סוגיה 13- "אם אשכחך ירושלים" הצער שבשמחה

Byיאיר טיקטין

תהילים קל״ז:ה׳-ו׳

(ה) אִֽם־אֶשְׁכָּחֵ֥ךְ יְֽרוּשָׁלִָ֗ם תִּשְׁכַּ֥ח יְמִינִֽי׃

(ו) תִּדְבַּ֥ק־לְשׁוֹנִ֨י לְחִכִּי֮ אִם־לֹ֪א אֶ֫זְכְּרֵ֥כִי

אִם־לֹ֣א אַ֭עֲלֶה אֶת־יְרוּשָׁלַ֑ים עַ֝֗ל רֹ֣אשׁ שִׂמְחָתִֽי׃

Psalms 137:5-6

(1) By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat, sat and wept, as we thought of Zion. (2) There on the poplars we hung up our lyres, (3) for our captors asked us there for songs, our tormentors, for amusement, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion.” (4) How can we sing a song of the LORD on alien soil? (5) If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither; (6) let my tongue stick to my palate if I cease to think of you, if I do not keep Jerusalem in memory even at my happiest hour. (7) Remember, O LORD, against the Edomites the day of Jerusalem’s fall; how they cried, “Strip her, strip her to her very foundations!” (8) Fair Babylon, you predator, a blessing on him who repays you in kind what you have inflicted on us; (9) a blessing on him who seizes your babies and dashes them against the rocks!

בבא בתרא ס׳ ב:י״ז-י״ח

מאי על ראש שמחתי?

אמר רב יצחק: זה אפר מקלה שבראש חתנים

אמר לו רב פפא לאביי: היכא מנח לה?

במקום תפילין

שנאמר (ישעיהו סא, ג) לשום לאבלי ציון לתת להם פאר תחת אפר.

וכל המתאבל על ירושלים זוכה ורואה בשמחתה,

שנאמר: (ישעיהו סו, י) "שמחו את ירושלים"

