The Noachide Dilemma part 9

In the late eighteenth century, the new Hasidic movement was maligned, persecuted, and even excommunicated in Eastern Europe. Without going through the various theories, mostly fanciful, about why the hate and violence occurred, the plain fact was that it was "different". Although people will tell you that the strife is no more, that is not true in most places. It just doesn't come to open hostilities anymore. This is something I have studied first hand, and will not entertain arguments on this point. That is not the topic I wish to discuss now. One of the most difficult features of the early strife, was the issue of where Hasidim should pray. Hasidic prayer, especially in the "olden days". was exuberant. There was song, there was dance. A different prayerbook was adopted, which more closely followed Kabbalah. The anti-Hasidim were scandalized. As far as they were concerned, this was simply not Judaism. The early Hasidim would pray in small, informal groups. Their opponents, the Mitnagdim, taunted them that they were violating both the Talmudic injunction "do not separate yourself from the community", as well as the principle of "In the multitude of the People is the King's Glory". The sources were clear. If you have the choice of praying in a synagogue of a thousand worshippers, or one of fifty worshippers, you are obligated to go to the one of the thousand worshippers, as there is more glory to the KIng (G-d). The Mitnagdim could now point to a "sinful" behavior of the Hasidim. Hasidim relented, and began to go to the large Central Synagogues. There, they met with taunts, insults, jeers...and occasional violence. The Hasidim were in a quandary. Finally, one Hasidic leader came across a little known responsum from the sixteenth century Egyptian rabbi, who had been a major teacher of the ARI, Rabbi David ben Zimra (1479-1573), known as RADBAZ. RADBAZ had written a responsum that said that as praying in a synagogue with close friends, was more conducive to prayerfulness than praying in a large group of strangers, this would outway, the considerations of not separating from the community, and the idea of the King's Glory being greater in the multitude. Some Hasidic leaders urged every Hasid to memorize this responsum. Hasidim went back to praying in small, informal groups. In more recent times, several Hasidic groups went over to forming their own towns, off the beaten track, but close enough to commute to work. These towns are self governing. They are, essentially, a city of friends, with the same ideals, the same way of life. I have visited several of these, and am in awe of them. The difference between these types of communities, and those that attempt to exist in a hostile environment is palpable. Whenever I have visited Kiryas Joel, the Satmar community in Orange county, New York, I have been overwhelmed by people inviting me for lunch, or even asking me to come for a Shabbat.Whenever I went to pray at the Satmar community in Jerusalem, I have been asked "who are you, and what do you want?" One was "comfortable in their skin", the other fearful and suspicious. THAT is what community is about. So what does this have to do with converts and Noachides? In my opinion, converts and Noachides should have their own communities, rather than grovel at the feet of those who are suspicious and fearful of them. I believe they should have their own leadership, trained by sympathetic rabbis, who remain available for guidance, but who do not micromanage. In some countries, Noachides maintain their own synagogues, usually under the guidance of a Chabad emissary.. I think that this is a good paradigm for converts, Noachides, and even Baalei Teshuvah. of course, the "establishment" would oppose this. But had the Hasidim followed the advice of the establishment, you would today only find Hasidim in history books. More to come.

