Rabbi Mordechai Kuber
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RABBI MORDECHAI KUBER crossing B’nei Tzion Rav Tukachinsky International Dateline Chazon Ish Chazon the dateline VOLUME I: HISTORY • OPINIONS AND SOURCES • GEOGRAPHY Table of Contents Preface - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -XIX Acknowledgments - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - XXVI Introduction: Background to the Main Issues - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 Section I Decisions and Contemporary Practice: Sifting through the Opinions Chapter 1: The Poskim Decline to Rule - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17 Chapter 2: The Summit of 5702 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21 Chapter 3: Post-Summit Debate - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40 Chapter 4: Contemporary Decisions - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 43 Chapter 5: Halachic Summary - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 55 Chapter 6: Australia - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 57 Chapter 7: New Zealand - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 71 Chapter 8: Hawaii and the Aleutian Islands - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 73 Chapter 9: Mainland Alaska - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 86 Chapter 10: The Sea - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 89 XV XVI Crossing the Dateline: Volume I Section II Logic, Sources, and Opinions 1. The Case for a Dateline Chapter 11: No Explicit Source - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 115 Chapter 12: Conflicting Calendars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 116 2. The Early Sources Chapter 13: The Gemara - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 123 Chapter 14: The Kuzari - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 137 Chapter 15: The Baal Hamaor - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 164 Chapter 16: Raavad - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 183 Chapter 17: Rav Avraham bar Chiya - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 189 Chapter 18: Ritva - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 192 Chapter 19: Ran - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 198 Chapter 20: The Yesod Olam - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 199 Chapter 21: Radvaz - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 210 3. Where Is the Dateline? The Main Opinions Chapter 22: 125.2°E — 90° East of Yerushalayim — Straight - - - 243 Chapter 23: 125.2°E — 90° East of Yerushalayim — Detouring - - 261 Chapter 24: 148.7°E — The Yishuv’s Eastern Edge (1) - - - - - - - - 271 Chapter 25: 149.2°E — The Yishuv’s Eastern Edge (2) - - - - - - - - 279 Chapter 26: 177.2°E — First Nightfall - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 287 Chapter 27: 180° — International Date Line - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 313 Chapter 28: 190.3°E (169.7°W) — The Mainland’s Eastern Edge - 319 Chapter 29: 191°E (169°W ) — Between the Two Diomede Islands - - - - - - - - - - - - 324 Chapter 30: The Halachic Day Based on Relative Proximity - - - 333 Chapter 31: 215.2°E (144.8°W) — East-West Divide - - - - - - - - - 341 Table of Contents XVII Chapter 32: 215.2°E (144.8°W) — Opposite Yerushalayim - - - - 347 Chapter 33: The Consensus Opinion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 355 Chapter 34: Forests and Trees - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 357 Chapter 35: Concise Summary of Section II - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 362 Chapter 36: The Yishuv and the Poskim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 377 Index to Volume I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 400 Color Maps and Diagrams - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 412 Note: The glossary, bibliography, and the biographies of sages who are cited in the three volumes of this sefer can be found at the end of Volume III on pages 401, 408, and 422 respectively. Section I DECISIONS AND CONTEMPORARY PRACTICE: SIFTING THROUGH THE OPINIONS CHAPTER 1 The Poskim Decline to Rule iscussion of the location of the dateline first appears in Rabbinic literature in the late 1800s, since that is when D trans-Pacific travel became commonplace.1 When Rav Avraham Hershowitz, zt”l, of Sydney, Australia, (and later of Toledo, Ohio) posed to Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector, zt”l, in 1894, the question of which day of the week he should observe while traveling across the Pacific, the latter declined to respond, because he said that he was not sufficiently versed in astronomy to issue a well-con- sidered ruling.2 Maintaining One’s Custom Rav Hershowitz records that for lack of a better approach, Rav Spector agreed with his suggestion that one should continue to observe the calendar of his community of origin while distant from civilization until he arrives in a different community, when he must adopt its calendar. Rav Hershowitz likens this to the rule that a trav- eler observes the customs of his home community until he arrives in a new community. There, he must observe their customs that are 1 In Divrei Chachamim (1876), Rav Chaim Zelig Slonimsky compiled responses he had received regarding this topic. 