Q&A: A Diaspora Jew in Israel for the Holidays
A Diaspora Jew in Israel for the Holidays
Question
For some reason I’ve never asked you about this, but what do you think, in practical Jewish law, should a Diaspora Jew who goes to Israel for the holidays do? Observe two festival days or only one?
Answer
According to most halakhic decisors, he should observe two days. But there are decisors who instruct observing only one day. Essentially, it is clear that the whole institution of the second festival day is internally untenable in itself (after all, when the Temple is rebuilt no one will send messengers and there will be no doubt at all about the day), and therefore in my opinion it is certainly proper to forgo it in a case where it is in any event unclear that the enactment applies. All the more so because this is a stringency that leads to leniency, since on the second festival day he does not put on tefillin and does not pray in the correct weekday liturgy, and also makes blessings in vain, such as in prayer and kiddush, etc.
Discussion on Answer
You’re mixing up different levels. When I wrote that it is internally untenable, I meant precisely that it is untenable on the substantive level. But beyond the substance there are considerations of authority (a matter established by formal count), and therefore outside the Land of Israel I would not clearly write that it should be abolished. But here in Israel, where in any case the opinions are divided, there is no reason to be stringent in a rabbinic-level doubt involving a law that is untenable in itself.
By the way, even regarding outside the Land of Israel there are grounds for abolishing it despite the authority considerations. When the reason has certainly lapsed, the Rosh wrote in a responsum that it can be abolished. And there are additional reasons as well.
Isn’t the Rabbi using second-order ruling here—there is a dispute among halakhic decisors, and therefore I would rule this way? According to the Rabbi’s approach, shouldn’t one first decide which position on this question is more reasonable, rather than rule on the basis of a meta-consideration that there are opinions in both directions?
There is no reliance here on the decisors; rather, the dispute shows that there are two sides here and that a doubt exists. The doubt among the decisors is mainly about the point I raised above: because this is a leniency that leads to stringency (see Chacham Tzvi, sec. 166). Beyond that, I would add further grounds for abolishing it because it is untenable, and because there is a possibility of abolishing an untenable enactment even without a Sanhedrin.
Where is the responsum of the Rosh that you mentioned found?
Look in my article on changing enactments nowadays here on the site.
“All the more so because this is a stringency that leads to leniency, since on the second festival day he does not put on tefillin and does not pray in the correct liturgy”
It seems that this specific argument doesn’t really hold water, because the same applies in the other direction: there are also leniencies the other way, in that if you celebrate only one day then you may come to eat leavened food on the second day, etc.
Isn’t that so?
Not at all, because there is in fact no doubt about the day. Eating leavened food on the second day is not a problem.
Why is it internally untenable? According to what you explained to us, people continue observing two days because we have no authority to change it. So why is it untenable? The fact that we have no authority is a good reason.