The Noachide Dilemma part 8

The big question is, in my opinion, can Torah offer the non-Jew a meaningful spiritual life, without the necessity of conversion? We must address two issues here. First, there is great suspicion, or even fear, among many Jews of the non-Jewish world. Two thousand years of persecution have left us in doubt as to the motives of the Western World. (A terrorist attack at a Paris synagogue, drew the ire of a prominent French politician, as it had killed not only Jews, but also many "innocent people") Many Jews are even suspicious of converts, let alone non-Jews who want, in one way or another, to be like us, but not completely. There are, after all, besides those who come and say that they are Israel "by the Spirit", there are millions who claim Jewishness by means of various unfounded theories, like claims that all Europeans are Jews, all Africans are Jews, or, a theory espoused by some Churches, that the Biblical Israel means all the English speaking countries of the world. A non-Jew, "disguising himself" as a Jew, at one time was seen as a dangerous infiltrator, perhaps aimed at our destruction. It is a fact that at one time, in many parts of Europe, a Jew could be murdered with no fear of consequences. A non-Jew wearing a tallit, could be out to murder Jews, once he has gained their confidence. Today, few would fear that, but rather just the opposite. Is the nice gentleman sitting next to me in synagogue, really Jewish? What about the woman my son is about to marry? These fears are very much present, and must be considered. As a result, many rabbis take an anti-Noachide stance; not because that is what Torah says, but because they feel truly threatened by the phenomenon. Fear of yet another heterodoxic cult is also palpable. The second issue is, to what degree does the halachah encourage, or even permit, a non-Jew to observe the laws of Judaism, beyond the Seven Noachide laws? Here, there are no clear guidelines, and opinions differ. The Torah only excludes non-Jews from one commandment. The Passover sacrifice stipulates that no "foreigner" (nochri) may partake of it, until he is circumcised, which we undersatnd as converted. However, a few other mitzvot stipulate that they are "a sign between Me and the Children of Israel". Noachides are NOT of the Children of Israel. To observe these mitzvot, one would be undoing the special relationship between G-d and the Jewish People. Therefore, RAMBAM rules that a non-Jew may voluntarily keep any mitzvah that does not stipulate "Between Me and the Children of Israel". If he were to do any other commandment, it would be meritorious, and he would receive a reward. This view has both Scriptural and Talmudic statements to back it up, and is therefore the one I go by.The medieval Ashkenazi rabbis, although very liberal in defining a Noachide, and willing to accept Christianity as an acceptable form of Noachidism, drew the line at voluntary observances. A non-Jew putting on tefillin, for example, is actually desecrating them. He is mocking G-d's Covenant with Israel. It is analogous to a man coming into his neighbor's home, and deciding that his neighbor's wife is also HIS wife, because he feels a special connection. We call that adultery.This idea became very widespread, although, to the best of my knowledge, it has no textual source, and is merely a "svara" (theoretical construct).When, about seventeen years ago, Madonna had a well known rabbi come to her home to affix a mezzuzah, many (including yours truly) cheered, while many others jeered. Was this a Kiddush HaShem (Sanctification of the Name) or a Hillul HaShem (desecration of the Name)? In my series about Daat Torah (The Torah Mind), I described the phenomenon of the last three hundred and fifty years, especially in Lithuanian circles, that the great rabbis of the generation must be understood as being basically infallible. The man who was seen by right wing, non-Hasidic Ashkenazi Jews in America as "THE Great" of the Twentieth Century, was Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. "Reb Moshe" set the standards for American Orthodoxy. (Although he was little esteemed in most Hasidic, and, to a lesser extent, in Modern Orthodox circles). He was asked about this question of non-Jews keeping mitzvot. He reinterpreted RAMBAM. He expanded the idea that non-Jews were only required to abstain from those mitzvot which stipulated "Between Me and the Children of Israel", to include all the mitzvot that have a specifically "Jewish character". All that is left is sacrifice, prayer, and charity. This, too, is only a "svara", but is accepted as law by most of American Orthodoxy.Few non-Jews would see this as a viable way of life. I have here outlined the problems. In my next post, I will explore the possible solutions.