Bava Batra 60b:17-18

Go now, and come tomorrow. At night, Rabbi Yannai sent and had someone cut down that tree that belonged to him. The next day, that man came before Rabbi Yannai, who said to him: Go, cut down your tree. The man said to him: But the Master also has a tree that leans into the public domain. Rabbi Yannai said to him: Go and see: If mine is cut down, then cut yours down. If mine is not cut down, you do not have to cut yours down, either. The Gemara asks: At the outset what did Rabbi Yannai hold, and ultimately, what did he hold? The Gemara replies: At the outset, he held that the general public is amenable to having the tree there, as they sit in its shade. Once he saw that they were preventing someone else who owned a tree from keeping his, he understood that it was only out of respect that they did not object to his tree being there. He therefore sent someone to cut it down. The Gemara asks: But why did he tell the man to return the next day? Let him say to him: Go cut down your tree, and then I will cut mine down. The Gemara answers: Because of the statement of Reish Lakish, who said: The verse states: “Gather yourselves together and gather [hitkosheshu vakoshu]” (Zephaniah 2:1), and this can be explained homiletically to mean: Adorn [keshot] yourself and afterward adorn others, i.e., act properly before requiring others to do so. § The mishna teaches that one may not extend projections or balconies into the public domain. Rather, if he desired to build one he may draw back into his property by moving his wall, and extend the projection to the end of his property line. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one drew back into his property but did not extend the projection at that time, what is the halakha concerning whether he may return and extend it at a later date? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one drew back into his property, he may extend it even later, and Reish Lakish says: If one drew back into his property but did not build the projection at that time, he may not extend it later. The Gemara presents an alternative version of the dispute: Rabbi Ya’akov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taḥlifa: I will explain the matter to you. To later extend a projection, everyone agrees that he may extend it, since he is adding within his own property. Where they disagree is with regard to whether he may return the walls to their prior place. And with regard to this disagreement the opposite was stated: Rabbi Yoḥanan says he may not return the walls to their prior place, and Reish Lakish says he may return them. Rabbi Ya’akov explains their reasoning: Rabbi Yoḥanan says that he may not return the walls to their prior place because of the statement of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says: With regard to a path that the public has established as a public thoroughfare, it is prohibited to ruin it, i.e., to prevent people from using it. Once the public has become accustomed to using the place where his wall had stood, he may not repossess that space. And Reish Lakish says that he may return the walls to their prior place, because that matter applies in a case where there is no space, i.e., if he were to move back the wall there would be no space for the public to walk, but here there is space, since they can still walk through the public domain. The mishna teaches that if one purchased a courtyard in which there are projections and balconies extending into the public domain, this courtyard retains its presumptive status, allowing the owner to use the projections. Rav Huna says: If the wall of the courtyard fell, he may return and build it as it was, including the projections or balconies. The Gemara raises an objection based on that which is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:17): One may not plaster, and one may not tile, and one may not paint [mefayyeḥin] images in the present, as a sign of mourning for the destruction of the Temple. But if one purchased a courtyard that was plastered, tiled, or painted with images, this courtyard retains its presumptive status, and it is assumed that it was done in a permitted manner. If it then fell, he may not return and build it in its previous form. This indicates that one may not rebuild a building in a manner that is prohibited, even if there was an acquired privilege to maintain it in that manner. The Gemara answers: A case of forbidden matters is different, i.e., in the case of the baraita, he may not rebuild it because it is prohibited for him to do so. In this mishna, the issue is encroachment upon the rights of others, and once he had an acquired privilege to use the projections or balconies, he maintains that right. § With regard to the ruling of the above-quoted baraita, the Sages taught (Tosefta, Sota 15:9): A person may not plaster his house with plaster, but if he mixed sand or straw into the plaster, which dulls its luster, it is permitted. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he mixed sand into it, it is white cement [terakesid], which is of a higher quality than standard plaster, and it is prohibited, but if he mixed in straw, it is permitted. § Having mentioned the prohibition against plastering, which is a sign of mourning over the destruction of the Temple, the Gemara discusses related matters. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 15:11): When the Temple was destroyed a second time, there was an increase in the number of ascetics among the Jews, whose practice was to not eat meat and to not drink wine. Rabbi Yehoshua joined them to discuss their practice. He said to them: My children, for what reason do you not eat meat and do you not drink wine? They said to him: Shall we eat meat, from which offerings are sacrificed upon the altar, and now the altar has ceased to exist? Shall we drink wine, which is poured as a libation upon the altar, and now the altar has ceased to exist? Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: If so, we will not eat bread either, since the meal-offerings that were offered upon the altar have ceased. They replied: You are correct. It is possible to subsist with produce. He said to them: We will not eat produce either, since the bringing of the first fruits have ceased. They replied: You are correct. We will no longer eat the produce of the seven species from which the first fruits were brought, as it is possible to subsist with other produce. He said to them: If so, we will not drink water, since the water libation has ceased. They were silent, as they realized that they could not survive without water. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: My children, come, and I will tell you how we should act. To not mourn at all is impossible, as the decree was already issued and the Temple has been destroyed. But to mourn excessively as you are doing is also impossible, as the Sages do not issue a decree upon the public unless a majority of the public is able to abide by it, as it is written: “You are cursed with the curse, yet you rob Me, even this whole nation” (Malachi 3:9), indicating that the prophet rebukes the people for neglecting observances only if they were accepted by the whole nation. Rabbi Yehoshua continues: Rather, this is what the Sages said: A person may plaster his house with plaster, but he must leave over a small amount in it without plaster to remember the destruction of the Temple. The Gemara interjects: And how much is a small amount? Rav Yosef said: One cubit by one cubit. Rav Ḥisda said: This should be opposite the entrance, so that it is visible to all. Rabbi Yehoshua continues: The Sages said that a person may prepare all that he needs for a meal, but he must leave out a small item to remember the destruction of the Temple. The Gemara interjects: What is this small item? Rav Pappa said: Something akin to small, fried fish. Rabbi Yehoshua continues: The Sages said that a woman may engage in all of her cosmetic treatments, but she must leave out a small matter to remember the destruction of the Temple. The Gemara interjects: What is this small matter? Rav said: She does not remove hair from the place on the temple from which women would remove hair. The source for these practices is a verse, as it is stated: “If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its cunning. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I remember you not; if I set not Jerusalem above my highest joy” (Psalms 137:5–6). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Above my highest [rosh] joy? Rav Yitzḥak says: This is referring to the burnt ashes that are customarily placed on the head [rosh] of bridegrooms at the time of their wedding celebrations, to remember the destruction of the Temple. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Where are they placed? Abaye replied: On the place where phylacteries are placed, as it is stated: “To appoint to them that mourn in Zion, to give to them a garland in place of ashes” (Isaiah 61:3). Since phylacteries are referred to as a garland (see Ezekiel 24:17), it may be inferred from this verse that the ashes were placed in the same place as the phylacteries. The baraita continues: And anyone who mourns for the destruction of Jerusalem will merit and see its joy, as it is stated: “Rejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all that love her; rejoice for joy with her, all that mourn for her” (Isaiah 66:10). It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 15:10) that Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha said: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, by right, we should decree upon ourselves not to eat meat and not to drink wine, but the Sages do not issue a decree upon the public unless a majority of the public is able to abide by it. And from the day that the wicked kingdom, i.e., Rome, spread, who decree evil and harsh decrees upon us, and nullify Torah study and the performance of mitzvot for us, and do not allow us to enter the celebration of the first week of a son, i.e., circumcision, and some say: To enter the celebration of the salvation of a firstborn son; by right we should each decree upon ourselves not to marry a woman and not to produce offspring, and it will turn out that the descendants of Abraham our forefather will cease to exist on their own, rather than being forced into a situation where there are sons who are not circumcised. But concerning a situation such as this, the following principle is applied: Leave the Jews alone and do not impose decrees by which they cannot abide. It is better that they be unwitting sinners, who do not know that what they are doing is improper considering the circumstances, and not be intentional wrongdoers, who marry and procreate despite knowing that they should not.

