Dairy during Shavuot

For the past two years when Shavuot comes up my wife and I have a whole argument about eating only dairy on Shavuot. She inevitably wins due to either a. "I'm cooking" or b. "We're going to my parents and they only eat dairy". I've tried to convince her that the custom doesn't meant only dairy during the holiday, but to no avail.

I'll show her this post by Harry, but I really don't think that it will have any effect. The next objection will be "But it's my family's minhag and I'm cooking". What can I do?

Well for the next few years we'll be in Israel and there'll only be two dairy meals but I'm lactose intolerant though that doesn't seem to be a reason to stop a minhag. If Harry's post is accurate (I'm assuming it is) most Jews I know are following a mistaken minhag of only having milhig meals and not having both.

I still wont win.

Halacha vs. Kabbala

I found a shiur given by R' David Fink rather enlightening and decided to share it hear. Nothing that follows is my own idea, only Rav Fink's. The original shiur can be heard here. As I only heard the shiur online I do not have any source notes unless Rav Fink said them.

What happens when Kabbala and Halacha tell you to do two different things?

The Tur: Put on Teffilin shel Yad and Barech (l'haniach tefillin), then shel Rosh and make a second Beracha (al mitzvat tefillin).

R' Yosef Karo not only wrote the Beit Yosef and the Shulchan Aruch but was also a noted Kabbalist. He lived in Sfat during the time of the AriZal - in fact, he was his neighbor - and is the author of the Magid Meisharim. This work is a compilation of statements made by R' Karo while in a trance and a Magid spoke through R' Karo. There are times that the Magid and the R' Karo disagreed with each other. Of couse, R' Karo poskens in the Beit Yosef against the Magid. R' Yaakov Emden assumes this because R' Karo was a greater talmid chacham than the magid.

Rav Fink has heard of authors of fiction expressing similar methods. They go into a trance and the characters in the book speak to them and they authors write down the dialogue as they hear it in their minds. Unfortunately this gift is never given to writers of non-fiction. These authors have to work out their solutions rationally unlike the fiction authors that just let it flow.

The halachic R' Karo depended on his reason when writing the Shulchan Aruch, the mystical R' Karo reported his mystical periods in the Magid Meisharim. Whenever there is tension for R' Karo halacha is in accord with the rational reasoning in the Beit Yosef as poskened in the Shulchan Aruch.

Back to the Berachot of Tefillin:
Sefer HaAgur: I found in the Zohar from a saying of Rashbi - a single beracha is to be said on both tefillin together. The teffilin shel rosh on the head correspond to Zachor and teffilin shel yad next to the heart correspond to Shamor. Just as we say Shamor and Zachor were said together at Matan Torah a single beracha covers both tefillin. One should not wait between the two tefillin, one should do both without a hefshek. I am amazed that these great Rabbanim disagree with Rashbi in the Zohar, if the Poskim knew what was said in the Zohar, why did they disagree with it? In any case, the minhag is to make two beracha, but the right thing to do is to make one beracha.

R' Karo: I don't know why the Sefer HaAgur was mystified on this question. There are plenty of other examples between the gemara and the zohar, why is it this one that he's so interested in? In every case the poskim follow the gemara and never the zohar. Even if the poskim knew the zohar they wouldn't care - the reason the poskim say to make two berachot is because that's what it says in the Gemara. All the more so, in the days of the Reshonim the Sefer HaZohar was not yet known. It was transmitted it Rebbe to Talmid for generations and only surfaced published much later. Furthermore, the passage in the Zohar (quoted by the Sefer HaAgur) does not necessarily mean only to make one beracha for both tefillin. What it might mean is that the first beracha applies to both teffilin and therefore one should not interrupt between them, the teffilin shel rosh needs its own beracha. Bottom line - two berachot on Tefillin regardless of what the Zohar says.

We see here one clear example where we follow the Gemara and the Poskim regardless of the Zohar.

The Magen Avraham was the first of the great poskim to systematically apply kabbalistic sources in his halachic discussion. Previous to him people related to the Zohar as a body of matterial that explained to us the inner workings of Torah, the world, and the universe we live him. A philosophical insight into the world. He was therefore bothered between the tension between the Zohar and the Halachic material. He quoted the the Kenesset HaGedola: wherever theres a conflict between the kabbala and the halacha - the halacha is always in accordance with the poskim. He seems to be referring to a situation where all the poskim are on one side and the zohar is on the other side. If the kabbalists are stricter than what is required by the poskim we can be machmir like the kabbalists. any issue that is not mentioned in the poskim - no source in the gemara but does in the zohar - we have no authority to impose the practice upon the people. Only halacha can be forced upon the people, we can try to convince people to follow the kabbalistic method but that's it.

