of the halacha is that meat and wine are forbidden only at the seudah with which one concludes before the fast, and that is when he holds it from six hours onward, nevertheless the early ones instituted in most places not to eat meat that entire day, except one who was weak or sick'.
And the Rema wrote2 in a gloss: 'And from Rosh Chodesh onward they put away the shechitah knife, for they slaughter only for the needs of a mitzvah, such as for a sick person, or Shabbos, or a bris milah, or a pidyon haben, and the like'.
And the Mishnah Berurah wrote3: 'For a sick person — even one who is slightly sick'.
And regarding a yoledes, the Leket Yosher wrote4: 'And women after childbirth eat meat until seven days'.
[However, it is not clear whether he means until seven days from the birth, or until the seventh day of the month of Av; and see below in the words of the Magen Avraham].
And the Magen Avraham wrote5: 'Some women after childbirth are accustomed to refrain from meat and wine from the seventh of Av onward, and this is proper, for on that day the gentiles entered the Heichal, as stated in the Tur'.
And the Mishnah Berurah explained6: 'And even though in siman 554, se'if katan 9, the Magen Avraham wrote that some women after childbirth are accustomed to refrain from meat and wine from the seventh of Av onward, that is where there is no illness'.
Until when is she considered a yoledes — the Eshel Avraham (Butchach) wrote7: 'Some women after childbirth are accustomed to refrain from meat and wine from the seventh of Av onward. And the limit was not specified; and by the letter of the halacha, until thirty days they are considered women after childbirth even regarding a fixed halacha in siman 554, and all the more so in this. However, since they are accustomed to be stringent upon themselves, as long as they have not risen from what is called "kindbett", until that Shabbos she is certainly included in the category of a yoledes; and also afterwards, whenever they ask a question about this, presumably she has not recovered so much; and all the more so since they are accustomed to eat only poultry, and regarding poultry one may be completely lenient. However, when she eats meat of an animal and poultry is not so available to them, one may also permit it until thirty days; and whenever they ask a question, and until they rise as mentioned above, one may be especially lenient in this'.
And regarding nursing women, the Eliyah Rabbah wrote8: 'Nursing women whose baby is sick, to the point that it is bad for him when his mother does not eat meat — one may be lenient'.
> Thus we have seen that a sick person, and likewise a nursing woman where there is distress to the baby, may eat meat, and a yoledes may eat until the seventh of Av.
Regarding a woman at the time of her niddah, the Leket Yosher wrote there: 'But a woman whose period came between Rosh Chodesh Av and the ninth of Av does not eat meat'.
However, the Shvus Yaakov9 wrote to permit, and this is his wording: 'And regarding what you asked concerning a woman who saw her niddah blood on Rosh Chodesh Av, whether she is permitted to eat meat during this week .. Indeed, I found some support to permit from Tosafos, Maseches Kesubos, Perek Af Al Pi, daf 63b, regarding what was taught: "A moredes — it is all the same to me whether she is betrothed or married, even a niddah, etc."; and Tosafos wrote there, s.v. Ela: "According to the one who says her rebellion is from relations, a niddah is fit for relations; and if you will say, according to the one who says it is from work, what is the 'even' that it teaches, 'even a niddah'? One may say that it is a novelty because ordinary niddos are somewhat sick"; end of quote. Thus, all seven days of her niddah she is presumed to be somewhat sick; and since the essence of this law not to eat meat is only by virtue of minhag, if so, in a case of a sick person, even one who is somewhat sick, one should not practice the prohibition, and especially whenever she comes to ask, she certainly feels in herself that she cannot tolerate dairy food because of a discomfort in her body. And for this reason I have permitted many times to nursing women that they are permitted to eat meat dishes on these days — if you wish, say it is for her own benefit, as stated in the Shas at the end of Perek Af Al Pi, that ordinary nursing women are sick; and if you wish, say it is for the benefit of the child. And for this reason they are lenient in many matters for a pregnant woman and a nursing woman, even regarding the four fasts. And anyone who comes to ask during these days, who cannot tolerate eating dairy food because of some discomfort and slight illness, I instruct him leniently, for danger is more severe than a prohibition; and this is specifically to eat poultry, as the Acharonim wrote in Orach Chaim, siman 551. However, one who knows of himself that he can eat dairy food without it harming him at all, but only wishes to follow his desire and the stubbornness of his heart, is included in "פורץ גדר ישכנו נחש" ("one who breaches a fence will be bitten by a snake"), and "ותהי עוונתו על עצמותיו" ("and his iniquity shall be upon his bones"); but otherwise one should not be stringent; so it appears to me'.
And the Sha'arei Teshuvah10 cited the words of the Shvus Yaakov and wrote: 'And it appears that everything is according to the judgment of the moreh hora'ah: if the people are unrestrained in treating transgressions lightly, one should be more stringent; and in any event one should not permit both meat and wine, but only one of them, as written in se'if katan 33 in the name of the Shvus Yaakov himself, part 3, regarding the night before the bris milah; see there. Also, the moreh hora'ah should let it be known that if it is not very difficult for him, one should refrain from the seventh of Av onward, as the Magen Avraham wrote in siman 554, that some women after childbirth are accustomed to refrain from meat and wine'.
And the Eshel Avraham (Butchach) wrote11: 'Regarding the custom of abstaining from eating meat from Rosh Chodesh Menachem Av until after the fast, distress that differs from that of the healthy suffices to be lenient, for even the enactments of Chazal that are fixed for the entire people of Bnei Yisroel, and were fixed before the sealing of hora'ah (in the strength of "the craftsmen and the smiths", whose root was open to them), were made lenient on account of distress. And elsewhere I wrote that possibly one may say there are distinctions between the enactments and in the type of distress. However, regarding a custom as mentioned above, logically there is no distinction, and on account of distress that differs from that of the healthy it is lenient. And also when a doctor says it causes distress as mentioned above, it is lenient; and also on account of a learned gentile doctor, one may say that it is lenient. And especially when Tishah B'Av falls on Sunday, when there is then no "week in which Tishah B'Av falls", it is then more lenient; and nevertheless, only poultry, which is preferable for health in this, if it is available. And to abstain from the seventh of the month, like a yoledes, is good'.