ביאור:

שואלים: מאי [מה פירוש] "על ראש שמחתי"?

אמר רב יצחק: זה אפר מקלה שנוהגים להניח בראש חתנים בשעת שמחת החופה, זכר לחורבן.

אמר ליה [לו] רב פפא לאביי:

היכא מנח לה [היכן מניחים אותו]?

אמר לו: במקום שמניחים תפילין,

שנאמר בנבואות הנחמה: "משח ה' אותי... שלחני... לשום לאבלי ציון לתת להםפאר תחת אפר" .

וכיון שתפילין קרויים "פאר" יש ללמוד מכאן שהאפר היה מונח במקום שמניחים בו תפילין.

וממשיכה הברייתא:

וכל המתאבל על ירושלים — זוכה ורואה בשמחתה, שנאמר: "שמחו את ירושלם וגילו בה כל אוהביה,

שישו אתה משוש כל המתאבלים עליה".

ברכות ל׳ ב:י״ט-ל״א א:א׳

עבדו את ה׳ ביראה וגילו ברעדה"

מאי 'וגילו ברעדה'?

אמר רב אדא בר מתנא אמר רבה: במקום גילה שם תהא רעדה...
מר בריה דרבינא, עבד הילולא לבריה,

חזנהו לרבנן דהוו קבדחי טובא

אייתי כסא דמוקרא בת ארבע מאה זוזי

ותבר קמיהו

ואעציבו

רב אשי עבד הילולא לבריה,

חזנהו לרבנן דהוו קא בדחי טובא

אייתי כסא דזוגיתא חיורתא

ותבר קמיהו

ואעציבו

Berakhot 30b:19-31a:1

in Neharde’a, where there is always a prayer quorum, except for the day when the king’s army [pulmusa] came to the city, and the Sages were preoccupied and did not pray communally, and I prayed as an individual, and I was an individual who was not praying in a prayer quorum. Shmuel’s conduct was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in this matter. Yet this opinion was not universally accepted. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥanina Kara, the Bible expert, sat before Rabbi Yannai, and he sat and he said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rabbi Yannai said to him: Go and read your verses outside, as that halakha is not accepted by the Sages in the study hall, and it belongs outside, as the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I saw Rabbi Yannai, who prayed and then prayed again. Presumably, his first prayer was the morning prayer and his second prayer was the additional prayer. Apparently, he does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Rather, he holds that even when not part of a prayer quorum, an individual must recite the additional prayer. Later on, when this story was related in the study hall, Rabbi Yirmeya said to his teacher, Rabbi Zeira: What proof is there that the second prayer was the additional prayer? Perhaps initially he did not focus his mind on his prayer and ultimately he focused his mind, i.e., he repeated the morning prayer in order to do so with proper concentration. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Look at who the great man is who is testifying about him. Rabbi Yoḥanan certainly observed carefully before relating what he witnessed. Regarding prayers of the Sages, the Gemara further relates that, although there were thirteen synagogues in Tiberias, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi would only pray between the columns where they studied, as prayer is beloved in the eyes of God, specifically in a place of Torah. It was stated: Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi in the name of Rabbeinu, Rav, said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba prayed and then prayed again. Rav Zeira said to him: Why did the Master do this? If you say because the Master did not focus his mind the first time, didn’t Rabbi Eliezer say: One must always evaluate himself before he prays? If he is able to focus his heart on prayer, he should pray, but if not, if he is unable to do so, he should not pray. Apparently, that was not the reason that he prayed twice. Rather, because my Master did not mention the New Moon in his prayer, so he prayed again. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the evening prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can recite it in the morning prayer. One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the morning prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can recite it in the additional prayer. One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the additional prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can recite it in the afternoon prayer? Omitting mention of the New Moon does not require one to repeat the Amida prayer. Consequently, that was not the reason that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba prayed a second time. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: Wasn’t it stated about that baraita that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They taught this baraita specifically with regard to prayer in a communal framework? However, an individual who fails to mention the New Moon is required to pray again? That is why Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba prayed twice. Stemming from the discussion about individuals who recite two prayers consecutively, the Gemara asks: How long should one wait between the first prayer and the second prayer? Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda agreed about this in principle, but they formulated their opinions differently (Rashi). One said that an individual must wait long enough so that his mind will be in a pleading mode [titḥonen], enabling him to recite the second prayer as a plea. One of them said: Long enough so that his mind will be in a beseeching mode [titḥolel], enabling him to beseech God in his second prayer. The Gemara points out that both Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda based their positions on the prayers of Moses. The one who said: So that his mind will be in a pleading mode [titḥonen], as it is written: “And I pleaded [va’etḥanan] before the Lord” (Deuteronomy 3:23). And the one who said: So that his mind will be in a beseeching mode [titḥolel] as it is written: “And Moses besought [vayeḥal] the Lord” (Exodus 