Sometimes people asked R' Moshe Feinstein what is the meaning or reason why so and so poskend this way found in other places. Someone asked R' Feinstein (found in the Iggrot Moshe) why did the Mishna Berurah posken that one who stays awake all night without sleep that he does not make the berachot Bircat haTorah etc.. Whenever there is a machloket amongst poskim and the weight of the Zohar and Kabbalists determine the outcome. In this case the Mishna Berurah should have followed the AriZal to make the beracha. So why did he reject this position? Answer: It's obvious that the idea that the Kabbalists always prevail wherever there is a machloket amongst the poskim that idea only pertains to material in the zohar itself - that prevails. Why? That material comes from the time of the Mishnah. But the works of the later Kabbalists - the AriZal and others - does not have the same weight of the Zoharic literature. Therefore one can poskin the AriZal just like one can poskin against one other posek.

Rav Fink finds it mysterious: The Iggrot Moshe speaks with a very clear voice. He never applies this above rule not even once.

The Chacham Zvi (who was a great Kabbalist in addition to being a noted Posek) when speaking about the Machloket about how one should position his bed (Kabbalists Head West / Feet East vs. Poskim Head North / Feet South) says in a situation where the Zohar is opposed to the Gemara and Poskim - we never abandon the poskim in favor of the position of the Zohar. When in comes to Halacha we ignore the Zohar and rely on the Poskim. However, in a situation where the Poskim are divided it is correct (note: he does say must) to follow the Kabbala.

His son, R' Yaakov Emden, even though he denied the antiquity of the zohar in Mitpachat Sefarim, was a major Kabbalist. I remember that my father zt"l lived across the street from the non-Jewish orphanage; his bed was oriented like the mekubalim say and not like the poskim. He himself wrote one should follow the poskim and not the kabbalah, but I saw in practice he did the opposite from what he wrote. In order for there to be a machloket people need to be in each others presence, it is improper to say two people who are unaware of each others opinion it is not proper to call this a machloket. Did the poskim know the words of the Zohar becasue it was being transmitted secretly and these poskim are outside of the chain of tradition. Perhaps they would have changed their mind had they known. We should not be concerned that we reject mystical ideas in Halacha - elu v'elu divrei elokim chaim. [R' Emden rejected its antiquity not its significance]. The purpose of the Zohar is not to tell us what to do or not to do, but to explain to us the inner workings of the universe. In a case where the words of the Talmud can be understood many different ways the commentaries have their back to the wall and cannot explain the words of the Talmud - in these cases they didn't know the words of the Zohar - we see a different understanding of things. It's not that the Zohar has a different idea it's that the Zohar can be used to explain the gemara and if the two can be brought into accord with each other then we should do it. In the end we are poskining like the Gemara.

How does this come down in the more recent poskim?

The Munkatcher Rav (R' Elazar Shapira) - a noted posek and mekubal - it's important to bear in mind the difference between nigleh and nistar (revealed and secret wisdom). When I study the Zohar and words of the great Kabbalists I think of myself as learning nigleh - revealed wisdom. When I study Gemara, the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch I think of myself as learning nistar - the secret wisdom of Torah. The works of the kabbalists talk about Olam HaSefirot they say they talk about the mystical reality of Sefirot and they are. The Halchic literature does not say they are talking about the mystical reality but indeed they are this is why I call them Nistar - hidden.

The Shulchan Aruch HaRav - whenever there is a disagreement between the kabbalits and the poskim - you should posken like the gemara and the poskim. Make two berachot on tefillin. The Baal HaTanya accepts the position of the Magen Avraham , we can require people to follow the gemara and no the Zohar. Halacha and Halachic sources always prevail over the Zohar and Kabbalistic sources.