And the Mishnah Berurah12 wrote: 'And they are forbidden poultry — nevertheless, one who is unable to eat dairy foods is permitted to eat poultry or meat salted for three days'.
Thus we have seen that some were lenient to eat poultry even without actual illness, but rather when one is in distress and the like13, but for a healthy person one should not be lenient in this.
Notes:
1 Part 1, Hilchos Tishah B'Av, os 6 ↩
2 Siman 551, se'if 9 ↩
3 Ibid., se'if katan 61 ↩
4 Orach Chaim, 107b ↩
5 Siman 554, se'if katan 9 ↩
6 Siman 551, se'if katan 61 ↩
7 Siman 554 ↩
8 Siman 551, se'if katan 22, cited in the Mishnah Berurah, ibid., se'if katan 64 ↩
9 Part 1, siman 27 ↩
10 Siman 551, se'if katan 28 ↩
11 Siman 551, se'if 9 ↩
12 Siman 551, se'if katan 64 ↩
13 And some were lenient only until the seventh of Av ↩
[6] (Halacha 1134)
Meat and Wine
Question: What is the law regarding a cooked dish of meat?
Answer: The Kolbo wrote1: 'And some refrain from eating meat from when Av enters, because there is no joy except with meat; and even so, they need not refrain from a cooked dish in which meat was cooked, for his intention is to cause himself distress, and he has been distressed; and furthermore, we say in Nedarim that one who vows to abstain from meat is permitted a cooked dish'.
And it is explained in the Levush2: 'Some say that even those who are accustomed not to eat meat and wine are permitted a cooked dish in which meat was cooked, for they did not adopt this practice because of a prohibition; rather, their intention is to cause themselves distress — and not merely because of mourning and joy, for if so, why did they not forbid meat and wine to another mourner? On the contrary, it is a mitzvah to give him wine to drink so that he forgets his distress, and to comfort him; but here it is a mitzvah not to be comforted but rather to increase mourning, so that he remembers and is distressed over the destruction of Yerushalayim. Therefore a cooked dish of meat is permitted, for the taste of meat, without its substance, does not make him forget his distress'.
And as halacha, the Mechaber wrote3: 'There is one who says that those who are accustomed not to eat meat on the aforementioned days are permitted a cooked dish in which meat was cooked'.
And regarding meat fat, the Magen Avraham wrote4: 'And it appears to me that meat fat has the law of meat itself, and it is forbidden to eat a cooked dish containing fat'.
The Bigdei Yesha5 cited the wording of the Levush and wrote: 'However, according to this, he should likewise not have forbidden even fat. But one may distinguish: lean meat that was cooked imparts only its taste, but fat that melted imparts its taste and its substance, and it is as if he eats the meat itself; whereas lean meat does not melt, and there is only its exuded taste'.
And so wrote the Mekor Chaim6 (Bacharach): And fat is worse, and its law is like meat, and therefore cholent and kuchen, even if most of them is oil, are forbidden; whereas if all of it is oil and a piece of meat is placed on the cholent, it is permitted'.
And regarding meat gravy, the Taz wrote7 [regarding the permissibility of using vinegar made from wine]: 'For this prohibition is like a vow, as the Beis Yosef wrote in the name of an Ashkenazi responsum, and one who vows to abstain from wine is permitted wine vinegar, as written in Yoreh De'ah, siman 211, se'if 11. Seemingly it would appear that since it is stated there that one who vows to abstain from wine, and that wine became vinegar, is forbidden in it, so too here, at this time one is forbidden vinegar that was made from wine during that time. But it does not appear so, for there the wine itself was forbidden by virtue of the prohibition of the vow that rests upon it, whereas here the prohibition is only because of joy, and in vinegar there is no joy; if so, the prohibition itself has turned into permission. And also regarding meat, according to the law of the Talmud, it is proven so in the Tur in the following siman, that after three days it is like dead, and it is exactly like the vinegar here. And the proof: here a cooked dish of meat was permitted, as written after this, whereas for one who vows to abstain from this meat and wine, certainly also the cooked dish that absorbed taste from it is forbidden, as written in Yoreh De'ah, siman 217; rather, it is certainly as I wrote. And here it is similar to one who vows to abstain from meat and wine in general, who is permitted a cooked dish that has the taste of wine; and all the more so it is permitted here where wine became mixed into a cooked dish, even though it has the taste of wine — so it appears to me in my humble opinion, simply; and so it is implied in the Kolbo, which the Beis Yosef cites in this siman. For the reason I wrote, it is clear that in these days meat gravy is permitted, as with one who vows to abstain from meat, in Yoreh De'ah, siman 217'.
And he repeated his words8: 'Shortly above it was explained that even meat gravy is permitted'.
> Thus according to the words of the Mechaber it is permitted to eat a cooked dish in which meat was cooked; and the Acharonim wrote that meat fat has the law of meat itself; and the Taz added to the Mechaber and wrote that meat gravy is also permitted.
However, in practice the Magen Avraham wrote there: 'And nowadays the general custom is to forbid even a cooked dish of meat, and so wrote the Shach in Yoreh De'ah, siman 217, se'if 9, regarding vows; and it is forbidden to change the minhag, for regarding vows we follow the minhag of the place; and furthermore, in a vow people usually mention the expression of eating, and if so, by the strict law they are also forbidden a cooked dish; and furthermore, the Beis Yosef and the Darchei Moshe wrote to forbid'.
And the Eliyah Rabbah wrote9: 'However, this is specifically regarding a cooked dish that was cooked with actual meat, but when it was cooked10 in a meat pot, it is obvious that it is permitted. And the Taz permits wine that became mixed into a cooked dish, even though it has the taste of wine; but according to the aforementioned minhag one should be stringent'.
And so wrote the Pri Megadim11: 'And see the Magen Avraham, os 29: nowadays the custom is to forbid even a cooked dish of meat, and all the more so the gravy itself. And see the Eliyah Rabbah, os 22: if it was cooked in a meat pot, it is obvious that one may eat it'.
