17 Tammuz
The rabbi, during the fast, gave a lesson on the validity of the 17th of Tammuz and explained that it is related to the acceptance that the courts of the Jewish people accepted (in times of neither peace nor war). I asked, what is the validity of such a thing? Is it a custom? I know people who do not fast on the 17th of Tammuz and feel religious. Is it really theoretically possible to permit such a custom?
Tammuz 17 has undergone various incarnations throughout history. It has been amended, repealed, and returned. In the Shulchan Shulchan Shavuot 355, it is written that everyone is obligated to fast on the four fasts. On this, the Maga (and also cited the Ma’ab) commented that according to the Medina Gemara, there is no obligation except on 1st of Av, but Israel has already accepted fasting and there is no breach of the boundary.
This wording implies that it is a custom (about which it is usually said, “Whoever breaks through a fence, a snake will dwell there”). There is a halachic obligation to observe customs, which is learned from “Do not forsake the law of your mother,” and some say it is also based on a vow.
The question is not what people feel, but what they really are. Someone who breaks one custom or another, and even someone who breaks a law, can be called “religious” (although this is a sociological concept and not a halakhic one. It has no clear meaning). And perhaps it depends on why he breaks it: if it is because of his instinct (but he understands that he is not acting properly) or because he believes it is permissible – he can be called religious. But if it is simply because he is not obligated, then no. Even if he thinks (mistakenly) that a custom is not binding, this is a mistake that puts him within the aforementioned religious boundary.
The only reason to allow a custom is because the situation has changed or there is a special reason to allow it. Today, I see no such reason. It is true that there is a built-in paradox in customs (I heard this from Rabbi Eliyahu Blumentzweig of Yeruham): this is a commandment that commands us to maintain and not deviate from innovation. After all, every custom begins with a deviation from what exists, and maintaining the custom means perpetuating the deviation. Therefore, if another custom begins, even if the first to do so are criminals, it is possible that this will create a new binding custom.
Just a technical note. Although in this case this is not the case, since the Israelites fasted all the time because it was an obligation. And once the obligation ceased, they continued to fast by virtue of custom. So – in this case the custom did not actually change the existing situation.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