The Noachide Dilemma part 7

I mentioned in my last post, that Noachidism (the Fearers of the L-rd) was quite popular in the first century BCE and for some time afterwards. We must add a question. Why did it not survive? Why was it so easily defeated and replaced by Christianity? I believe the answer is that being a Noachide is boring. It is wishy-washy. It's like being a "little bit pregnant". The grandeur of Judaism is before one's eyes, but he is not really part of it. Yes, one can convert, especially in those days when conversion was seen a s a very positive thing. But the realities of life in the Roman Empire made Jewish observance very difficult. Being a Noachide, one is not Jewish, but not Gentile, either. One has no house of worship. One has no community. There is no drama (not a major feature in Jewsih worship in general). In fact, all the Noachide laws are "Thou shalt nots". Feelings of celebration, spirituality, purposefulness, idealism, are little to nonexistent. Christianity, on the other hand, offered all of these things. The Jews, living under the yoke of Roman oppression (which was about to get much worse) were in no position to become the mentors of a Noachide nation. Many Jews took the attitude (and many still do) that Noachidism is simply G-d saying to the world "Look, it's all about the Jews. You just sit in the corner and behave yourselves. You will be rewarded if you do". When I came to Torah in the mid 1960s, as a teenager, I asked the rabbis who were teaching me "what about the non-Jews?" They always answered "Oh, they have the Noachide laws. But if they are good Christians, that fulfills their obligation. It's not our concern". (This was before the anti-Christian views of RAMBAM became well known). This answer was only partially satisfying to me. All the rabbis I studied with at that time, had numbers tattooed on their arms. Their experiences convinced them of the worthlessness of the non-Jewish world. But I was attending a public High School. I had many non-Jewish classmates, who were also my friends. I knew that they had the same aspirations that I had. Only in the late 1970s, did the Lubavitcher Rebbe begin speaking about disseminating the concept of Noachidism, and commanding his followers to spread this doctrine to all non-Jews they encounter. He was mocked and maligned for this in many circles. What, we don't have Jewish problems, that we need to involve ourselves with THEM? Are you crazy? You will incite antisemitism! If this is such a good idea, why did't the rabbis of previous generations speak of this? But the Lubavitcher Rebbe saw that the world was changing. There was now a thirst for G-d, that was largely going unsatisfied. Universal persecution of Jews was no more. Even the Catholic Church. long a force in Jewish repression, was now apologizing, and putting out a hand of friendship. Perhaps it was now the time to openly speak the Truth of Torah to the world! Several non-Jewish led Noachide groups sprang up. But they, too, faced the challenges of forming a theology, as well as a community structure.They devised various approaches on how to incorporate Biblical and Talmudic Jewish observances into their lives in a meaningful way, that would also be consistent with Torah and halachah. I will discuss this next time. At the same time, a sinister assault on Judaism backfired, causing a major upheaval within Christianity. Moishe Roisen, a Jewish apostate, became a Baptist Minister. He hit upon a plan to convert the Jews. Few Jews, even atheist Jews, were willing to abandon their Jewish identity. Efforts to convert the Jews, often with huge financial backing from evangelical groups, were always dismal failures. Roisen's plan was to not telling the Jews that they must become Christians, but rather that Christianity was the ultimate Judaism. He founded "Jews for Jesus". It was totally funded by the Southern Baptist Church. Members wore kippot. They took on many Jewish observances, while keeping a Trinitarian Christianity. Jewish rituals were given a Christian interpretation. Jesus, a name which runs a close second with Hitler in Jewsih consciousness, was given back his original Hebrew name, Yeshua, which had no emotional baggage. The "goyyim" had totally screwed up Christianity. Here is the "real deal" that only Jews can appreciate. Unfortunately, the ruse worked. Many Jews bought into it. Before Roisen's death in 2010, he said "I have succeeded beyond my wildest dreams". However, a strange thing began to happen. Non-Jewish Christians began to reexamine the Jewish roots of Christianity. Pagan elements, that had been readily adopted by the early Church, and had been little changed by Protestantism, began to be questioned...and discarded. "Messianic" Synagogues were now everywhere. The overwhelming number of members are now non-Jewish Christians. Some have simply put a more Jewish Jesus at the center of their Christianity. But many questioned the very validity of Christian doctrines that had come in in 325. While many still see Jesus as G-d, many began to reinterpret the concept of the Messaih in a Jewish way; not as a Divine personage, but as a man. Many now see Jesus as a "rabbi". Many ministers have begun to call themselves "rabbi". A few years ago, a non-Jewish "Messianic Synagogue", sent me a scan of their Torah Scroll, to inquire if it was kosher. While this movement has caused a lot of confusion for both Jews and Christians (About three months ago, I received a PM from a woman demanding to be supported financially by the Jews, as she is "an Orthodox Jew by the Spirit"), it has also made many Christians question not only the meaning of Jesus, but even the necessity of Jesus. Many are looking in the direction of Noachidism, or even Judaism, A similar movement in the First Century was vigourously fought by Paul. ("If there is Righteousness under the Law, then Christ died in vain" (Galations 2:21) This is causing a huge upheaval in segments of Christianity. But is there any Jewish response? Do we welcome them, or should we be suspicious? More to come.

