Sources and Reasons:
A). In Sotah (48a), it is stated: When the Sanhedrin ceased, song ceased. The Gemara there states: Rav Huna said: The singing of boat-pullers and cattle-drivers is permitted; that of weavers is prohibited. Rashi explains: Those who pull boats with a rope—it is permitted, because it is only to spur them on in their work. And cattle-drivers: they sing while plowing, and it is only to direct the oxen in their furrows, as they follow the pleasant sound of the song. Weavers: it is only for amusement. It is thus clear that whoever hears musical instruments not for the purpose of amusement and rejoicing, but in order to perform his work, is permitted. So too wrote the Orchot Chaim (Hilchot Tisha B’Av, no. 14), that one who sings in order to ease his work is permitted. This is also written by the Bach (Orach Chaim, siman 560, s.v. u’le’inyan halachah). Accordingly, the same applies in our case, where their purpose in attending is to share feelings and encouragement with their children and grandchild; it is permitted.
B). Although one may in fact distinguish somewhat from the case of the Sanhedrin, for there it is not song intended to please people, but singing intended for oxen and boat-pullers, as Rashi wrote, “a song pleasant to them.” Yet it is possible that the owners of the oxen also enjoy the sound. This differs from our case, where the songs are produced in order to gladden people and give them pleasure, but this listener does not presently intend to enjoy them; perhaps in such a case it is more stringent. Nevertheless, even if we say so, the Ran (Perek Gid HaNasheh, in the discussion of reicha milta) maintains that regarding benefit, even an inevitable result is permitted when one does not intend it. See Sdei Chemed (Ma’arechet Peh, klal 1). See also Responsa Torah Lishmah (siman 394), regarding a person who benefits from a woman’s beauty or voice against his will and does not intend this: even though he could go elsewhere and not hear her voice, it is permitted. He derives this from Pesachim (25b). See also Chiddushei Rabbeinu Yonah on Berachot (17a).
C). Furthermore, it may be permitted based on the principle found in the Poskim of being occupied with one’s work. As stated in the Gemara, Avodah Zarah (20b), concerning a launderer of women’s clothing, and Bava Metzia (91a), concerning breeding, we likewise find the dispensation of “he is occupied with his work.” So too rules the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer, siman 23, סעיף 3). Similarly, we find that the Poskim relied on this dispensation in practice regarding women being examined by a doctor in covered areas of their bodies, as the Shach writes (Yoreh De’ah, siman 195, se’if katan 20). Although the Shach himself merely testified to the custom and did not explain its reason, I have seen that the great later authorities explicitly explained it thus: the Kereti U’Pleti (ibid.), Sidrei Taharah (ibid.), the Chida (ibid.), Aruch HaShulchan (ibid.), and Igrot Moshe (Yoreh De’ah, vol. 3, siman 54, letter 1), that since doctors are occupied with their work, there is no concern that they will entertain sinful thoughts. In Responsa Radbaz, vol. 4 (siman 2), he permitted on this basis even a husband to feel the pulse of his wife who is a niddah when she is ill. All the more so in our case, which is merely a customary practice.
D). Similarly, the Poskim permitted playing musical instruments during these days—for non-Jews—to one whose livelihood depends upon it, as well as for a mourner within the twelve months for a father or mother, or for a teacher teaching music during these days. Among the reasons they advanced is that they do not intend the actual rejoicing, but rather their livelihood. Although presumably they also derive enjoyment while playing music intended to gladden people, this is nevertheless not their primary intention. See Pri Megadim (siman 551, Eshel Avraham, se’if katan 10). The same conclusion permitting this emerges from what is written in Responsa Maharam Shik (Yoreh De’ah, siman 368), who was asked whether a mourner within twelve months may study the art of music, since the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah, siman 391) states that all forms of rejoicing are forbidden. He wrote that it may be said that they prohibited it only when one intends rejoicing, whereas when one intends only to learn the craft, it is an unintended matter and is permitted. However, he rejected this leniency because an observer would think that he intends rejoicing, and this would dishonor the deceased; see there. In our case, however, this reason does not apply, since everyone knows that this is the practice of those who exercise. It is therefore permitted, particularly in our case, where he hears the songs only through a recording and not through actual musical instruments, which is more lenient.
Likewise, proof for leniency may be brought from what the Sha’ar HaTziyun (siman 560, se’if katan 25) writes in the name of the Ma’amar Mordechai: one should protest against women who sing while working, for the Gemara in Sotah makes clear that the song of weavers, which is merely for amusement, is forbidden; but if they sing in order to put a baby to sleep, it is permissible. This proves that although they derive enjoyment from the song itself, nevertheless, whenever this is not their primary intention and they do it in order to gain another benefit, it is permitted. Responsa Tzitz Eliezer, vol. 15 (siman 33), and Chazon Ovadia—Bein HaMetzarim (p. 153), likewise permitted playing music during these days where one’s entire intention is for study or livelihood, for the reasons explained above; see there. See also Chazon Ovadia—Aveilut, vol. 2 (p. 367), and what I wrote in my book Torat Chaim (p. 65). See also my brief work Torat HaYeshivah (chapter 1, סעיף 7), regarding awakening by means of an alarm clock that plays melodies. Recently, Responsa Minchat Chen—Ohelboim, vol. 3 (siman 102), was published, and I saw that he ruled leniently in a similar case, allowing one to go to a gym where there is music, even though he is within the twelve-month period for a father or mother. He likewise permitted a waiter within the twelve-month period to serve in a hall where music is played, since his intention is not to derive enjoyment but to serve food to the invited guests.
Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, zatzal, likewise permitted in his work Ma’amar Mordechai—Aveilut a mourner within the twelve months for a father or mother to participate in a graduation celebration.
This response was translated automatically from Hebrew and has not yet been reviewed by a person. Therefore, it may contain inaccuracies and should not be considered a definitive reference.
This response was translated automatically from Hebrew and has not yet been reviewed by a person. It may therefore contain inaccuracies and should not be considered a definitive reference.
