Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

After Birkas HaTorah in the morning, we say a Pasuk (VaYedaber ... YeVarechecha ... VaAni Avarachem), a Mishna (Eilu Dvarim SheEin LaHem Shiyur ... VeTalmud Torah) and some Gemara (Eilu Devarim SheAdam Ochel ... VeTalmud Torah Keneged Kulam).

We say those verses to fulfill our obligation to learn Torah after Birkas HaTorah.

On the morning of Tisha BeAv we only learn the "sad" parts of Torah. Why don't we replace these phrases with more "appropriate" verses (kind of like how we replace Mishnayos before Kaddish)?

share|improve this question
Note that there are variant traditions about which material to include after Birkas HaTorah on a regular day. – Double AA Aug 4 '14 at 1:21
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Rav Moshe Einstadter of Cleveland, Ohio told me that for several years he actually switched to saying pesukim from Eicha, and Mishnayos and Gemara related to mourning. He switched back after some time.

Rav Ezra Neuberger (Rosh Kollel of Kollel Avoads Levi of Ner Israel) explained that these segments are not arbitrary, or just happen to be conveniently related to Torah. He explained that they really complete the Birkas HaTorah, in that each one highlights an element of what Torah study is, and therefore they are very much connected to the beracha. The verses communicate that Torah is a beracha, the Mishna communicates that Torah is boundless, and the Gemara communicates that Torah surpasses this world. Therefore, they are singularly appropriate to accompany the beracha, and they really are, in a sense, part of the beracha. We don't replace them because they are more intrinsic to that part of the service.

(@DoubleAA's point not withstanding)

share|improve this answer
Maybe they are "most appropriate" (whatever that means) but you can't argue that other verses wouldn't work. – Double AA Aug 4 '14 at 13:35
You show that the standard text choices are not arbitrary and thus any replacements must also not be arbitrary. The OP has satisfactorily showed that his replacement would not be arbitrary. Hence, we have no conclusion (other than the argument from the authority of R Neuberger (which makes this a valid, though unsatisfying, answer)). Can you elaborate why this value beats out the value of avoiding non-sad Torah on Tisha bAv? – Double AA Aug 4 '14 at 20:35

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.