2 Responsa Beis Avraham 1, recorded in Shitos Kav Hataarich, p. 191. 17 18 Crossing the Dateline: Volume I more stringent than his own to prevent the ill will that could result from his open disregard for their customs.3 However, when he is out- side of the domain of another community, either before he arrives there or after he leaves, he may observe the more lenient practices of his own community. Date and Custom It is not certain whether Rav Spector actually ruled as suggested above, but the comparison of conduct regarding the day to that of the observance of communal customs is unconvincing. Whereas maintaining the customs of one’s home community when outside the domain of another community is logical, maintaining one’s count of the days of the week should be governed only by his location relative to the dateline. It seems elementary that one should observe the day of one’s current location even if he is not in a community. And if the day is contested, he cannot ignore the conflict. He must seek resolution. An additional difficulty with Rav Hershowitz’s comparison of the laws of the dateline to the laws of community custom is that he does not mention the need for a traveler to observe both his own com- munity’s day and that of the community in which he is now located regarding Shabbos prohibitions. This should have followed from his custom-observance paradigm.4 In addition, Rav Hershowitz took for granted that Sydney and Yokohama, Japan, both located more than 90° east of Yerushalayim, observe the Asian calendar even though the halachic day east of this longitude and the location of the date- line are topics of great debate. It seems unlikely that Rav Spector agreed with Rav Hershowitz’s halachic conclusion, but it is quite possible that he refused to rule on this issue, as Rav Hershowitz reported. 3 Pesachim 4:1. 4 The Mishnah ibid. rules that one must abide by the stringencies of both his community of origin and of the community that he is visiting. Therefore, if our case is a parallel, a traveler should maintain both his calendar of origin and that of his destination throughout his visit. The Poskim Decline to Rule 19 Rav Riger’s Ruling Many decades later, the Brisker Rav, zt”l, also declined to rule on this issue, citing Rav Spector’s refusal as a precedent. Instead, he referred the question to Rav Simcha Zelig Riger zt”l, the Dayan of Brisk.5 Rav Riger begins his response by stressing the preeminence of the Rishonim, which in this case means the opinion of the Kuzari and the Baal Hamaor.6 He dismisses the conflicting opinion of the Yesod Olam, because he categorizes him as an expert in astronomy and geography, but not as a Posek, one who is qualified to rule on matters of Jewish law. Rav Riger also says that he does not have the words of Radvaz at his disposal, so he cannot analyze whether they conflict with those of the Baal Hamaor, and whether the halachah might follow them. That said, Rav Riger concludes that each community should nevertheless maintain its observance of the days of the week in prayer and ritual even if it conflicts with the opinion of the Kuzari and the Baal Hamaor. However, he stipulates that those in conflict, who reside east of the Baal Hamaor’s dateline at 125.2°E (90° east of Yerushalayim) but west of the International Dateline, should refrain from Torah-prohibited activities on their Sunday, which is Shabbos according to the Baal Hamaor. 7 In addition, Rav Riger suggests that they should inconspicuously make some mention on Sunday that it is Shabbos, to fulfill the Torah obligation of Kiddush, in consider- ation of the opinion of the Kuzari and the Baal Hamaor that Sunday is Shabbos there. 5 This is the testimony of the Brisker Rav’s son, Rav Meshulam David Soloveitchik, shlita, as recorded in Taarich Yisrael 2:4, pp. 57–58. 6 Rav Riger’s letters on this topic are recorded in Talpiyot 5702, pp. 42–43, which are recorded in Shitos Kav Hataarich, pp. 314–15. 7 At that time, there were no Jewish communities east of the International Dateline, but west of 144.8°W. Had there been, it is almost certain that Rav Riger would have advised that they maintain their custom of observing the local American calendar, but observe the Torah-based prohibitions of Shabbos on Friday, as well, in deference to the opinion of Rav Tukachinsky that it is west of the dateline and therefore the Asian calendar prevails