The Noachide Dilemma part 6

I want to make it clear that my intent in these posts is not to try and undersatnd Jesus, nor to try and show how "evil" Christianity is. My intent is to show that, despite all the horrific crimes Christians comitted against the Jews, we should, in my opinion, not see Christianity as some great sinister force. RAMBAM, although declaring Christianity as idolatry, nevertheless sees it as an improvement over paganism, and a way of getting all Mankind to be familiar with our Scriptures, in preparation for the real Messiah. I would say that ninety five percent of the teachings of Jesus are, on the one hand, completely consistent with Jewish tradition. But on the other hand, are in no way new or original. The other five percent is in opposition to our understanding of Torah, and verges on the pagan, and certainly the antisemitic. I do not know if Jesus actually said these things (Synagogue of Satan, Den of Vipers, etc.) or if they are the words of others. But I do not care. For me, Jesus is a footnote on a single page of Jewish history. He did nothing significant. Deuteronomy 13 warns u8s against beleiving miracle workers who oppose Torah.. Paul made the main point of Jesus' life out of Jesus' death and its meaning. One eighteenth century rabbi, Jacob Emden, even thought that Jesus and his disciples were actually making a Noachide movement, that simply went terribly wrong. Few take this idea seriously today, but I see it as healthy approach to a great problem. Unhealthy, is the approach of many Jews, who refuse to even say the name of Jesus, or who cross the street when coming upon a Church. This kind of fear breeds an unhealthy, and undeserved, awe. Let's go back in history. In the years before Jesus. Greek and Roman paganism were crumbling. It offered neither hope of Eternity, nor a better life in this world. Many "Mystery Cults" branched of from the old faiths, that did promise these things. The cult of Persephone,gave birth to the Eleusinian mysteries. More exotic, and therefore more exciting were the "imported" religions. The cult of Isis from Egypt, and the cult of Mithra from Persia, were especially important. Mithraism had taken over large parts of Roman society; especially the military. It was an offshoot of Zoroastrianism; the persian religion at that time. Zoroastrianism (now a persecuted minority in Iran), teached Dualism, the existence of a god of good and a god of evil. We owe to them the concept of a Devil, at war with G-d, as well as the concept of Hell. (Thank you very much!) A later form of Zoroastrianism taught that the god of good begat a son, out of a rock, on December 25th. That son was Mithra or Mithras. (Not to be confused with Mothra, of early '60s Japanese monster movies). Mithra slew the Bull of Heaven, an embodiment of the god of evil. He sprinkled its blood upon the righteous, thereby cleansing them from sin. If a man would sacrifice a bull to Mithra, and wash in its blood, he would forever be cleansed, and join the army of Mithra forever. One drawback of Mithraism, however, was that Mithraism and its hopeful promises, only were open to men. Many people were also attracted to Judaism. A Noachide movement (Called "Fearers of the L-rd) sprang up; even meriting a special place in the Temple precincts in Jerusalem.(A sign, delineating that area. was discovered in Jerusalem). We know that there were Jewish missionaries, all around the Mediterranean basin. Some particularly "sneaky" ones, even forged books of the Sybil; the oracle of Apollo, urging conversion to Judaism. Many did convert, but the masses did not. The first obstacle was circumcision. But Shabbat restrictions were almost impossible to keep in a society with a seven day work week. Then, along comes Paul. Want to be Jewish and merit Eternal life? No need for circumcision (Peter disagreed). Simply get sprinkled with some water, and believe in Jesus! No need for laws (the letter of the Law killeth, the Spirit of the Law maketh to live). New Sibylline oracles were "discovered" with Apollo urging conversion to Christianity. The new religion answered all the aspirations of many Romans. One could be connected with the G-d of Israel without the necessity of doing anything but believe. But you had better beleive REAL HARD, because your eternity depends on it! Unlike Mithraism, it was "family friendly". Belief in Jesus is your ticket to Heaven. I know many converts who are told by their parents "we don't care what you do, but you must continue to beleive in Jesus, or you will go to Hell" Jesus is an insurance policy. the required premium is continued belief. (In Judaism, belief is a relatively minor point, overshadowed by acceptance of the Will of G-d). Now we can understand why even people who have rejected Christian doctrine, still cling to a belief in Jesus. Do you want to bet your Eternity that your conclusions are right? Be safe, and beleive! The compulsion to convince others is, essentially, an urge to reinforce your own (perhaps shaky) beliefs. "Well, THEY'RE believing it, so it must be true". To allow others not to believe, is like admitting that you may be wrong. You can only feel safe when everyone around you believes! But can these people, if they observe the ethical requirements of Noachidism, be considered Noachides? According to RAMBAM, no, as their belief is not rooted in the Torah obligations. But according to most others, yes. When a missionary approaches me, I feel sorry for their insecurity. But that is the nature of the human experience. We need not hate, but have compassion, until all men and women come to the Truth. May it be soon! Next, i will deal with the limitations of Noachidism.