And he further wrote12: 'But if it was cooked in a meat pot ben yomo, there is certainly no concern and it is permitted. And it appears that whenever meat fell into a cooked dish and there is sixty times its amount, it is obvious that it is permitted; and even if there is not sixty, as long as a Jewish cook tastes it and there is no taste of meat, it is permitted; and tasting in such a case, one may say, is permitted13; this requires further study'.
> Thus in practice the minhag [both among Ashkenazim and among Sephardim14] is to forbid even a cooked dish or gravy of meat.
Notes:
1 Siman 62 ↩
2 Orach Chaim, siman 551, se'if 10 ↩
3 Shulchan Aruch, ibid., se'if 10 ↩
4 Se'if katan 29 ↩
5 On the Magen Avraham, ibid. ↩
6 On the Mechaber, ibid. ↩
7 Ibid., se'if katan 9 ↩
8 Ibid., se'if katan 11 ↩
9 Ibid., se'if katan 22 ↩
10 And the Yalkut Yosef wrote, in Dinei Yemei Tishah B'Av, note 80: 'And what the Eliyah Rabbah wrote in se'if katan 22, that if it was cooked in a meat pot it is permitted — this is not specifically bedieved; rather, it is permitted even lechatchilah, and so is the minhag, and as the Mahar"a Posek wrote in the sefer Mor VaAhalos, Ohel Brochos VeHoda'os, siman 39, s.v. Od Nishalti; see there' ↩
11 Mishbetzos Zahav, se'if katan 11 ↩
12 Eshel Avraham, se'if katan 29. Cited by the Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 63, and the Sha'ar HaTziyun, os 68 ↩
13 See Yalkut Yosef, Dinei Tishah B'Av, din 29 ↩
[7] (Halacha 1135)
Meat and Wine
Question: Is there a problem with drinking alcoholic beverages during the Nine Days?
Answer: The Agudah wrote1 regarding the seudah hamafsekes: 'It is written in the Sefer HaMitzvos: on Erev Tishah B'Av it is proper to be stringent not to eat cooked apples after another cooked dish, since one fulfills the obligation of eruv tavshilin with them; and likewise the custom is not to drink beer'.
The Agudah is cited in the [Hagahos] Maharil2: 'He wrote in the Agudah not to drink beer at the seudah hamafsekes'.
And so the Mahari Weil cited it3: 'And likewise the custom is not to drink beer'.
In the Minhagei Maharil4 it is written: 'During the week in which Tishah B'Av falls, Mahari Segal would make the zimun for Birkas HaMazon without a cup, and also not give it to children to drink. And if he drank barley beer, which is called "bier", after Birkas HaMazon, he would make the bracha Shehakol Nihyeh Bidvaro on it'.
And the Rema in the Darchei Moshe5 wrote: 'And he further wrote in the Agudah that the custom is not to drink beer, but the minhag is not according to his words, for they drink even honey beer'.
And he further wrote6: 'And I already wrote above in siman 551 that the minhag is widespread in these countries not to eat meat and drink wine from Rosh Chodesh; only for a mitzvah purpose is it permitted. And it is written in the Agudah that one should not drink beer at the seudah hamafsekes, but this is not the custom'.
The Maharshal7 wrote: 'Question: Is it permitted to drink beer at the seudah hamafsekes? Answer: In the Agudah he forbids drinking beer at the seudah hamafsekes, and so it appears, because it is like chamar medinah, especially in these lands where wine is not available. Granted, during the Nine Days it is only a minhag and nothing more, but at the seudah its prohibition is from the days of the Tanna'im, and we, in the days of persecution, are obligated to make a fence and to be stringent and not to be lenient; and in what will signs of mourning be seen — especially for those who already eat all they need and afterwards eat fruits for the seudah hamafsekes as a mere dessert, in what will the change be? However, a cup for Birkas HaMazon is permitted. And all this is for one who is able; but one who is not accustomed to drink anything but beer, or who is a weak person, is certainly permitted to drink beer even at the seudah hamafsekes. And also in all the books it is written "and he drinks water at the seudah hamafsekes", and so in the Minhogim'.
And his student, the Mateh Moshe8, wrote: 'The Agudah wrote that the custom is not to drink beer at that seudah. And my teacher [= the Maharshal] of blessed memory wrote in a responsum: however, a cup for Birkas HaMazon is permitted. And all this is for one who is able; but one who is not accustomed to drink anything but beer, or who is a weak person, is certainly permitted to drink beer even at the seudah hamafsekes'.
> Thus we have seen that some of the Rishonim wrote that the custom is not to drink beer at the seudah hamafsekes, but the Rema wrote that this is not the custom.
And as halacha, the Rema wrote9 regarding the Nine Days: 'And it is permitted to drink any beer, even of honey, which is called "med"'.
And regarding the seudah hamafsekes, in siman 552 he did not mention that one should not drink beer, and wrote only: 'And even of other beverages he should drink less than he is accustomed to drink'. [And as he wrote in the Darchei Moshe mentioned above, that the custom is to permit drinking at the seudah hamafsekes].
However, the Magen Avraham10 mentioned the aforementioned minhag to forbid, and this is his wording: 'He should drink less — that if he was accustomed to drink four cups, he should drink three; one should not drink beer (Maharil, Agudah, Rashal, Hagahos Minhogim), and if he is a weak person it is permitted — Mateh Moshe'.
And the Taz11 wrote, in continuation of the reasons for the minhag not to eat meat: 'According to the reason of the Tur, that we follow also the reason, and we require that he not drink and forget the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, therefore it is forbidden at the seudah hamafsekes even to drink mead, which is called "med", or brandy; even though there is no joy in them, nevertheless, since they intoxicate, there is a concern with them; and this is therefore forbidden according to the opinion of the Tur, so it appears to me in my humble opinion; and so I saw in the responsa of the Rashal, siman 31, that he forbids even beer, as long as one is not accustomed to beer at every seudah or is not a weak person'.