32:11). The Gemara resumes the above discussion with regard to omission of the mention of the New Moon in the Amida prayer. Rav Anan said that Rav said: One who erred and did not mention the New Moon in the evening prayer, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because the court only sanctifies the new month by day, and the prayer of the New Moon, which parallels the court’s sanctification of the new month, belongs in the daytime prayer. Ameimar said: Rav’s statement is reasonable in a full month, i.e., a month in which there are two potential days of the New Moon, the thirtieth day of the previous month and the first day of the new month. If one neglected to mention the New Moon on the night of the thirtieth, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, because he can mention it the next night, which is the night of the first of the new month, which is the primary day of the New Moon. But in a short month of twenty-nine days, followed by one day of the New Moon, we require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, even in the evening prayer. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: Since Rav states a reason for his statement, what difference is there to me if the month is short, and what difference is there to me if it is full? Rather, there is no difference. Rav based his opinion on the parallel drawn between the sanctification of the month and the mention of the New Moon in the Amida prayer; the sanctification of the month is not relevant at night. May we return unto thee : The morning Tefillah ! MISHNA: One may only stand and begin to pray from an approach of gravity and submission. There is a tradition that the early generations of pious men would wait one hour, in order to reach the solemn frame of mind appropriate for prayer, and then pray, so that they would focus their hearts toward their Father in Heaven. Standing in prayer is standing before God and, as such, even if the king greets him, he should not respond to him; and even if a snake is wrapped on his heel, he should not interrupt his prayer. GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that prayer should be undertaken in an atmosphere of gravity. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Elazar said: They are derived from the verses describing the prayer of Hannah, mother of Samuel, as the verse states: “And she felt bitterness of soul, and she prayed to the Lord and she wept and wept” (I Samuel 1:10). The Gemara rejects this proof: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps Hannah is different, as her heart was extremely embittered, her prayer was embittered as well. This does not prove that everyone must pray in that frame of mind. Rather, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said, it can be proved from here, as David said: “But as for me, by Your abundant loving-kindness I will enter Your house, at Your Holy Temple I will bow in reverence for You” (Psalms 5:8). Entering into prayer like entering the Holy Temple must be performed reverentially. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps David is different, as he would excessively afflict himself in prayer in order to atone for his transgression with Bathsheba. Consequently, his cannot serve as a paradigm for proper conduct in prayer. Rather, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, it can be derived from here, from this verse that David said, not about his own worship, but about worship of God in general: “Give, unto the Lord, the honor of His name, bow to the Lord in the beauty of holiness [behadrat kodesh]” (Psalms 29:2). Do not read: In the beauty of [behadrat] holiness. Rather read: In trembling of [beḥerdat] holiness; one must enter into prayer from an atmosphere of gravity engendered by sanctity. The Gemara rejects this too: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps, actually I would say to you that it should be read as it is written: Specifically, “in the beauty,” and it means that one should pray in beautiful clothing, as in the case of Rav Yehuda who would adorn himself and then pray. Rav Yehuda believed that one who comes before the King must wear his most beautiful clothing. The Gemara has yet to find a source for the halakha that one must approach prayer from an atmosphere of gravity. Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said it can be derived from here, from this verse: “Serve the Lord in fear and rejoice with trembling” (Psalms 2:11). Having cited this verse from Psalms, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of rejoice with trembling? Rav Adda bar Mattana said that Rabba said: One may not experience unbridled joy; even where there is rejoicing, there should be trembling. On that note, the Gemara relates: Abaye was sitting before his teacher Rabba, and Rabba saw that he was excessively joyful. He said to Abaye: It is written: Rejoice with trembling, one’s joy should not be unrestrained. Abaye said to him: It is permissible for me because I am donning phylacteries now and as long as they are upon me they ensure that the fear of God is upon me. Similarly, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yirmeya was sitting before Rabbi Zeira. He saw that Rabbi Yirmeya was excessively joyful. He said to him: It is written: “In all sorrow there is profit” (Proverbs 14:23); sorrow is appropriate, not excessive joy. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: It is permissible for me because I am donning phylacteries. On a similar note, the Gemara relates: Mar, son of Ravina, made a wedding feast for his son and he saw the Sages, who were excessively joyous.