Rav Fink notes that Chabad Chassidim do not follow this position. In every conflict between the Gemara and the Zohar they follow the Zohar instead of the ruling of the Baal HaTanya and make one beracha on tefilin. The Shaar HaKollel - R' Avram David Livat - I heard from a Chasid before he died that the Baal HaTanya had been asked about this question. Our minhag is to follow the Mekubalim instead of the poskim. Why then did you write in Shulchan Aruch HaRav to follow the poskim? I only wrote that because the poskim write to follow the poskim, but the mekubalim all write to follow the Zohar. It cannot be that the mekubalim would not follow the gemara and therefore the question doesn't make sense. This is what I heard from that Chasid before he died.

This is a tradition starting three generations after the Baal HaTanya. This is the reason the Baal HaTanya started to write a second edition of the Shulchan Aruch HaRav but only got a few pages in where he surely would have poskened like the mekubalim against the poskim.

Rav Fink: We find many stories (folk literature) that a major posek changed his mind on their deathbed. These stories are possibly true and it surely does happen and I doubt that it happens every time it is reported.

The traditions of the Gra weigh heavily on the Aruch HaShulchan and writes: When there is a machloket between the Zohar and the Poskim we of course follow the Poskim. It is correct to be machmir like the Zohar when they are machmir. One cannot require one to follow the Zohar. I have a tradition (from the Gra) that is impossible that there is a true conflict between the Gemara and the Zohar unless of course there are multiple opinions in the Gemara and the Zohar is holding like one opinion there. People have an incorrect understanding of the Zohar if they think there is a machloket between them

Kosher for Passover Gasoline

There is a certain e-mail circulating around the Jewish e-mail world right now that is supposedly an article written in the Bergen County Jewish Times suggesting that ethanol-free gasoline will be made available for people who do not wish to use a derivative of corn on Pesach.

My wife is subscribed to a community based list-serve where she was sent a copy of this e-mail. This list-serve has dozens of e-mails going back and forth discussing the various halachic reasons why such a product would be good to use on pesach. Only a few people have realized that this is a joke.

Here is the text of the e-mail:

Bergen County Jewish Times
By Danielle Wolfberg and Henry Lorman
Teaneck, New Jersey
March 1,2007

Yaniv Ban-Zaken, a local gas station owner, will be selling Kosher for Passover gasoline during the holiday this year. The move, Ben-Zaken says, has become necessary due to the increased ethanol content in gasoline required by the government. The ethanol is typically derived from corn, which is a forbidden food for Jews on Passover. And, according to Ben-Zaken, underJewish law, it is also forbidden to derive any benefit from corn.

"We will be providing a number of services to anyone interested in making their motor vehicle Kosher for Passover," Ben-Zaken says. Services will include siphoning off the non-Kosher gasoline and replacing it with the Kosher gasoline. The entire process will be supervised by Rabbi Yitzchok Mendelbaum. A special exemption to the EPA rule regarding the plant ethanol content of gasoline had to be obtained from the government to allow for the use of this gasoline.

The move has created some controversy among local community leaders. Rabbi Shalom Silver, of Congregation Ohel Emeth in Teaneck, has recommended to his congregants that they not buy the gasoline. "Although Jews of Ashkenazi descent are not permitted to eat corn on Pesach, they are permitted to derive benefit from corn byproducts, such as gasoline with ethanol additives," he said.

However, Rabbi Mordechai Silver (no relation to Shalom Silver), of Yeshivas Torah Ohr in nearby Englewood, disagrees, and maintains that while it might technically be acceptable to use mass-produced gasoline, those who can afford to purchase the new alternative should. "In Jewish law, we have a principle of lifnim mshuras hadin--going above and beyond the basic requirements of the law," he explained in an email. "Thank G-d, many people in the area can afford to do so in this case."

Some local Jewish leaders have also complained about the high price of the ethanol-free gas, which Ben-Zaken estimates will be $9.69 per gallon, but Ben-Zaken insists that it is necessary. "The Kosher gas is made in small quantities and not mass produced, so the costs are high." In fact, Ben-Zaken, an immigrant from Israel who is not himself religious, claims that he will not be making any profit on the sale of the Kosher gas. "I'm doing this more as a community service. My hope is that people will be more likely to patronize my station the rest of the year." Julio Sanchez, one of Ben-Zakens employees, also expressed some concern over the high price, explaining that it might drive away customers and reduce his income from tips. Co-worker Naveen Samhari disagreed, because, as he says, "Orthodox Jews are among the best tippers in the area."