> Thus we have seen that the Acharonim wrote that in practice one should not drink beer at the seudah hamafsekes, and all the more so one should not drink intoxicating brandy12; but during the Nine Days there is no minhag to forbid drinking beer.
Notes:
1 Taanis, perek 4, siman 23 ↩
2 Hilchos Tishah B'Av, os 13 ↩
3 In the halachos from the Agudah cited at the end of his sefer ↩
4 Hilchos Tishah B'Av, os 8 ↩
5 Orach Chaim, siman 551, se'if katan 10 ↩
6 Siman 552, se'if katan 3 ↩
7 Siman 31 ↩
8 Siman 714 ↩
9 Siman 551, in the gloss, se'if 11 ↩
10 Siman 552, se'if katan 1 ↩
11 Orach Chaim, in the introduction to siman 552 ↩
12 See also the Mishnah Berurah, siman 552, se'if katan 4, and the Sha'ar HaTziyun, os 1. And in Yalkut Yosef, Dinei Yemei Tishah B'Av, os 96: 'See the beginning of siman 552 in the Acharonim, what they wrote regarding the law of the seudah hamafsekes; and it is proven that in the week of Tishah B'Av one may be lenient with beer and other beverages' ↩
[8] (Halacha 1136)
Meat and Wine
Question: One who mistakenly made a bracha on a meat food and remembered before he tasted it — what should he do?
Answer: HaRav Yaakov Chai Recanati wrote in his sefer Piskei Recanati HaAcharonim1: 'And since the Rav concluded that the prohibition of an unnecessary bracha is rabbinic — in our case, where if he comes to taste of that meat he transgresses the minhag, which is like a vow, as the Magen David wrote in Orach Chaim, siman 551, and also the Beis Yosef in the name of an Ashkenazi responsum — he should not taste, because even if by tasting he escapes the prohibition of an unnecessary bracha, he does not escape the prohibition of transgressing the vow, and in such a case "sit and do nothing" is preferable .. Indeed, I saw that the Rav Ateres Zekeinim wrote in the name of the Bach that one who made a bracha on a cooked dish and afterwards it became repulsive in his eyes should eat a little of it so that his bracha should not be in vain; and from this it would appear also in our case that he should eat a little, for there we are not concerned for the prohibition of bal teshaktzu, as stated in Yoreh De'ah, siman 117 (see there), and so too here we should not be concerned about transgressing the minhag in order to be saved from the prohibition of a bracha levatalah .. However, when I examined carefully, it seems to me that I found a basis to permit the matter, to eat a very small amount of the meat, from what the Magen David wrote there in Orach Chaim, siman 551, regarding wine vinegar: that at first it appeared to him that wine vinegar is forbidden, since this prohibition is like a vow, but afterwards he knew to distinguish between a vow and this minhag, namely, that with a vow the wine was from the outset forbidden to him by virtue of the prohibition of the vow that rests upon it, whereas here the prohibition is only because of joy, and in vinegar there is no joy, etc.; see there. And even though in our case the meat itself has joy in it, logic dictates that this is specifically when one eats a lot of it, but regarding any minimal amount that he eats of it, joy is not relevant; and with the minimal amount that he eats of it, he is saved from the prohibition of a bracha levatalah. And there is no doubt that according to the reasoning of the Magen David one must distinguish as the Rashach wrote, and say that originally, when they adopted the custom, they adopted it only in a matter in which there is joy, and this is clear. If so, we too may say that in the minimal amount that he eats of the meat there is no joy; on the contrary, we are witnesses that this person is distressed because he must transgress. And there is no difficulty at all from what the Rav Ohr Chadash wrote, that there must not be any aspect of prohibition in it, for also in our case, since we say that originally they adopted the custom only for something in which there is joy, whatever has no joy in it is considered as having no aspect of prohibition. And even according to the reasoning of the Tur, who wrote that the reason for the minhag is to increase mourning, this reason applies, for in the minimal amount that he eats he does not diminish the mourning; on the contrary, he is distressed to transgress his minhag. And there is proof for the matter from what our master the Rema wrote there in Orach Chaim, siman 551, se'if 10: "And where there is no child, he himself is permitted to drink the wine of Havdalah"; end of quote. And certainly the reason is that he must necessarily make the bracha on the wine in order to make Havdalah, and if so, he should not make a bracha in vain; so too here, since he has already made the bracha, he should eat a little so that his bracha should not be in vain ..'.
The Sdei Chemed2 cited the substance of his words, and wrote: 'Now it is true that in a case similar to this, the poskim disagreed regarding one who vowed not to eat until he learns one perek, and forgot, made a bracha, and remembered before he ate; and they disagreed as to what that Jew should do to save himself from a bracha levatalah and from transgressing his vow; and the aforementioned responsa alluded to this, and the words of the holy Rabbanan on this matter are cited at length in Shu"t Michtav LeChizkiyahu, siman 5; see there. Nevertheless, in the aforementioned case it appears that according to all opinions it is effective to do as the aforementioned Rav wrote; and it appears that one can bring a proof for our case from what Maran the Chida wrote in the Birkei Yosef, siman 551, os 12, that if one took a fruit during Bein HaMetzarim and made the bracha of the fruit on it, he should make the bracha Shehecheyanu (as written in Shu"t Knesses HaGedolah). "And so one may infer from the wording of our teacher R. Chaim Vital, etc. — thus he wrote that the caution is from eating, implying that if he needs to eat, as in this case, where he has already made the bracha of the fruit, he should make the bracha Shehecheyanu, etc.; and similarly the Rabbanim Mohar"i ibn Na'im and the Knesses HaGedolah inferred from the wording of the Sefer Chareidim"; end of his words. Thus it is obvious to them that after he made the bracha of the fruit he must eat the fruit (and for this reason we also permit him the bracha of Shehecheyanu), and we do not say "let him not benefit and not make the bracha" so that he not transgress the minhag not to make the bracha of Shehecheyanu during Bein HaMetzarim; and the reason is certainly that where there is a concern of a bracha levatalah, the minhag does not stand against it. And if so, here too one may say in the case before us that, so that his bracha should not be in vain, he should eat a little, as the aforementioned Rav wrote'.