ביאור:

מאחר שהובא כתוב זה, שואלים:

מאי[מה פירושן] של המילים "וגילו ברעדה"?

אמר רב אדא בר מתנא שכך אמר רבה בפירוש הכתוב: אף במקום גילה שם תהא רעדה,

ולא יגיע אדם לשמחה לא מרוסנת.

[...]

מעין דברים אלה מסופר:

מר, בריה [בנו] של רבינא עבד הילולא לבריה,

חזנהו לרבנן דהוו קבדחי טובא [עשה סעודת חתונה לבנו, ראה אותם את החכמים שהיו מבודחים ביותר].

אייתי כסא דמוקרא בת ארבע מאה זוזי,

ותבר קמיהו, ואעציבו [הביא כוס יקרה השווה ארבע מאות זוז, ושבר לפניהם, והתעצבו].

וכן מסופר שרב אשי עבד הילולא לבריה [עשה חתונה לבנו], חזנהו לרבנן דהוו קא בדחי טובא

[ראה אותם, את החכמים שהיו מבודחים ביותר].

אייתי כסא דזוגיתא חיורתא,

ותבר קמיהו, ואעציבו [הביא כוס של זכוכית לבנה, שהיתה יקרה ביותר, ושבר לפניהם, ונתעצבו].

תוספות על ברכות ל״א א:ב׳:א׳

אייתי כסא דזוגיתא חיורתא - מכאן נהגו לשבר זכוכית בנשואין:

אורח חיים תק״ס:ב׳

וּכְשֶׁהֶחָתָן נוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה, לוֹקֵחַ אֵפֶר מַקְלֶה וְנוֹתֵן בְּרֹאשׁוֹ בִּמְקוֹם הֲנָחַת תְּפִלִּין.

הַגָּה: וְיֵשׁ מְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְשַׁבֵּר כּוֹס בִּשְׁעַת חֻפָּה, אוֹ לָשׂוּם מַפָּה שְׁחוֹרָה אוֹ שְׁאָר דִּבְרֵי אֲבֵלוּת בְּרֹאשׁ הֶחָתָן .

וְכָל אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים כְּדֵי לִזְכֹּר אֶת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: אִם אֶשְׁכָּחֵךְ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם וְגו' אִם לֹא אַעֲלֶה אֶת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם עַל רֹאשׁ שִׂמְחָתִי (תְּהִלִּים קלז, ו).

Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 560:2

And similarly, they decreed that one who lays a table for guests should leave something missing and leave a place without a bowl (that would have been suitable to place there). And when someone makes ornaments/jewellery of silver or gold, they should leave one missing from the kinds of ornament which are customary, so the ornament should not be complete. And when the groom marries a woman, take ashes from burnt food and place them on his head, in the place where the Tefilin rest. Gloss: There are places where they are accustomed to breaking a cup during the wedding ceremony, or placing a black cloth or other such items of mourning on the head of the groom. And all these things are in order to remember Jerusalem, as it is said, "If I forget you, Jerusalem...if I do not raise up Jerusalem over the height [head] of my joyfulness..." [Psalm 137:5-6]

הרב עובדיה יוסף, שו"ת יביע אומר, חלק ד - אבן העזר סימן ט' (מעובד)

אודות מה שנהגו לשבר כוס של זכוכית בגמר שבע ברכות שבחופה,

הנה ידוע שעיקר מנהג זה מיוסד על פי הגמרא (ברכות לא) :

"רב אשי עבד הילולא לבריה, חזנהו לרבנן דקא בדחי טובא, אייתי כסא דזוגיתא חיורתא ותבר קמייהו ואעציבו." וכן התוספות שם: 'מכאן נהגו לשבר זכוכית בנישואין'.

[...]

ואמרו עוד בברכות (דף ל , סוף ע"ב): "מר בריה דרבינא עבד הילולא לבריה חזנהו לרבנן דקא בדחי טובא, אייתי כסא דמוקרא (כוס של זכוכית לבנה. רש"י.) בת ת' זוזי ותבר קמייהו ואעציבו."

[...]

והן עתה אחסור דרי (חסר הדור), הן רבים עתה עַם הארץ (בורים), שבעת ששוברים הכוס כל הקרואים ממלאים פיהם שחוק בקריאות 'מזל טוב', והחתן עצמו שעושה זאת בגבורה, לסיים בזה את טכס הנישואין, ממלא פיו שחוק (על כוחו כי רב).והפכו כוונת המנהג היפה הזה שנועד לשם עגמת נפש על חורבן בית קדשינו ותפארתינו,

ולהעלות את ירושלים על ראש שמחתינו, למנהג תפל של שחוק וקלות ראש.

[...]

גם בשו"ת משפטי עוזיאל (חלק אבן העזר סימן פט ס"ג), הסכים להרה"ג (להרב הגאון) השואל במה שעורר במנהג זה של שבירת הכוס בנישואין, שנהפך בעוונותינו הרבים למין התהדרות של גבורה, שהחתן דורך בכוח על הכוס ומשברו לרסיסים, וכל הקרואים ממלאים פיהם שחוק ואומרים סימן טוב. והוא היפך כוונת התקנה. ומוטב היה לבטל המנהג לגמרי, מלשנות דמותו בצורה כזאת שנפש היפה סולדת הימנו אלא שמצווה שלא לומר דבר שאינו נשמע (יבמות סה:).

וסיים: ושבח אני מנהג קהילות הספרדים שבעת ששוברים הכוס, עונים: אם אשכחך ירושלים תשכח ימיני. עכת"ד (עד כאן תורף דבריו).

והנה לבטל כליל מנהג שבירת הכוס בעת הנישואין, אינו נכון בעיני. הואיל ועל כל פנים יסודתו בהררי קודש. ועיין בשו"ת 'שאל האיש' (חלק אורח חיים סמן א), שהשיב לקהלה אחת שחשבו לבטל מנהג זה, כי חס לזרע קודש לעשות כן, כי מנהג זה הוקבע זכר לחרבן בית המקדש במקום אפר מקלה שבראש חתנים וכו'. ומי יערב אל לבו לבטלו, וחיובא רמיא (וחיוב מוטל) לשבור הכוס באין פוטר אותם.

[...]

ואם יש מקומות שהפכו ללענה משפט, הרי בכמה מקומות עדיין עושים זאת בחרדת קודש.

כי לא אלמן ישראל תלי"ת (תודה לאל יתברך). ולפע"ד (ולפי עניות דעתי) אפשר לתקן הדבר, ולהחזיר עטרה ליושנה בכל אתר ואתר, ע"י שהרב המסדר קידושין, ייתן הוראה לחתן לפני שברו הכוס שיאמר אחריו בקול רם:

'אם אשכחך ירושלים תשכח ימיני'. (וכמו שעושים לפני עריכת ברית מילה שאבי הבן אומר זאת בקול רם).