The Noachide Dilemma part 5

I find it remarkable, and a sign of Jewish optimism, that out of the depths of Christian persecution of the Jews, rabbis were making every effort to find interpretations that Christianity is not necessarily idolatry. Besides the issue of Shituf (Partnership), another factor was raised, from the thirteenth century onward; Minhag Avoteihem B'ydeihem" (Their Fathers' Custom is in Their Hands). For sure, there were, and are, fully believing Christians.But for many, if not most, there is little dealing with the difficult questions of Christian theology. If one first reads the "New Testament", and then looks at the Tanach, he will find hundreds of of prophecies about Jesus. But if one first reads the Tanach, and then looks at the "New Testament", one is struck at the almost total disconnect between the two. For example, there are many verses in Proverbs that speak of falling, and then rising. It is clear that the meaning is that a man, even if he stumbles, can rise up again. But Christian sources relate this to the death and resurrection of Jesus.The vast majority of "prophecies" like this, are not even talking about the Messaih, let alone Jesus. The most bewildering for most Christians, is the issue of the alleged divinity of Jesus. I often see people posting things like "Jesus created me". One man I know, who has a huge ax to grind against the Catholic Church, often puts up pictures of the Pope, and writes "how arrogant of him! No man is Divine; except Jesus!". Logic would dictate that if no man is divine, how do we know that Jesus is? Because he said so? (Debatable) What if the Pope, or Kim Kardashian for that matter, declare themselves divine, would he beleive them? I have often asked Christians if Jesus is G-d. Almost always, I will get in response "of course not! He is the Son of G-d!" "Then what is the Trinity?" I get a blank stare in response. "Hmm...I never thought about it!". Only the Catholics say "it is a mystery", which is another way of saying "No clue". Liberal Protestants have largely abandoned these ideas, in favor of Social Gospel". I.e., that Jesus' message is that we be involved in helping the poor and down trodden. A survey of Methodist ministers, from about 1970, showed that only 40% believed in the Virgin Birth, and only 1% in the Second Coming. (Results today would be quite different, as the Methodists have taken a turn to the Right.) The Medieval rabbis saw many of these things already happening in the Church, and came to the conclusion that, for the most part, Christians pray to G-d, but maintain the classical narrative as folklore, without which they would be lost. Lip service is given to the ancient doctrines; even emphatically. These are essentially the vehicle for their connection with G-d. Yes, this is what they tell their children, but children grow up. A few years ago, I asked a Pentecostal pastor if he believed that Jesus was "the only road to Salvation". He answered "I did when I was younger". The rabbis concluded that Monotheism is not what is in the books, or doctrines people learn to parrot, but what people actually beleive in their hearts. The medieval European rabbis, concluded that most Christians were Monotheists. Maintaining tradition and dogma was something that gave them roots and comfort. People tend to love continuity. We must go by the reality of people's lives, rather than by what they say. But why are tyhey so zealous in preaching doctrines that they no longer believe in (for the most part) And why do we encounter many people who cherish their relationship with Jesus, but yet reject the "New Testament" and all known sayings of Jesus. I have a friend who is a "New Ager". She hears the voice of Jesus often. But what she quotes in his name, is actually Buddhism. When I point this out, she says "Of course. He is a Buddhist!" "Then how do you know it is Jesus?" "I just know". This may be an extreme case, but I have known many people with similar ideas. How can we explain this phenomenon? That will be my next post.