And so wrote the Shulchan Melachim (Landa)3: 'And if he forgot during Bein HaMetzarim and made a bracha on meat, he should taste a little so that his bracha should not be in vain; and as for joy, there is no joy in a minimal amount (Piskei Recanati, in the Sdei Chemed)'.
HaGaon R. Ovadia Yosef, in the Yabia Omer4, remarked that the words of the Sdei Chemed contradict what he himself wrote in his responsa, Michtav LeChizkiyahu, but he concluded that the main ruling is as written in the Sdei Chemed, that he should taste a little: 'Now I saw in Shu"t Michtav LeChizkiyahu (ibid., daf 31a, end of the first column) that he cited, in the name of the sefer Piskei Recanati HaAcharonim, that he was asked about one who, during the week of Tishah B'Av, made a bracha on a piece of meat, whether he is permitted to taste a little because of the bracha; and he answered, based on the words of the Zer"a, that the prohibition of an unnecessary bracha is specifically rabbinic, and therefore it appears that he should spit it out and not be concerned about a bracha levatalah. And then he cited the words of the Bach (end of siman 206), that one who makes a bracha on food and it became repulsive in his eyes should taste a little of it, so that his bracha should not be in vain — evidently we are not concerned for the prohibition of bal teshaktzu because of the bracha; however, the Ohr Chadash wrote that this refers to where he is not disgusted by it. And therefore he concluded in the aforementioned case that he should not taste anything, even though it is only a mere minhag; see there. And according to what has been said, it appears simple that one should permit him to taste a piece of meat, so that it should not be a bracha levatalah, especially since this is not a prohibition by law at all, but a mere minhag; and furthermore, in a minimal amount there is no joy at all. And I found in the Sdei Chemed that he wrote: "If he made a bracha on a piece of meat and remembered immediately, he should eat a very little, any amount, of the meat, so that his bracha should not be in vain, for in a minimal amount there is no issue either of joy or of diminishing mourning — HaRav Mahari"ch Recanati in Shu"t Piskei Recanati HaAcharonim"; end of quote. It emerges that even the aforementioned Rav, the author, wrote to permit in this. And it is astonishing that in the Michtav LeChizkiyahu he did not write so in his name, and they did not complete the passage before him; this requires further study. And in any event we have arrived at the ruling that it is possible to permit meat during the week of Tishah B'Av. And see further in the Sdei Chemed (ibid.), who brought a proof for this, and also mentioned the words of the Acharonim regarding the law of one who makes a bracha on food while he is fasting, and wrote that nevertheless in this case one may be lenient according to all opinions; see there. And one may refute the proof of the Sdei Chemed in this; and consider this carefully'.
And so wrote the Shevet HaLevi5: 'Regarding one who forgot and made the bracha Borei Pri HaGafen on wine during the Nine Days? My humble opinion is that he should certainly taste a minimal amount, so as not to bring about a bracha levatalah, similar to what the Rema wrote in siman 271, se'if 5, regarding one who made the bracha HaMotzi before Havdalah; and it appears that even those who disagree there (see there in the Magen Avraham) agree here. And it is not comparable to what I wrote in my humble way in the glosses on Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim in Shevet HaLevi, part 1, siman 206, regarding one who learned of some prohibition in a food, for here it is different, since there is no prohibition in essence — for it was permitted for the needs of a mitzvah — but only a distancing and a complete minhag because of mourning for Yerushalayim, and this does not apply in this case. And see the Magen Avraham, siman 206, se'if katan 8, regarding the law of one who made a bracha and learned that the tekufah had fallen'.
> Thus in practice, one who made a bracha on a meat food should taste a little so that his bracha should not be in vain.
Notes:
1 Siman 15 ↩
2 Ma'areches Bein HaMetzarim, siman 1, os 5 ↩
3 Halacha LeMoshe, se'if katan 46, os 4, daf 46a ↩
4 Shu"t, part 2, Yoreh De'ah, siman 5, os 11 ↩
5 Part 9, siman 131, os 1 ↩
[9] (Halacha 1138)
Meat and Wine
In the previous halachos we saw that the practice is not to drink wine during the Nine Days
Question: What is the custom regarding drinking the wine of Havdalah?
Answer: The Maharil wrote1: 'And regarding drinking the wine of Havdalah from when Av enters, I did not see our rabbis being careful. And greater than this, Mohar"r Shmuel Shapira of blessed memory told me that he argued before the Maharam of blessed memory that it is permitted to recite Birkas HaMazon over a cup of wine and to taste it, and the Maharam of blessed memory agreed with him. However, my heart is hesitant about this, since he compares it to a vow, as the Maharam ruled that it requires hatarah because he adopted the practice as a prohibition; also in the Sefer Agudah he permitted cooking fish in vinegar, because one who vows to abstain from wine is permitted vinegar — implying that regarding wine it is considered a vow'.
The Beis Yosef2 cited the words of the Maharil in the name of an Ashkenazi responsum, and the Rema wrote3: And so it is in the responsa of the Maharil, siman 15; and it appears to me that since I already wrote that it is permitted to drink wine at a seudas mitzvah, if so, all the more so the wine of Havdalah, which is wine of a mitzvah. And one should not question that it should require hatarah, since it is like a vow, for one may say that from the outset they did not adopt the custom in such a case, as the Maharam wrote in the Hagahos Maimoniyos, perek 1 of Hilchos Taanis4, regarding the fast of Monday, Thursday and Monday on which a bris milah occurred'.
As halacha, the Mechaber wrote5: 'And it is permitted to drink the wine of Havdalah and of Birkas HaMazon'.
However, the Rema wrote in a gloss: 'And the custom is to be stringent not to drink wine at Birkas HaMazon or at Havdalah, but rather they give it to a child; and where there is no child, he himself is permitted to drink the Havdalah wine'.