Ben-Zaken also says he will be contracting with a local car rental agency to provide customers with a Kosher for Passover car if they would prefer not to use their own. This will also save the time of having to clean chametz from the car before Pesach--time that many local two-income families do not have. "Jews use different dishes for Passover. They ought to be able to use a different car, as well." Ben-Zaken says.

There is no such newspaper as the "Bergen County Jewish Times" and the people named in the article only show up (in a Google search) as being linked to this article.

What bothers me is not that someone is still having some Adar fun, but that people are actually believing this. Some of the people responding to the original e-mail are suggesting that this is some sort of Government plot to lift the embargo on Cuba, as well as discussing the halachic problems of eating peanuts on Pesach - since they might be Kitnyot. And even if they are we shouldn't be using derivatives of Kitnyot on Pesach.

[No one seems to remember that until a few years ago only Peanut Oil was Kosher L
L'Pesach when finally other Pesachdik oils came out.]

The discussion came to new hights when raui la achilat kelev was brought up and someone suggesting that we take a bowl of gasoline and give it to a dog.

Well someone has certainly had their fun, but I seriously hope that no one takes this too seriously and next year we actually see this type of nonsense.

The "Real" Miracle of Chanukah?

I went back to UMD this past Shabbat and the student who gave the D'var Torah at Shalosh Shiddus asked an important question: "Why in all of the nessim of Chanukah do we commemorate the event by lighting a menorah?" His answer, which came after some proofs, is that by acknowledging a small nes it allows us to appreciate the larger ones more.

Unfortunately I don't know his name, but I think he's right on target.

Rav Shlomo Aviner points out that when there's no Shemen Tahor it is possible to light the menorah with Shemen Tameia. When Rov Am Yisrael is Tamei it is still possible to bring the Korban Pesach and to build the Temple. The same din is applied when there's no Shemen Tahor; it is mutar to light the menorah with Shemen Tameia because it's a communal activity. (Tal Hermon vol. 2 p. 85)

So, if there is the case, why the big deal about finding a flask of pure oil and, more importantly, why did HaShem deem it necessary to make it last for eight days? Rambam tells us that this is how long it takes to produce Shemen Tahor, but why does any of this matter if they can use the Shemen Tameia instead? Why the נס פך השמן?

I think the answer comes back to the student's original question. "Why in all of the nessim of Chanukah do we commemorate the event by lighting a menorah?" It is the seeming triviality of the nes that makes it important. The Jews in the Temple went out of their way to find the Shemen Tahor and their actions were rewarded with a nes.

If this idea is accurate then HaShem davka made the נס פך השמן so that we would appreciate the Chag more. Instead finding us celebrating the נס הניצחון הצבאי in some other way, we are found at home bringing light into the world with our families.

Chag Orim Sameach

On the CJLS decision

I received an e-mail from a commenter asking me about my opinion regarding the recent CJLS decision to permit Homosexual marriages and Rabbinic Ordination. So I'll try to take a stab at it:

In my opinion the CJLS has reniged on it's charter - that to be the Halachic deciding body of the Conservative Movement - there is absolutely no way (as Joel Roth's tshuva said) to allow this al pi HaHalacha. As a self-described Halachic movement, I fail to see how they could allow this.

I have been told by a Conservative Rabbi (she's the mother of a friend) that this decision - in April she knew it'd pass - had less to do with Halacha than it does with trying to save the population slide within the Movement. While I think that has a lot to do with the decision, it still does not make sense; the long term survival of the movement does not need to permit this.

Two of my former roommates are currently at JTS now. While they disagree to the level that Homosexuals should be active within the Movement, they both agreed that it was absolutely the right thing to do and nearly 90% of the Student population agreed. It bothers me, that the students at JTS believe that driving on Shabbat is assur yet Homosexual marriage and ordination (let alone the Homosexual act) should be permitted by Halacha.

As you may have read, Roth and Rabinowitz - two of the major forces within the CJLS - have both resigned following the decision. I fully support their decision. Elliot Dorff, one of the authors of the decision to allow Homosexual marriage and ordination, said “Celibacy is a cruel option.” If it is cruel we still must be aware that the Torah demands it. We cannot pretend that it does not.

I will take this opportunity to post a quote from an article that I read regarding the Gay Pride Parade in Jerusalem.