ואז לאט לאט יבינו הקהל הרקע לשבירת הכוס, ולא יעשו מזה מהתלה חוכא ואטלולא,

והכל על מקומו יבא בשלום.

וכן ראיתי בספר 'בית עובד' (דקצ"ח ע"א) כי מה שנהגו העם לומר 'בסימן – טוב' כשמשברין הכוס, טעות הוא בידם, כי שבירת הכוס זכר לחורבן. ולכן טוב שיאמר החתן: אם אשכחך ירושלים תשכח ימיני. ע"כ (עד כאן).

[...]

ומ"מ (ומכל מקום) נראה שאין צורך במיוחד לשבר כוס יקר וסגי (די, מספיק) בכלי זכוכית רגיל. וכמ"ש הראבי"ה (וכמו שכתב אליעזר בן יואל הלוי) שנהגו כולם בשווה כדי שלא לבייש מי שאין לו (וכמו שכתב במ"ק כז.) ומכ"ש לפ"מ (ומכל שכן לפי מנהג) שנוהגים כיום לעטוף הכוס בשקית ניר בכדי שלא יתפזרו רסיסים באולם ויבאו לידי נזק. ומכיון שאין הכוס נראה לעין אין להקפיד שיהיה דבר יקר, ועצם שבירת הכוס מביאה לידי זכרון החורבן.

* חיים שאל - רבי חיים יוסף דוד אזולאי (החיד"א) ....

הרב עובדיה יוסף: 1920- 2013. מן הרבנים המשפיעים ביותר במדינת ישראל.

היה הרב הספרדי הראשי (הראשון לציון), חתן פרס ישראל לספרות תורנית.

פותחים סוגריים

הרב בן ציון מאיר חי עוזיאל, משפטי עוזיאל , אבן העזר פט

למעלת כבודו, שעורר שאלה זו של שבירת הכוס בשעת החופה שיסודו הוא להטיל טיפת אבל בכוס שמחתנו לקיים מה שנאמר: אם אשכחך ירושלים וכו׳ אם לא אעלה את ירושלים על ראש שמחתי,

ועתה נהפך מנהג יפה זה למין פולחן והתהדרות של גבורה, שהחתן דורס בכח על הכוס ומשברו לרסיסים וכל הקרואים ממלאים פיהם שחוק ואומרים סימן טוב. ובצדק העיר מעלת כבודו שדבר זה אינו נאה והוא בהיפך מעיקר התקנה. ואף אני אענה חלק ואביע מר שיחי על מנהג זה שלפי צורתו העכשוי הוא מנהג טפל ומוטב היה לבטלו לגמרי מלשנות דמותו בצורה מכוערת שנפש היפה סולדת הימנו. בכל מקרה שאני נמצא בחתונות ורואה מנהג זה מצטער אני מאד אלא שאיני מוחה משום שאני מקיים בעצמי: מצוה שלא לומר דבר שאינו נשמע. ושבח אני מנהגם של קהלות הספרדים שהיו נוהגים לשבר את הכוס אתר שבע ברכות והקהל היו עונים ואומרים: אם אשכחך ירושלם וכו', אלא שבזמן האחרון התפשט בנו צורת מנהג זה. הרבה חקוי עושה והרבה עם הארצוּת עושה.
ועל כגון זה אמרו רבותינו זכרונם לברכה שמנהג הוא אותיות גהנם, זאת אומרת: שכל מקום שמפשיטים מהמנהג צורתו וכוונתו המקורית ועושים אותו לסגולה או פולחן, ומכל שכן להזיה טפלה וחסרת הטעם, נהפך המנהג לשערי גהינום

הרב עוזיאל: הרב בן-ציון מאיר חי עוּזיאל (1880 – 1953) הרב הראשי הספרדי

(הראשון לציון) הראשון של מדינת ישראל ואחד הרבנים הבולטים במחצית הראשונה של המאה העשרים.

עיון ודיון

1. מן המקורות עולות שתי סיבות מרכזיות למנהג שבירת הכוֹס. מהן?

2. כנגד איזו תופעה יוצא הרב עובדיה יוסף?

3. מה הוא מציע כדי להתמודד עם התופעה?

4. במה שונה הצעתו מזו של הרב עוזיאל?

5. לדעתכם, האם יש בימינו מקום למנהג שבירת הכוס? נמקו!

http://www.tkasim.org.il/%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%98%D7%A7%D7%A1-%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9F-1.html