The Mazal Of Av Part II

There seems to be a machlokes what exactly the reason is for the halacha that we don't go to a din torah with non Jews during Av. The gemara in Taanis 29A says "mishenichnas Av mima'atin b'simcha". Immediately afterwards the gemara quotes Rav Papa that therefore we don't go to a din torah with non-Jews. The mashmaos is that because of "mishenichnas Av mima'atin b'simcha" we don't go to a din torah with non-Jews. Tosafos however says that Rav Papa is referring to an earlier gemara. The gemara earlier says that we know the second bayis was destroyed on 9 Av because "m'galgilin yom chov al yidei chayav"-since 9 Av is a yom chov we assume other bad things happened that day.

The Ritva seems to disagree with Tosfos. The Ritva puts the gemara of "mishenichnas Av mima'atin b'simcha" together with Rav Papa's haalcha of going to a din torah with non Jews. He seems to understand the gemara k'pushto and not like Tosafos.

Nireh Li that there are two nafka mina between Tosafos and the Ritva.

1) The Ritva asks why are we concerned with the bad mazal of the Jews, don't we say " ain mazal l'yisroel "?.
The Ritva gives two answers. a) The months of Av and Tamuz are different. b) mazal is lav davka but it means gezairos.

The Maharsha gives a different answer. He says that since "m'galgilin yom chov al yidei chayav", we have to be worried about losing a din torah. The Mahrsha seems to mean that this halacha has nothing to do with mazal but is a function of a different klal called "m'galgilin yom chov al yidei chayav".

It could be that the Ritva and Maharsha are l'shitaso. The Ritva holds this halacha of going to court in Av is a function of "mishenichnas Av mima'atin b'simcha". Therefore he gives his answer of why we don't say " ain mazal l'yisroel " as being due to the nature of the month. The Maharsha however holds like Tosafos that this halacha is a function of "m'galgilin yom chov al yidei chayav" and therefore his teretz is based on understanding how "m'galgilin yom chov al yidei chayav" works.

In general the Ritva is a little shver. Why is this halacha a function of miyut in simcha. L'chorah it is a "mazal related" halcha. How does simcha fit in. You could say that the miyut b'simcha isn't a siba but a siman. It is a siman for what kind of month it is. From here we see that this month is a bad time to go to court as well.

You could also ask on the Ritva why this halacha doesn't apply to Tamuz as well.

2) Another possible nafka mina is a machlokes MG"A and Korbon Nesanel. The MG"A quotes Rabbeinu Yeruchom that we don't go to a din torah the whole month of Av. The Korbon Nesanel disagrees and says this halacha is based on "mishenichnas Av mima'atin b'simcha" and the miyut in simcha is only until 10 Av. Therefore, the halacha of going to court is only until 10 Av.

Now it seems there are 2 ways to understand this machlokes. It could be both Rabbeinu Yerucham and the Korbon Nesanel learn this halacha is based on "mishenichnas Av mima'atin b'simcha". We already saw from the Ritva that the mazal of the whole month of Av is affected. Therefore, according to the Rabeinu Yerucham this halacha would apply to the whole month. The Korbon Nesanel would argue and say that it is a function of the miyut in simcha which only goes until 10 Av. The question on the Korbon Nesanel is why is this halacha a function of miyut in simcha. You couldn't necessarily give the same teretz I gave in the Ritva cause according to that teretz this halacha should apply to the whole month and not just until 10 Av.

The other way to explain the machlokes could be that Rabbeinu Yerucham holds like Tosafos. This halacha of going to court is tied to "m'galgilin yom chov al yidei chayav" and this affects the whole month. The Korbon Nesanel clearly holds like the Ritva that it is tied to miyut b'simcha and only applies until 10 Av.

I will admit that I am not sure if any of my lomdus will stand up to close scrutiny. I invite you to let me know if you think I am totally off base.