Q&A: Customs
Customs
Question
- What is the reasoning behind keeping customs? Why should I be obligated by something that my great-great-grandfather took upon himself beyond the halakhic obligation, when I don’t think it really has anything to do with God’s will (God’s essential will, beyond simply preserving ancestral tradition)?
- The source of the law — seemingly the verse “Do not forsake your mother’s teaching” is brought in Proverbs as part of a sequence of “pieces of advice.” Why understand it as a binding law and an expression of God’s will? Do we also understand “Go to the ant, you sluggard” on the same level of obligation?
- Source of the law, part 2 — if the source is simply a vow, then is this really like an ordinary vow? Seemingly a vow has a formula (and requires attachment to an existing vow?), and here I didn’t accept anything verbally and also didn’t intend to take anything upon myself as a vow…?
- Customs nowadays — seemingly in Maimonides (Laws of Rebels) it emerges that a binding custom is only one that passed the approval of the Great Court. Is it true that this is his view? And if so, what is the force of customs today that did not pass approval of the Great Court?
- Is there any possibility at all for a person to change a custom? What are the reasons that justify such a thing?
- If there is a possibility of annulling a custom, then is there a difference between customs that all the Jewish people observe and those where there are several different customary approaches (such as the waiting time between meat and milk)? Is changing from one approach to another simpler than annulling a general custom?
- I understood that the expression “custom uproots Jewish law” comes from the Talmud or from the halakhic decisors. What does it mean? Does a custom that conflicts with Jewish law prevail?
Answer
Why should you be obligated to keep the Sabbath? Because the Torah commanded it. Keeping customs is also Jewish law. Some explained this as the wisdom of the masses and the intuition possessed by the public. I am not convinced by that.
That is how the Sages understood it. I am not sure this is a real source. It may be just a textual support, while the actual source of the law is an enactment or a logical rationale. It is also possible that this really is just a recommendation, and sometimes the Sages decide to incorporate such advice and recommendations into Jewish law (as with coercion regarding the “trait of Sodom”).
The halakhic decisors disagreed whether doing something three times gives it the status of a vow. There are also medieval authorities who wrote that one does not actually need explicit verbalization, except where the matter is not self-evident. That is the view of Rabbeinu Tam in Avodah Zarah 34a (see also Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim, sec. 562). And it is strained to distinguish between a fast and other vows (see Taz there, subsec. 8). But it is true that grounding this law in a vow is somewhat strained. Perhaps it is a kind of public vow.
That is not correct. True, in his view there are court-established customs, but it is not true that other customs are invalid.
Changing a custom is not clearly defined in Jewish law. Seemingly it requires annulment (at least according to the views that treat this as a vow). But I already mentioned here once what Rabbi Blumentzweig (head of the Yerocham yeshiva) said: a custom contains an internal contradiction, because we are required to preserve the deviation. A custom usually begins as a deviation from what is accepted. If so, reason suggests that when circumstances require it, one may change a custom.
It is harder to annul a general custom. It can be compared to someone who vows on the understanding of the many.
They discussed this at great length. See, for example, sources brought here: https://www.ykr.org.il/question/7725
If you search online, you will find many more sources.