Judaism looks negatively at homosexual activity, but not at the homosexual nature, whether it is genetic or acquired (the Torah does not express any view on the matter), is immaterial. This nature in no way diminishes or affects the Jewishness of a homosexual. He is as beloved in G-d's eyes as any other Jew, and is as responable as any Jew in all the mitzvos. He is obligated to achieve life's goals by directing his life towards spiritual growth, sanctity and perfection of his character - no less than is any other Jew. He will merit the same share in the World to Come which every Jew merits, minimally by being the descendant of Avraham Avinu and maximally by totally devoting his life towards the service of G-d.

Rav Aharon Feldman (quoted by Rabbi Moshe Hauer in "Horror, Sadness, and Concern" in the Baltimore Jewish News 11/24/06)

I think this is the proper response to the issue. This is where the joke Im tirtzu ain zo Halacha - If there's a Rabbinic Will there's a Haalchic way ends. There is no way to change the Torah and two thousand years of Rabbinic legislation.

Shaving During Sefirah

Hence, since kevod Shabbat takes precedence over mourning customs of the Omer (based on Ta'anit 26b), it is not only permissible, but obligatory to shave before Shabbat.

- Harav Aharon Lichtenstein

"Shaving in Honor of Shabbat During the Omer"

Yom Tov Sheini - Part II

In Part I, we reviewed the Gemara in Betiza which says we should hold two days of Yom Tov since it is the custom of our ancestors (in Chutz L’aretz) and a Gemara in Pesachim which depending on intent to return (da’at l’chazor) you should hold the restrictions of the place you came from and the place you left. So far it seems that a person visiting Israel from Chutz L’aretz should hold two days of Yom Tov unless he intends to return.

No we need to see how this idea is codified in the Halachic literature

רמב"ם הלכות יום טוב פרק ח

ההולך ממקום שעושין למקום שאין עושין לא יעשה ביישוב מפני המחלקות אבל עושה הוא במדבר, וההולך ממקום שאין עושין למקום שעושין לא יעשה, נותנין עליו חומרי מקום שיצא משם וחומרי מקום שהלך לשם, ואע"פ כן לא יתראה בפניהם שהוא בטל מפני האסור, לעולם אל ישנה אדם מפני המחלקות, וכן מי שדעתו לחזור למקומו נוהג כאנשי מקומו בין להקל בין להחמיר, והוא שלא יתראה בפני אנשי המקום שהוא בו מפני המחלקות.

The Rambam codifies the ruling of the Mishna in Pesachim that we place on the traveler the customs of the place he left and the place he is. Though if he has da’at l’chazar (intent to return) he should hold like his place. So in our situation, a traveler to Israel should hold two days of Yom Tov unless his intent is to never return. Seemingly the Rambam would allow a new oleh the ability to hold one day of Yom Tov even if he arrived shortly before.

שולחן ערוך אורח חיים סימן תצו
סעיף ג
בני ארץ ישראל שבאו לחוצה לארץ, אסורים לעשות מלאכה ביום טוב שני ביישוב, אפילו דעתו לחזור; וכל זמן שלא הגיע ליישוב, אפילו אין דעתו לחזור, מותר, לפי שעדיין לא הוקבע להיות כמותן. אבל אם הגיעו ליישוב, ואין דעתו לחזור, נעשה כמותן ואסור בין במדבר בין ביישוב. וכל חוץ לתחום אין נותנין עליו חומרי מקום שהלך לשם.

According to the Mechaber people from Israel who go outside the land to live, it is forbidden to do melacha on Yom Tov sheni in public (i.e., Israelis living in America need to hold two days, at least publicly), even if they intend to return. The last line of the seif is interesting, if you’re outside of the tchum (city limits) [i.e., camping, etc.] we’re not going to tell you to hold two days, since they’re not going to see you perform melacha. It seems that ma’arit ayin is what R’ Karo is relying on to rule this way.

It’s not as obvious what the Mechaber would say about a ben ChoL visiting Israel on Yom Tov. He would probably rule similar to the Rambam that a new oleh can and should hold only one day of Yom Tov; though a visitor with da’at l’chazor to Chutz L’aretz still needs to hold two days.

We will now see what some of the commentators (since they speak about this issue directly) have to add to this discussion.

