Removing the cover from the Bima on Tishe Beav

Question:

I was present in a Chabad shul and being that I came early I began preparing the shul for the Maariv Tisha b’Av prayer, removing the Paroches and the covering of the Bima. Someone then told me that our custom is to leave the covering on the Bima, which is something that I’ve always seen removed in other Shuls. Can you please clarify?

Answer:

Indeed, many communities especially Chabad shul’s are accustomed to remove the covering from the Bima on the night of Tisha b’Av, just as the Paroches is removed. However, this is far from being universal even amongst Chabad shul’s, with some maintaining the tradition of only removing the Paroches and not the covering of the Bima, which indeed is not a written requirement. In practice, each shul and community should follow their long-standing tradition based on the guidance of their Rabbi. However, on a personal note, I would recommend following the former practice of removing the covering from the Bima as doing so properly emphasizes the state of mourning and adds to a greater imprint on a person’s mind and psyche as to the nature of Tisha b’Av, and how the temple should be mourned. It can instill into our children an everlasting memory of how we mourn the temple until the re-building of the third Temple, may it happen speedily in our days.

Explanation:

The custom of removing the covering from the Bima is based on the documented custom of removing the Paroches on Tisha b’Av. The Poskim rule that the Paroches is to be removed by Maariv in play of the verse “Betza Imraso” which is recited during Eicha. This custom is first recorded in the famous book of Ashkenazi customs from the times of the Rishonim titled “Sefer Haminhagim” of Rabbi Yitzchak Isaac of Tirna, and was later recorded by the Rama in his glosses on the Shulchan Aruch. The reason behind this custom is because there is a verse in the Megillah of Eicha which states “Betza Imraso” which can be translated in the Targum to mean that the woven material has been slashed. [The Targum translation of these words are ” בזע פורפירא דיליה ” which means “He tore His royal garment.” ורפירא refers to a royal or majestic cloak. בזע means “He tore.” דיליה means “His.”] Thus, we too so to say remove the clothing of the Aron which houses the Torah scrolls. Seemingly, from here extended the custom of also removing other majestic coverings, especially those associated with the Torah scroll, hence explaining the removal of the covering from the Bima. In addition, many also remove the covering of the Chazans Amud, as well as from the rabbis Shtender. However, this later extension of the custom is not recorded in the classic Sefarim, and is more a hand-me-down tradition which some communities have and others do not. One hint to this custom can be found in the book entitled “customs of worms” which records many of the ancient customs of Ashkenazi Jewry and states that it was customary to cover the Torah scroll and chairs with a black covering, signifying the state of mourning.

Now, as far as the Chabad custom: In general, unless a matter is explicitly recorded in the talks of the Rebe’s, and/or in the Chabad Sefer Haminhagim, it is difficult to establish it as a universal required Chabad custom. Even things that are done in the Rebbe’s Shul of 770 do not necessarily translate as Chabad custom which should be copied elsewhere, as the Rebbe has mentioned on numerous occasions that he does not agree with all the customs followed there and does not necessarily get involved in what is followed there. Hence, whenever something is not explicitly recorded in the above sources we must resort to looking at other external sources to establish the custom, including any long-standing traditions from communities and/or elders of Anash, as well as the various Chabad publications which document the Chabad custom. Now with regard to the above matter of removing the covering of the Bima we find the following discrepancies:

1. Nitei Gavriel: Records that it is indeed the Chabad custom to remove the covering from the Bima as well as from the Amud, in addition to the universal custom of the Paroches.
2. Hiskashrus: Rav Y.S. Ginzberg, in the Hiskashrus publications of the past three decades records this as well that it is our custom to remove the covering from the Bima as well as from the Amud. However, he cites it in parentheses rather than the regular text.
3. Luach Kolel Chabad: Makes no mention of this custom and simply rights to remove the Paroches.
4. Other publications: Many other Chabad publications, including my own Sefer which I published on the laws of the three weeks, records the above statements from Nitei Gavriel and Hiskashrus as being the official Chabad practice. However, in a recent Luach published by one of the Rabbis of Crown Heights, Rav Yeshaya Braun, he writes in footnote 252 that while some are accustomed to remove it, he writes that perhaps the actual custom by Chabad is not to remove it. He likewise adds that from the video in 770 from Tishe Beav of 1990 one can see that the covering has remained over the Bima. However, it has been removed from the Amud and Rebbes Shtender. Based on this, some of the more recent publications have written that the Chabad custom is not to remove it from the Bima.

