13a: Affliction vs. Symbolism

In debating the details of the restrictions on a fast day and how they compare for those of mourners, the Talmud wonders about the wearing of shoes, the use of hot or cold water, and whether a bogeret can still look good when in mourning. This last example reinforces the idea from Sanhedrin that, despite a tragedy, life goes on.

But more deeply, I wonder about the purpose of these practices. The idea presented by a baraita challenging Rav Hisda strictures on a public fast day presents leniencies on these practices: working is only prohibited during the day not at night, wearing shoes is only prohibited in the city but one who is traveling can wear shoes, washing the entire body is prohibited but one can wash his/her face, hands and feet. It makes me wonder about what the goals of gestures. If the goal is to afflict ourselves (as fasting is meant to according to the midrash), then why would there be leniencies? But there are leniencies, and for me they emphasize the symbolic nature of fasting et al. Fasting et al. is not just about self-denial, but also about symbolically showing our suffering from not getting enough rain (in this case).

In thinking about fasting et al in this way, I would like to reframe the question Ethan posted before. Other than fasting, are there symbols today that we use to express our desires? Are they more appropriate than fasting for our context?