ערוך השולחן אורח חיים סימן תצו סעיף ד
בני א"י שבאו לחו"ל אע"פ שדעתם לחזור ולא חלה עליהם חומרי מקום שהלכו לשם מ"מ אסורים לעשות מלאכה ביו"ט שני בישוב מפני המחלוקת כמ"ש בסי' תס"ח וי"א דדווקא בפרהסיא אבל בצינעא מותר דהא בצינעא ליכא מחלוקת אבל י"א דמלאכה אסור בכל עניין דא"א לעשותה בצינעא כל כך [מג"א סק"ד בשם התוס'] ועוד דזהו פריצת גדר בדבר שקבלו כל הגולה ואסור מדינא וכן עיקר אך כל זמן שלא הגיעו לישוב והיינו שלא באו עדיין בתוך תחום העיר מותרים בכל דבר אפילו אין דעתם לחזור לפי שעדיין לא הוקבעו להיות כמותן ואם הגיעו לישוב והיינו תוך התחום ואין דעתן לחזור אפילו עיר שאינה של ישראל נעשים לגמרי כבני חו"ל לכל דבר אפילו שלא לעניין מלאכה וחייבין לנהוג קדושת יו"ט שני גם בתפלה וקידוש וברהמ"ז:

Israelis who go to Chutz L’aretz even though they intend to return we don’t place on them the chumrot of the place they go to, in any case, it is asur for them to do melacha on Yom Tov sheini in the community due to different opinions…definitely [asur] in public, although in private everybody agrees [that it is okay to do melacha]. There is an opinion that melacha is asur even in private (Tosafot cited by the Magen Avraham). The same for Benei Chutz L’aretz even they cannot perform melacha and they are chiyuv to observe the kedushah of Yom Tov sheini in Tefillot, in Kiddush, and in Bentching.

This is a description of Yom Tov sheini that we will come back to, R’ Epstein is explicit that this is two full days of Yom Tov. They cannot perform melacha, it might be possible that an Israeli could perform melacha for them (without asking), but we still preserve the kedusha of the day.

משנה ברורה סימן תצו ס"ק יג
ובן חו"ל שבא לא"י אם דעתו לחזור למקומו צריך לעשות שני ימים יו"ט … אכן אם דעתו שלא לחזור למקומו לעולם יתנהג כבני א"י

A ben chol that goes to Israel with the intention of returning needs to observe two days of Yom Tov... If he never intends to return he can take Israeli minhagim [and observe only one day of Yom Tov].

The Chafetz Chaim continues to discuss what intent to return means, not something that I want to get into, talking about one’s family still there, etc. He does not explain what two days of Yom Tov means (see how the Aruch HaShulchan describes it above) but it seems to me that due to his brevity he meant one of two things a) two full days or b) he intentionally kept it ambiguous because he couldn’t decide – the former seems more likely.

שולחן ערוך הרב אורח חיים סימן תצו
בני חוץ לארץ שבאו לארץ ישראל אע"פ שדעתן לחזור אין עושין אלא יום אחד כבני ארץ ישראל ויש חולקין.

Benei Chol that go to Israeli even though they intend to return they don’t do [two days] rather only one day [of Yom Tov] like the Israelis and their differences.

The Ba’al Tanya makes cavalier statement and rules like the Chacham Tzvi (which we’ll see later) and states that when a visitor goes to another location they should follow the minhagim of that place. This is a very popular position, though most people who agree with the Ba’al Tanya and the Chacham Tzvi cannot bring themselves to rule against Rov HaPoskim.

As it stands now the Halachic literature is clearly in favor of two full days of Yom Tov for a visitor to Israel, except for the Ba’al HaTanya who states the exact opposite of Rov HaPoskim.

To be continued...

Yom Tov Sheini - Part I

Living in the community that I do, there is much confusion over what to do on Yom Tov sheini; even I am conflicted when it comes to spending Yom Tov in Israel. What are we supposed to do when traveling to Israel for the year or for chag?

All discussions start with the Gemara in Beitza (4b):

מאי טעמא עבדינן תרי יומי? - משום דשלחו מתם: הזהרו במנהג אבותיכם בידיכם, זמנין דגזרו שמדא ואתי לאקלקולי

Why do we observe two day? Because they sent word from there (Palestine)*. Give heed to the customs of your ancestors which have come down to you; for it might happen that the government might issue a decree and it will cause confusion (in ritual observance).