As far as the Rebbe’s custom, we already stated that what they did or did not do in 770 is not necessarily a proof of what the Rebbe condoned and believed should be practiced. However, at least with regards to removing the covering of the Rebbe’s personal Shtender, from which we can learn that in general coverings should be removed from the Amud, it was clearly witnessed in 1967 that when the Rebbe came down to Daven Maariv and saw the covering on his Shtender, the Rebbe removed it from there and put it away inside one of the openings.

All in all, I alone cannot establish based on the above information any set universal custom in this regard, due to lack of sources and relevant testimony. Accordingly, whatever a congregation decides to do has upon what to rely, so long as it does not change from the tradition that it followed until this time. However, in a new shul or a Shul that does not have a set tradition, I would recommend following the custom of having it removed from the Bima, as it is seemingly no different than the removal from the Amud which the Rebbe himself personally did, and adds tremendously to the Tisha b’Av atmosphere of mourning, and helps one fulfill the statement of the sages that whoever mourns the destruction of Jerusalem will merit to see its rebuilding.

Sources: See regarding removing the Paroches: Rama 559:2; Minhagim Tirana; Levush 559:1; Derech Hachaim 134:1; Luach Eretz Yisrael; Kol Hamisabel Aleha 25:6 footnote 21; Nitei Gavriel 94:9 See regarding removing the cover of the Bima: Zoreiach Hashemesh of Rav Dabilitzky [remove]; Nitei Gavriel 54:5 that so is the Chabad custom; Chayeh Halevi 10 [don’t remove]; See regarding Minhagei 770 and the Rebbe’s perspective that it cannot be relied upon: Toras Menachem 4:156; 8:194; 36:133; Hisvadyus 5743 1:308; Igros Kodesh 13:154; Hamelech Bemisibo 2:157  Pardes Chabad 15 p.  118 as to directives that the Rebbe personally gave to Rabbi Tuvia Bloy in his compilation of Chabad custom “The Rebbe told me regarding customs practiced at 770: There is a general Chabad calendar, and some writings on customs, which guide how one should act. As for what is practiced in 770, the Rebbe Rayatz told me that he does not mix into Gabaus [and hence, one cannot base Chabad custom based on what they do and 770].” Reshimos Divrei Admur in his private audience with the Belzer Rebbe in 1981: “The Belzer Rebbe, shlit”a asked the Rebbe about the local custom here in the synagogue of the Rebbe regarding Torah reading with two ‘shin’ letters. The Rebbe, shlit”a, responded: ‘I do not get involved in such matters, and therefore it depends on the baal koreh (Torah reader).’ I once asked my father-in-law, the previous Rebbe, regarding the conduct of the Torah reader in Lubavitch in a specific manner. He answered me that his father, the Rebbe Rashab, of blessed memory, did not intervene in synagogue customs that fall under the authority of the gabbaim (synagogue caretakers), and the like.”” See also the diary of Rav Leibal Groner who documents the Rebbe’s reaction to several customs done in 770 not in accordance to the Rebbes view “After the fast ended, Havdalah was recited in the synagogue, and the person reciting it began with the verses “Behold, God is my salvation.” I told him to start with the blessing “Borei Pri HaGafen”

The Rebbe, said he should finish saying the verses. Afterwards, when he entered his room, he asked me why I told him not to recite the verses. I answered that that’s what is written in the book regarding Tisha B’Av that falls on Shabbat. The Rebbe asked where the source was, and since it wasn’t clear, he said: “It’s a wild thing not to say those verses—after all, we say them on Motzaei Yom Tov.”He added: “That’s the reason I didn’t want to lead the prayer service—because of these wild customs.” I asked: What specific custom was considered wild?

He replied: “I’m not certain about the Kaddish after the Maftir in Mincha.” I said that it’s in Shaar HaKollel and that this has been the practice all these years, and he laughed. Then he again spoke about changing out of Shabbat clothes, saying it was an unparalleled wild practice—to instruct Jews to go home and wait until after the appointed time, and because of that, to delay the Ma’ariv (evening) prayer. That is a custom from Hungary, but in Russia, they never heard of such a thing.”