And the Magen Avraham wrote6: 'It is implied that it is permitted to give a child meat and wine during this week, for from the outset they did not adopt the prohibition to be stringent regarding a child. And this is specifically regarding a child who does not know to mourn over Yerushalayim; and see siman 343, siman 559, se'if 7, and siman 471. And one cannot say that it is permitted specifically because of a mitzvah, for in siman 269 it is implied that even because of a mitzvah we do not feed a child something forbidden; rather, perforce there is no prohibition in this. And in the Hagahos Minhogim7 he wrote: "The Mahara"k8 let his young children eat meat on Erev [Tishah B'Av] that fell on Shabbos, after midday"; end of his words — implying that he holds that for adults it is forbidden and for children it is permitted. And the reason he wrote "on Shabbos" is because the incident occurred on Shabbos, when they had food left over from the morning seudah; so it appears to me'.
> Thus from the words of the Magen Avraham we see that the child who may drink is specifically a child who does not know to mourn over Yerushalayim.
And the Levushei Serad wrote on the words of the Magen Avraham: 'And see siman 343 and siman 559 — so it should read. For there it was explained that regarding a child who has reached chinuch, his father is commanded concerning him; and since he knows to mourn, he has reached chinuch with regard to this matter. And in siman 559, se'if katan 9, regarding a milah on Tishah B'Av, they also give the cup to a somewhat older child whom one is obligated to educate regarding a bracha; see there — and it means that he has reached chinuch for a bracha but not chinuch for mourning over Yerushalayim, as he does not have the understanding to mourn. And in siman 471 it is explained that a child who does not know what is recounted at night about Yetzias Mitzrayim may be fed matzah on Erev Pesach, because he has not reached chinuch for that matter. Consequently, the same applies here; and this is easily understood'.
The Alter Rebbe9 wrote: 'The custom is that the shliach tzibbur makes Havdalah in the beis haknesses over wine in order to exempt those who have no wine in their homes over which to make Havdalah (and he should drink from the cup himself if he intended to fulfill his obligation with this Havdalah, or give some of it to drink to one who intended to fulfill his obligation; but if he gives some of it to children to drink, no person can fulfill his obligation with this Havdalah, since no one who fulfills his obligation with this Havdalah drank from the cup)'.
Thus we have seen in the words of the Alter Rebbe, who wrote in parentheses, that in order to fulfill one's obligation with Havdalah, it must be drunk by one who fulfills his obligation with this Havdalah10.
And in practice they wrote11 that one should give the wine to a child at the age of chinuch for brochos and for Havdalah, who intends to fulfill his obligation with this Havdalah, but before the age at which he mourns over Yerushalayim.
And as the Mishnah Berurah wrote12: 'Who has reached chinuch, and he should drink most of the cup; and specifically if he has not yet reached the age to mourn over Yerushalayim; and specifically in this case, which is a mitzvah; but without a mitzvah, even though he does not know to mourn, he is forbidden meat and wine when he is healthy'.
Question: What is considered a child who does not know to mourn?
Answer: The Kitzur Shelah wrote13: 'The M"A wrote: children who are ten years old, and all the more so those youths who learn well and have the understanding to mourn over the destruction of Yerushalayim, are fed only bread and water, so that they mourn with the tzibbur'.
It appears from his words that at age ten, and likewise a younger youth who knows how to learn well, are considered to have the understanding to mourn.
And the Eshel Avraham (Butchach)14 wrote: 'Regarding what the Acharonim wrote, not to let a child who knows to mourn over the Beis HaMikdash taste the cup of Havdalah of Shabbos Chazon — perhaps even when he knows a little, as long as he does not know of the mourning that pertains to wine due to the cessation of the nesachim in the Beis HaMikdash, one may give it to him; and likewise, in a case of doubt one may give it to him, for he is in any event two levels of rabbinic, whereas an adult is one level of rabbinic'.
> Thus, according to the minhag of Sephardim [and there are also some Ashkenazim15], the one making Havdalah may drink the wine16; and according to the minhag of Ashkenazim, one should give the wine to a child at the age of chinuch for a bracha and Havdalah, but who does not know to mourn17 (and some wrote that this is approximately at age 9); and so is the minhag in Beis Chayeinu, to give a young child18 the wine to drink.
--------------
Notes:
1 Shu"t, siman 15, os 3 ↩
2 Orach Chaim, siman 551 ↩
3 Darchei Moshe, ibid., os 9 ↩
4 Os 1 ↩
5 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 551, se'if 10 ↩
6 Se'if katan 31 ↩
7 Minhagei Av, os 59 ↩
8 In the Leket Yosher, who wrote this in the name of Mohar"r Aharon HaKohen, and not in the name of the Mahara"k ↩
9 Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 295, se'if 4 ↩
10 And see the Tehillah LeDavid, who wondered that the words of the Alter Rebbe seemingly contradict what he wrote in siman 190, se'if 4. And see what was written on this in the Ketzos HaShulchan, siman 97, in the Badei HaShulchan, os 6; in Kitzur Halachos from the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, Miluim, p. 109 ff.; and in He'aros U'Biurim (Yerushalayim), part 7, p. 269 ↩
11 See also, regarding the opinion of the Alter Rebbe mentioned above, Kitzur Halachos from the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, siman 295, se'if 3, and note 5 ↩
12 Ibid., se'if katan 70 ↩
13 Maseches Taanis ↩
14 Siman 551 ↩
15 See Halichos Shlomo (Mo'adim, perek 14, se'if 27, and note 37), that since it is difficult to assess what is a child who does not know to mourn over Yerushalayim, the custom is that the one making Kiddush drinks himself ↩
16 See also Yalkut Yosef, Mo'adim, from Dinei Yemei Tishah B'Av, se'if 34 ↩
17 When there is only an older child who also mourns over Yerushalayim, see the Eshel Avraham (Butchach), siman 551: 'However, the Magen Avraham of blessed memory wrote to give it specifically to a child who does not know to mourn over the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, and such a child was not before me. And it appears that the Magen Avraham of blessed memory agrees that when there is no child before him who does not know, it is preferable to give it to a child who knows rather than drink it himself, for in any event a child is more lenient than an adult; also there the Magen Avraham of blessed memory concluded that there is an aspect of leniency regarding a child in this entirely; see there. And it appears that regarding a child who knows, there is a choice to do as he wishes: for if he gives it to the child, the drinking of the wine involves only a slight concern, and when he drinks it himself there is a virtue in that he himself fulfills what pertains to Havdalah. And the Shulchan Aruch did not write to give it to a child specifically, except to one who does not know, who is completely permitted wine, and thereby the mitzvah for him to drink it himself rather than through another is set aside; and regarding one who knows, the Shulchan Aruch did not write this, as the Magen Avraham of blessed memory wrote well'. And see also Shu"t Shleimas Chaim, Orach Chaim, siman 317, who decided that the one making Havdalah should drink ↩
18 See Beis Chayeinu, issues 1, 49 and 97, that they gave it to a young child. And see also Sichos Kodesh 5738, vol. 3, p. 496, from Shabbos Parshas Matos-Masei, 2 Menachem Av, that the Rebbe instructed the one making Havdalah to give it to a child ↩
[10] (Halacha 1139)
Meat and Wine
Question: Is it permitted to eat, after Shabbos, meat left over from the Shabbos seudah?
