Q&A: A Thought I Had Following Something We Talked About Last Purim
A Thought I Had Following Something We Talked About Last Purim
Question
Hello Rabbi, good evening.
I remember we talked about Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef’s ruling regarding the date of Purim in Lod. I was puzzled by his words: despite his determination that it is definitely a walled city, in light of the updated archaeological data and the city’s expansion toward ancient Tel Lod, and that today it is no longer defined as a doubtful case as in previous years, one still has to continue observing two days there as people always did, because “we do not have the power to change what people have practiced.” And now I am even more puzzled, because I read his ruling to the residents of the Ramot neighborhood in Jerusalem [where, regarding the date of Purim there, much ink has been spilled and opinions have multiplied on the matter…..] that in the past they really did have to observe the 14th, but since the expansion of building in Jerusalem caused Ramot to become connected to the rest of the city, they should begin observing the 15th like the rest of Jerusalem …… And I don’t understand: in the case of Ramot, suddenly there is no concern about “changing what people practiced”? Here there is no concern about changing the public’s habit? So if the ruling for the residents of Ramot is that they should start getting used to a new practice from now on, why can’t the residents of Lod get used to a new practice for Purim? Why regarding them is it “we do not have the power to change what people have practiced”?
My feeling is that this is exactly the same story as Rabbi M. M. Schafran’s opinion regarding the position of the leading halakhic decisors on tekhelet, which we talked about—that there is a meta-halakhic tendency of “don’t change anything” because of fear of the Reform movement, and that in the case of Purim a habit became fixed according to which Jerusalem is the only city in the world defined as certainly walled, and they don’t dare change that, even though this habit was based on uncertainty regarding the other cities and not as something ideal from the outset.
Regarding the case of the Ramot neighborhood, apparently that internal concern does not exist, because it is still a neighborhood within Jerusalem, where people are already used to the fact that Jerusalem observes on the 15th, and it joins what is familiar and known, rather than an entire city changing status and becoming another city besides Jerusalem where Purim is celebrated only on the 15th—a reality that has not existed for generations because of the doubts ……
That is my feeling. I may be wrong, and perhaps the considerations and the differences between Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef’s rulings in the two cases are different, but that is very much how it seems to me, and the question of what the difference is between a ruling that changes a practice in one place and another place where suddenly “it cannot be changed” really resonates with me.
What do you think?
Answer
You are right. Beyond that, there is also legitimization here for what is actually practiced in Lod, and an unwillingness to interfere with people’s long-standing custom. That is a practical consideration. There are two long responsa about this in the responsa collection of Lod’s former rabbi, Natan Ortner.
I live in Lod and in fact observe only one day. The existing custom seems baseless to me.
Discussion on Answer
It seems to me that in Ramot the custom is new and the residents are mostly learned religious people. In Lod it is a broad public, and the custom is old and already perceived by them as clear and binding.
He ruled to celebrate two days as though because of doubt, even though there is no doubt, because of the custom. He received endorsements from several leading halakhic decisors of the generation (Rabbis Elyashiv and Ovadia, among others).
Ortner.
And it is interesting and puzzling why that same practical consideration does not guide Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef regarding his ruling for the residents of Ramot to change the previous custom, yet regarding the residents of Lod he is careful not to change their habit, even though this is a similar case to Ramot (a change in reality as a result of the city’s expansion, and in Lod’s case there are doubts that have been resolved).
What did Rabbi Ortner of blessed memory rule regarding Lod?