*- [Before the destruction of the Temple when Rosh Chodesh was determined the news was sent from the Beit Din to the out laying communities; this sometimes took longer than 15 days which would have been a problem for Pesach and Sukkot which both fall on 15th, so the CHoL (Chulz L’Aretz) communities enacted Yom Tov sheini to prevent this problem]

The Gemara is curious, why should we observe Yom Tov sheini if we have a fixed calendar system? The Gemara answers, because it is a minhag of your fathers. We (in ChoL) observe Yom Tov sheini then out of doubt (safek) of when Rosh Chodesh starts in Jerusalem.

Even if we know when Rosh Chodesh starts, according to the Gemara, we should still follow the minhag of Yom Tov sheini because we’re worried about a Government decree. What is this decree the Gemara is talking about? It could be the forbidding of some ritual aspect of the holiday (Rashi seems to think so); in a more contemporary setting, out of fear that the Governments have the calendar wrong which would still cause mass confusion.

So when we travel from Chutz L’Aretz to Israel what do we do?
This answer also begins with a Mishnah (Pesachim 4:1):

משנה. מקום שנהגו לעשות מלאכה בערבי פסחים עד חצות - עושין, מקום שנהגו שלא לעשות - אין עושין. ההולך ממקום שעושין למקום שאין עושין, או ממקום שאין עושין למקום שעושין - נותנין עליו חומרי מקום שיצא משם, וחומרי מקום שהלך לשם. ואל ישנה אדם מפני המחלוקת.

In a place whose custom is to do melacha until chatzot on erev Pesach, do it. In a place [where melacha] is not done, don’t do it. [If you] Travel from place where they perform [melacha] to a place they don’t [perform melacha] or vice versa; We place on him the restrictions of the location from which he departed and the restrictions of the place he as arrived.

It seems from this Mishnah that a visitor should follow his normal minhagim, as well as minhag hamakom.

The Gemara (Pesachim 51a) adds:

דתנן נותנין עליו חומרי המקום שיצא משם וחומרי המקום שהלך לשם. אמר אביי הני מילי - מבבל לבבל, ומארץ ישראל לארץ ישראל. אי נמי - מבבל לארץ ישראל. אבל מארץ ישראל לבבל - לא, כיון דאנן כייפינן להו - עבדינן כוותייהו. רב אשי אמר אפילו תימא מארץ ישראל לבבל. הני מילי - היכא דאין דעתו לחזור, ורבה בר בר חנה דעתו לחזור הוה

We learned: We place on him the restrictions of the location from which he departed and the restrictions of the place he as arrived. Abaye said: That is only [when traveling] from Babylonia to [another town in] Babylonia, or from Palestine to [another in] Palestine, or from Babylonia to Palestine; but not [when traveling] from Palestine to Babylonia, since we submit to them, we do as they. R. Ashi said: You may even say [that this is also true when a man goes] from Palestine to Babylonia; this is, however, where it is not his intention to return; but Rabbah b. Bar Hanah had the intention of returning.

The Gemara is describing a situation where Rabbah bar Bar Hanah is accused of eating stomach fats that were asur in Babylonia, but since he had the intention to return (to Israel) it was okay for him to do so. But the important part for us, is that things (minhagim) can change based on da'at l'hazar - intention to return.

Interestingly, the next section has Rabbah bar Bar Hanah telling his son that he cannot eat the fat for it is not his minhag (interesting sidepoint that many children of Israelis who have made yeridah still keep their parents minhagim, maybe they should not, this Gemara is pretty explicit that they shouldn’t).

To be continued… [We will be moving into the Halachic material and then Shut on this issue].

The Halachic Experience

Gadol HaDor wrote an amazing post that is a must read. It's on the experience of Judaism.

A few selected quotes:

The basis of Orthodox Judaism is EXPERIENCE.

What do I mean? I mean the experience of keeping Halachah. The experience of keeping Shabbat. The experience of keeping Kashrut. The experience of learning Torah. The experience of God. We all do these things. We all feel it. We know it to be true on the basis of our experience. We see it works. We see the results. We see how a dedication to these ideals produces upstanding communities, families and individuals.

We know Torah is true because we experience it. And we know our fathers experienced it and we know their fathers experienced it too, all the way back to an event we call Sinai.

And of course, experience is the foundation for Western Philosophy too. ‘I think therefore I am’. And how do we know we think? Because we experience it!

It's almost to obvious to really commment on, go read the post. It is rather long, but it's a quick read.