Answer: The Mizbe'ach Adamah wrote1: 'Regarding leftovers of the seudah of Shabbos or Rosh Chodesh, I heard that one of the gedolei Yisroel would eat them on the days between Rosh Chodesh and the fast; and in my humble opinion, possibly there is a basis for this from building, for if he began to build before Rosh Chodesh it is permitted .. However, regarding this account that they related, possibly this matter was only a supporting factor, but in fact he was very weak, and because of this he sought to be somewhat lenient, since it is not like the meat of shelamim, as it already had three days from the time of slaughter; also, possibly what they saw was a cooked dish in which meat had been cooked, which is permitted, as the Kolbo wrote .. or it was poultry .. which according to the halacha is permitted, except that it is not proper to do so, and it is forbidden..'.
And in Shu"t Kol Eliyahu2 he wrote: 'And I heard people telling me in the name of a great man, HaRav Moreinu HaRav A. Yitzchaki of blessed memory [= the author of Shu"t Zera Avraham], that he would eat from the leftovers of Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh, saying that they are leftovers of a mitzvah; and so they followed him in being lenient. But I set my heart to seek and investigate whether there is a basis for permitting this and a proof for the matter. And I saw that one can bring a clear proof for this from what the Rosh of blessed memory wrote in the first perek of Chullin3, regarding what was asked there4: limbs of meat of nechirah that Bnei Yisroel had when they entered the Land — what is their law? Teiku. And Rashi of blessed memory explained that it is a matter of "expound and receive reward", for there is no practical difference at all. But the Rosh of blessed memory wrote that there is a practical difference for one who forbade upon himself one of the species upon the arrival of a certain time, and before that time he had some of that species — whether he is permitted to eat it, since it was in his possession at the time of permission; see there. And see Terumas HaDeshen, siman 281, which Maran of blessed memory cited in Yoreh De'ah, siman 218, who wrote that in his case, which was a cherem and an oath, which is a Torah prohibition, we must follow the stringent view; and one of the great ones who permitted — his case was a mere minhag; see there. Derive from this and apply it to our case: since this matter is only a mere minhag, its doubt is resolved leniently, and a person is permitted to eat leftovers of Shabbos and Rosh Chodesh. And so it is logical, for regarding permitted things that others treated as prohibited, what we hold — "you may not permit them in their presence" — is only rabbinic, as the Rosh of blessed memory wrote in the last perek of Nedarim, daf 81b, and a rabbinic doubt is resolved leniently. And even without this reason, it appears simple in my humble opinion that at least on the night of Motzaei Shabbos it is permitted, for since the fourth seudah pertains to Shabbos, it is like Shabbos itself, when the custom does not apply. And even though our master the Rema wrote in a gloss that their minhag is not to drink even the cup of Havdalah, one may distinguish: Havdalah is different, for it is not so much for the needs of Shabbos and is not for the honor of Shabbos, but rather to permit melachah on the weekday; whereas the fourth seudah is needed for the honor of Shabbos5. After some time I saw in the sefer Nechpah BaKesef, Orach Chaim section, siman 3, that he elaborated on these matters, and according to what he wrote on daf 12b, a Torah emerges that what remained to him from Shabbos is forbidden after Shabbos, and what remained from Rosh Chodesh is permitted after Rosh Chodesh; see there. And in truth this appears like a jest and mockery, and there is no reason for this matter6 ..'.
And the Chida wrote7: 'Some are lenient to eat cooked meat that was left over from the Shabbos seudah. And I heard one who brought a proof to permit8 from what was asked in the first perek of Chullin: limbs of meat of nechirah that entered the Land — do we say, since they were permitted, they remain permitted? And the Rosh wrote there that there is a practical difference for us; see there well. And the poskim wrote that regarding rabbinic matters we take the lenient view. And the same applies here: since it is a mere minhag, we say in this case, since it was permitted for Shabbos, it was permitted for the weekday; end of his words. And even though one can refute this proof according to what the later Rabbanim distinguish — is it not in their books — and we elaborated on this elsewhere, with the help of Heaven9, nevertheless one should not protest against those who are lenient'.
> Thus we have seen that some wrote that it is permitted to eat from the leftovers of Shabbos, and some wrote that one should not protest against those who are lenient to eat the leftover meat after Shabbos.
However, the Sha'arei Teshuvah10 wrote, and the Maharam Shick11 agreed with him: 'And in our country I have not heard of anyone who is lenient in this, and it is included in the category of one who breaches a fence. But even in a place where they are lenient in this, one should not be lenient unless the preparation was for the needs of Shabbos and by chance and circumstance it remained for the weekday; but it is obvious that if he cooked for Shabbos more than needed, in order that some would remain for him for the weekday, if he eats it on the weekday he is one who breaches a fence, for from the outset it was not permitted for Shabbos at all, since he did not need it at all on Shabbos; and this is simple'.