The Noachide Dilemma part 4

Although RAMBAM considered Christianity "in all its forms" to be idolatrous, and such a belief would disqualify a person from being a Noachide, from at least the thirteenth century, many disagreed strongly. The bases for the disagreement are several, which I will deal with separately. The first, is the concept of "Shituf" ("partnership"). In Exodus 23:20, G-d informs Moses that he will not go with the people, but will send an angel (or messenger) to lead them. Moses later pleads with G-d to not do this, and his prayer is granted. In some post Talmudic literature, it is stated that G-d runs the world through an angel (Metatron) during the week, but on Shabbat He runs the world directly. Some see this concept as heretical, others accept it, while debating its meaning. This idea became eventually fused with the heresy of Gnosticism (from a Greek word, meaning "to know"). Gnosticism is based on the idea that there are two G-ds; one the Ultimate G-d, the other a lesser being, known as the Demiurge ("half power"). In Jewish Gnosticism, the Higher power is G-d, the lesser, the Angel Metatron. The Gnostics would attempt, in their meditations, to go higher into the heavens, in order to "know" the ultimate G-d. (One explanation of the apostasy of Rabbi Elisha Ben Avuyah, is that in his meditations, he came upon the sight of Metatron, and concluded that there are two gods). Early Christians, before the doctrine of Trinity was formally defined and accepted, usually took a Gnostic position. The G-d of the Torah is the Higher Power, while Jesus, now turned into a god, is the lesser power. In some Eastern forms of Christianity, this was reversed, with the G-d of the Torah being identified with the demiurge, sometimes even seen as a spiteful being forcing people to observe laws, while Jesus is the ultimate power, freeing Man from all. These latter groups were especially anti-Semitic. Fortunately , at the Council of Nicaea (325), this view was strongly rejected. Rabbis debated and pondered, is Gnosticism compatible with Judaism? Some, like RAMBAM, insisted in a super pure Monotheism, well beyond the beliefs found in Tanach or Talmud. In his philosophical work, he even denies the existence of angels, as this would demean the Oneness of G-d. (He contradicts himself in his halachic work, in which he does recognize angels, and even includes some statements, almost prayers, which are to be addressed to them). Other rabbis, from his time on, concluded that for a Jew, Gnosticism is not sufficiently Monotheistic, but acceptable for a Noachide. Most rabbis considered the Gnostic view acceptable for Noachides. This leaves a huge question unanswered. For most Gnostic Christians, Jesus was clearly a lesser being; a demiurge. But the Council of Nicaea had declared him to be an "equal person" in the Trinity. Does that mean that there are three gods, one of whom is actually G-d? Does this jive with the Gnostic concept. already long debated? If a non-Jew believes in a hundred gods, but one of them is our G-d, is that an acceptable belief in G-d, or is it idolatry pure and simple? (I must add that I have questioned numerous Christian clergy about Trinity, and never got the same answer twice). By and large, European rabbis, although they certainly had no sympathy for the "deity" in whose name they were being persecuted and murdered, concluded that Christianity qualifies as Monotheism for Noachides. It is ultimately "Shittuf" "partnership" not fundamentally different from Gnosticism. A good, moral Christian could, indeed, have a share in the world to come. (Those who follow the views of RAMBAM, including nearly all online rabbis, would vigorously deny this). But what about other Christian doctrines which conflict with Torah? Can believing Christians still be Noachides? That will be the topic of my next post.

Pre-Tish'ah B'Av Mourning

We have already seen how Ashkenazi tradition puts a heavy emphasis on custom. I have also shown how the millennia of persecution, have left a tragic legacy, where mourning rites were expanded greatly. This is especially true of Ashkenazim, where even joyous occasions usually have a bitter-sweet overtone. This is also true, to a lesser degree, among Sepharadim. The Talmudic rules for pre-Tish'ah B'av observance are few. But virtually all communities have expanded upon them. The halachic status of these is debatable. Some rabbis (mostly Ashkenazim, but not exclusively) insist on the customs as we find them; even those that came in during our grandparents lifetimes, while others urge the returning, to one degree or another, to the original practices. What does the Talmud say? There is no such thing as the "Three Weeks" (from Shiv'ah Asar B'Tammuz) in Talmud. Some mourning rules begin with the first of Av (the Nine Days" when we are urged to "diminish joy". One should not plant a garden that is for pleasure (rather than for food), or build an unessential building or addition to our homes, that are merely for pleasure. No weddings are to be held. It is also forbidden to buy new clothes. Most of the mourning rules begin only on the week when Tish'ah B'av occurs. So, if Tish'ah B'av falls on any day of the week from Sunday on, the rites only begin after Shabbat, until the actual day of Tish'ah B'Av. (The rabbis of a later era, debate the issue of a Tish'ah B'av that falls on Shabbat (like this year) but is observed on Sunday. Is "the week of Tish'ah B'av the entire week before, or non-existent? Most Ashkenazim hold the former, most Sepharadim hold the latter. No bathing is allowed. But this is interpreted differently. Some interpret it as any bathing as showering. Others interpret it as any bathing for pleasure, as opposed to cleanliness. Still others see it as forbidding only hot baths for pleasure, as the Talmud reads 'do not go into the bath house". No hair cutting is allowed. The Talmud forbids eating meat at the last meal before the fast (if that is a weekday). The drinking of wine is not forbidden, but became a feature of most communities' observances for this time of year. No wine is drunk for either the "nine days" or at least the week in which Tish'ah B'av occurs. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef writes that although most Sepharadic communities did not have this custom, it is, nevertheless, appropriate to observe. Most of these restrictions are observed by Ashkenazim from the First of Av,while Sepharadim only observe them Tishah B'Av occurs.Eating meat is the sole exception. Most Sepharadim refrain from the Second of Av. In Ashkenazi tradition,  the Talmudic  observances of the Nine Days are put all the way back to the 17th of Tammuz; especially weddings. Sepharadim only stop weddings from the first of Av, and have some room for leniency even in this. Sepharadim observe no mourning until the Second of Av. Ashkenazim refrain from hair cutting for the "three weeks"; Sepharadim keep the original "week in which Tish'ah B'av occurs". Also, Sepharadim do not apply this to women, while Ashkenazim do...Most Yemenites only refrain from meat at the last meal before the fast, if that occurs on a weekday. Ashkenazim do no laundry for the nine days; Sepharadim only on the week of Tish'ah B'av. Likewise for wearing freshly laundered garments. (Garments are put on and worn for a while before either the nine days, or the week of Tish'ah B'Av, and stored for use on these days. (Exclusive of Shabbat). No mention of music is found in the classic sources, but instrumental music was seen as similar to wedding celebrations, and a painful reminder of the loss of the Temple, where music was central. . Ashkenazim refrain for the three weeks; Sepharadim, have varying customs on this matter. I recently wrote about the fact that most Jews refrain also from recorded and broadcast music, but this practice is seen by many as baseless. I ignore it completely. other  than on Tish'ah B'Av itself.When Tish'ah B'Av occurs on Shabbat, Ashkenazim refrain from marital relations that Friday night (other than if it is the night of the woman's immersion), while Sepharadim do not refrain. Most communities observe some mourning rites on the day after Tish'ah B'av as well, particularly as regards meat and wine. . These vary greatly from community to community. Others consider this to be excessive. May G-d turn our mourning to joy!