Yom Tov Sheni shel Galuyot: Second Day YomTov in the Diaspora Mendell Lewittes, Principles and Development of Jewish Law, ​ ​ pp 253-257

I would like to illustrate with a concrete example how the modern approach to Jewish Law would introduce change in a traditional practice which has persisted without change from Talmudic times to the present. I refer to the obbservance by Jews living outside Eretz Yisrael of a second Festival Day (Yom ​ Tov Sheni), in addition to the one prescribed by the . It is well known that this practice originated at a time when the in Eretz Yisrael would fix the calendar each month by declaring a certain day to be the first of a new month (Rosh Hodesh).21 The Jews living more than twelve days distant by ​ ​ ​ horse-rider from the seat of the Sanhedrin would not know whether the 30th or the 31st day of the passing month was declared to be Rosh Hodesh, and thus they would be in doubt which day was the 15th of the new month, particularly in the months of Nisan and Tishri when the festivals of Pesah and Sukkot are celebrated. Consequently, they were obliged to observe two days of 22 the Festival instead of the one prescribed by the Torah. ​ In what category is this obligation? Is it gezerah or takkanah which ​ ​ ​ ​ cannot be revoked, as some Rabbinic authorities insist; or is it a minhag which 23. ​ does not possess an absolutely irrevocable character? L​ et us review the ​ Talmudic text upon which this observance is based. After a discussion about the sanctity of the Second Day, the Gemara asks, "Why do we observe two days nowadays when we already know the fixing of the month?" and replies, "Because they (most probably the and his Bet Din) sent from there (i.e. from Eretz Yisrael) 'Be careful to continue the minhag of your fathers (to ​ ​ observe two days); sometimes the (non-Jewish) kingdom issues a decree (Rashi, "against the study of the Torah") and you may be upset (in your ​ calculations).' "24 ​

22 The rider would not travel on the Sabbath or or , thus there were communities twelve days distant from Jerusalem who would know the exact day for the beginning of Pesah but not for Sukkot; see Rosh Hashanah 21a. ​ ​ 23 Rambam asserts several times "It is only a minhag;" see Hilkhot Yom Tov 1:21, 6: 14, Hilkhot Talmud ​ ​ ​ Torah 6: 14( 11). Ran to Sukkah 44, however, calls it a "fixed takanah." See also Tosafot ibid., where it ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ is called "minhag". For a contrary opinion see J.D. Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems (N.Y. ​ ​ 1977)., pp. 56-60. 24 Betzah 4b.

253

This is not the place to enter into a detailed analysis of the above text, which has been commented upon extensively by both Rishonim and Aharonim. Suffice it to say that the Second Day Yom Tov has been observed scrupulously in the Diaspora for centuries without question. However, the situation today is so ​ radically different from what it was even less than a century ago, that the time has come for our religious authorities to examine the matter anew. From the discussion in the Talmud which preceded the directive sent to the Diaspora from Eretz Yisrael it is apparent that prior to then changes took place in the observance of the Second Day, depending upon the means of communication between Eretz Yisrael and the Diaspora (essentially to the Jews in Babylonia). When it was possible to signal the Diaspora by the relaying of flares,25 the Diaspora celebrated ​ only one day. When the flares had to be discontinued because of interference by the Cutheans, they celebrated two days. When once again the flares could be ​ operated they returned to one day. When messengers were sent to report the fixing of the new month, wherever they arrived before the 15th of the month only one day was celebrated. These facts, as Rashi explains, "indicate that this observance was not instituted for all times." In other words, it was not a takkanah which according to the Halakhah cannot be cancelled until an equally authoritative Bet Din cancels it; it is - as Meiri says26 - "in our times nothing more ​ than a minhag of the fathers." If we insist that it was a gezerah lest future generations be upset in their calculations due to the decree against Torah study, now that Eretz Yisrael has become the center of the Torah world with the security provided by the State of Israel that fear cannot be entertained any longer. Furthermore, it is no longer a matter of calculations; the calendar has already been fixed and determined for all time to come.27 ​ If we argue that this minhag cannot be abandoned lest - and this is a hope rather than a fear - the Sanhedrin be reconstituted and once again it will fix the calendar at the beginning of each month; at such time the means of communication with the Diaspora at its disposal will be such that its proclamation of Rosh Hodesh will be transmitted in a matter of seconds to all corners of the globe. If the

25 Rosh Hashanah 2:2. ​ 26 Bet ha-Behirah ad lac. 27 Cf. Rambam, Hi/khat Kiddush ha-Hodesh 1:5, quoted above, pp. 60-61. ​ ​

254 Second Day was a gezerah, it certainly was not intended for a time when instantaneous world-wide communication is a daily feature of life. Why do we present these arguments? Again, because our situation today is so different. Travel between the Diaspora and Eretz Yisrael has now become so frequent and relatively easy, that the distinction between the two communities is fast disappearing. The frequency of visits to Israel on the part of those who observe Second Day has led to an anomalous situation which is contrary to the basic law of minhag, that one should not act differently from the minhag ha-makom. Though I have demonstrated elsewhere28 that the Halakhah does ​ not require a person from Hutz la-Aretz who happens to be in Eretz Yisrael on a ​ ​ Festival to observe the Second Day, many - and for different reasons - rule that they should observe the additional day. As a result, we have yet another unhalakhic phenomenon of agudot agudot ,29 people in the same ​ ​ ​ community - indeed, praying in the same - observing the Holiday differently. The same disharmony exists in Hutz la Aretz with so many Israelis ​ visiting there and observing one day while their co-religionists observe two days. We must also be mindful of the increased integration in our times of Jews in the economic life of the general community, imposing an added difficulty to their maintaining their religious traditions. This added burden is also imposed upon the many observant Jewish students attending university. The Sages made the following pertinent comment: Who is responsible that I observe two days of Yom Tov in Syria; because I did not observe one day in Eretz Yisrael properly. I thought I would receive a reward for observing two days, but I receive a reward only for one day. To this we apply the verse, Moreover I gave them laws that were no good (Ezek. 20:25)30 We have long ago ​ ​ - considering the length of our years in Galut - expiated the sin of not observing Yom Tov properly in Eretz Yisrael. If we wish - as we undoubtedly

28 The Light of Redemption (Jer. 5731), pp. 26 ff. 29 See above, p. 71. 30 ad loc.

255 should - to establish the centrality of Eretz Yisrael in Jewish life today, one way would be for the Diaspora to celebrate the Festivals as they do in Eretz Yisrael, and become once again One people in the Land (II Sam. 7:23).31 ​ ​ ​

Conclusion

Let it be clearly understood. We are in no way advocating that an individual person or group decide that this or that practice is not in harmony with the needs and attitudes of the day, and that therefore he or they may feel free to abandon it. What we are pleading for is the creation of a Chief rabbinical Council - the term Sanhedrin is too far-reaching at present - whose members are sensitive and responsive to contemporary values32 and are ready to exercise their prerogative ​ to institute takkanot and render halakhic decisions in the spirit of an evolutionary ​ ​ development of the Halakhah. True, we do have a Chief Rabbinate today in Israel, and modern Orthodox Jews, in contradistinction to the ultra-Orthodox, do recognize its authority. However, as presently composed it is limited both in the number and the type of its membership. More than the present insistence that there be an equal number of Ashkenazim and Sephardim, we would like to see an equal number of university and non-university trained rabbis. Instead of its membership being limited to Israelis whose appointment is linked to Knesset law and thus open to political influences, we would like to see candidates for membership selected from halakhic scholars all over the world; a procedure which would undoubtedly lead to greater universal recognition of its authority. And only such a body, and not the secular Knesset, would be competent to decide Who is A Jew for the entire Jewish people. ​

31 See Sukkah 43b-44a, where the of Lulav was cancelled in Eretz Yisrael because it was not observed ​ ​ in the Diaspora. Rashi ad loc., "That Israel should not be divided into agudot agudot, and it would seem as if ​ ​ ​ ​ (we have) two ." 32 In the spirit of the Tanna R. Yose, who said, "Do not give the Sadducees occasion to ridicule us" (for insisting on absurd procedures; Parah 3:3). Quite a few customs sanctioned by the Talmud were dropped by ​ ​ the Rishonim because of their absurdity in the eyes of our non-Jewish neighbors; see Yitzhak Zev Kahane, Mehkarim B'Sifrut ha-Teshuvot (Mossad Harav Kook, Jer. 1973), pp.307 ff. ​

256

Someone has said that "we must look to the living community of faithful adherents for the development of Jewish law." Undoubtedly, the majority of such adherents today look to the heads of the traditional Yeshivot, who are fundamentalist in both theory and practice, as their halakhic authorities. However, the fact that at the moment the ultra-Orthodox are dominant does not necessarily imply that they are the more authentic. Nor does it mean that the Modern Orthodox should refrain from articulating their point of view. If the ideas expressed by them seem far-fetched and impractical, we must remember that many things have come to pass which at first seemed impossible of realization; and this only because there were idealists who were convinced of the truth of their cause and strove for its realization against all odds. We would rather follow the advice of Rabbi Tarfon, who said, "It is not your responsibility to finish the task; yet you are not free to desist from it.33 Instead of waiting, as the ​ ​ ​ fundamentalists do, for the realization of the Divine promise that I will restore ​ your judges as of old, and your counselors of yore (Isaiah 1:26), we prefer to ​ prepare for it. It is our humble hope that this volume may signal others to join in ​ the preparation.

33 Avot 2:16.

257