And so wrote the Pischei Teshuvah12: 'However, according to what is written (in Teshuvas Noda BiYehudah, Tinyana, Yoreh De'ah section, siman 64) .. the aforementioned permission is refuted13 and it is obvious that also regarding the week in which Tishah B'Av falls one should not be lenient in this'.
An additional reasoning for permitting was written by the Bnei Yissaschar14: 'But what appears to me in my humble opinion as the basis for permission is perhaps that if we were to say that he may not eat the leftover meat after Shabbos, the leftovers would spoil, and he would hold back and buy for Shabbos only sparingly and frugally, and through this there would be a hindrance to oneg Shabbos; and we find similar to this in several places. And I will further tell you: I remember, when I was in my youthful days, I would occasionally serve a tzaddik who was renowned in our generation, Mohar"m Sofer zatzuk"l of Pshevorsk; and that tzaddik was renowned as a man of high spiritual level and ruach hakodesh, and his custom was to put away leftovers of foods that had been prepared for Shabbos, such as wafers and honey cakes, and when a distinguished person would come to him on weekdays he would honor him with these leftovers, and he said that this is called something like the leftovers of the menachos. And as the days went on I found in the name of a certain great one that one who wishes not to eat meat and not to drink wine on weekdays, or because of abstinence, and the matter is difficult for him — behold, he should buy meat on Wednesday or Thursday for the honor of Shabbos, and he is permitted to eat from that meat also on weekdays, and also what remains for him after Shabbos he may eat on weekdays. And I see that the matter is a kal vachomer to permit in our case. All this I write neither for halacha nor for practice, for the House of our G-d is worthy, etc.''.
And the Mishneh Halachos15 wrote: 'Regarding his remark on the author of the Bnei Yissaschar, Ma'amar Chodesh Tammuz-Av, who cited from the sefer Ikrei Dinim in the name of the sefer Kol Eliyahu that in the holy city of Yerushalayim, may it be rebuilt and established, the custom is not to eat meat from Rosh Chodesh Av, and that Mohara"y Yitzchaki would eat from the leftovers of Shabbos and brought a proof from Chullin 15; and the Bnei Yissaschar refuted this proof but wrote another reason for permission, for otherwise he would hold back and buy for Shabbos only sparingly and would be deprived of oneg Shabbos; and his honored eminence challenged him from the Magen Avraham, 551, se'if katan 20, and the Sha'arei Teshuvah there, that one who is lenient with himself is one who breaches a fence; and also in Shu"t Maharam Shick, siman 286, and Machaneh Chaim, siman 41, part 3, Orach Chaim, they forbid; also in the sefer Shemen HaMaor, siman 551, he wrote that one should not be lenient in this, since one must cause oneself distress by abstaining from meat, and in this he does not cause himself distress — "ש"י משיב דברים נכוחים" ("[he kisses the lips] who gives a right answer"). And in truth, almost all the Acharonim are in agreement on this, to forbid; and see the Birkei Yosef, siman 551, who wrote that one should not protest against those who are lenient; see there. However, the other Acharonim were not lenient in this at all'.
And behold, besides the fact that the Bnei Yissaschar himself also did not decide to permit in practice, furthermore the poskim wrote16 to refute the reasoning of the Bnei Yissaschar, since nowadays it is possible to keep foods in the refrigerator and freezer.
> Thus in practice one should not eat, during the Nine Days, the leftover meat that remained from Shabbos Chazon, not even at Melaveh Malkah17
Notes:
1 Orach Chaim, siman 552 ↩
2 Part 1, Orach Chaim, siman 45 ↩
3 Siman 23 ↩
4 17a ↩
5 And so wrote HaGaon R. Chaim Palagi in Shu"t Chaim BeYad, siman 125: 'And it appears that even one who is stringent not to eat from the leftovers of Shabbos, nevertheless at the fourth seudah it is permitted, and there is a mitzvah, for its time is until four hours, and there is still the illumination of Shabbos' ↩
6 And see the Bnei Yissaschar below, who discussed his words, and Shu"t Beis She'arim, Orach Chaim section, siman 267 ↩
7 Birkei Yosef, Orach Chaim, siman 551, se'if katan 6 ↩
8 He wrote in the Kisei Eliyahu here, os 5, that he is the author of this proof ↩
9 See Chaim Sha'al, part 1, siman 89 ↩
10 Siman 551, se'if katan 27 ↩
11 Shu"t, Orach Chaim, siman 286 ↩
12 Yoreh De'ah, siman 341, se'if katan 12 ↩
13 Sdei Chemed, Ma'areches Bein HaMetzarim, siman 1, os 6 ↩
14 Ma'amarei Chodesh Tammuz, ma'amar 1, os 10 ↩
15 Part 8, siman 219 ↩
16 See Piskei Teshuvos, siman 551, os 34 ↩
17 See Piskei Teshuvos there; however, in practice we hold as the Igros Moshe wrote (Orach Chaim, part 4, siman 21): 'And regarding one who is accustomed to eat meat at the Melaveh Malkah seudah on Motzaei Shabbos, which is proper to do for one who is able, as stated in the Magen Avraham, siman 300 — it is reasonable that since, in any event, for whatever reason it may be, there were found even among the G-d-fearing and those zealous in mitzvos, even in earlier generations, those who were not particular to eat meat at the Melaveh Malkah seudah, even those who fulfill it every Shabbos with meat have no license to eat meat at this Melaveh Malkah seudah. And even if he has already practiced it many times, so that there is a concern of a vow under the law of "he practiced it three times and did not stipulate that it be without a vow", it is reasonable that he does not need hatarah, for his practice was on the Motzaei Shabbos of the entire year, when meat is permitted. For one cannot say that his minhag was that, for him, a seudah without meat is not considered an important seudah, such that we would say that according to his minhag he would not fulfill the obligation of Melaveh Malkah at all; rather, his minhag is to add for greater honor. Therefore, regarding the Melaveh Malkah at which he eats meat every Motzaei Shabbos, when there is no concern at all in eating meat, his minhag does not also include the Melaveh Malkah of the Nine Days, when the minhag is not to eat meat' ↩
From the 'Shoneh Halacha' project — a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha — Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp group