Thursday 30 May 2019

New Chagim


A couple of years ago, in Zionism and Yom Ha'atzmaut, I wrote about the philosophical side of what we have to celebrate regarding the events of recent times. I intentionally left out the halachic aspects of the ways in which we can or should celebrate, as this often clouds the main issue.

Now, enough time has passed and I feel free to write about the unrelated issues of the nature of new festivals, who has the right to institute them and which parts of our tefilos (if any) can be changed in their honour. At least on a theoretical level, these questions are important even for those who may feel that they have nothing to celebrate.

Megilas Ta'anis

In the times of the second Beis HaMikdash (and slightly beforehand), the Chachamim forbade fasting (and in some instances also eulogising) on various days when there was something to celebrate. A list of these days was compiled and named Megilas Ta'anis, as the main institution was the prohibition of fasting.

On most of these days, there was no obligation to do anything positive to celebrate. The Tana'im and Amora'im disputed whether or not the laws of Megilas Ta'anis apply even after the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed, and the final halacha is that it is obsolete with the two exceptions of Chanuka and Purim. As we know, these two festivals do have positive mitzvos, and they were retained because of the fame of the miracles that happened.[1]

The gemara also tells us that according to the accepted view that Megilas Ta'anis no longer applies, certainly we do not add new celebrations. Thus the institution of a festival on the day that the writing of Hashem's name on business documents ceased must have been while the Beis HaMikdash still stood. Similarly, those who declared a festival on the day of the rescinding a decree against Torah learning, bris milah and Shabbos, must have subscribed to the view that Megilas Ta'anis is still in force.[2]

It would appear from here that as long until the Beis Hamikdash is rebuilt, we should not institute new festivals. Even if there is a theoretically legitimate reason to celebrate, it does not justify further distraction from the mourning we are supposed to feel for what we are missing.

However, the Tana R' Yossi says that Megilas Ta'anis became obsolete for a different reason. After the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash, these former celebrations of events connected to it have themselves become a source of mourning.[3] This would seem to imply that celebration of happenings unrelated to the Beis HaMikdash is indeed appropriate. How can we reconcile this contradiction?

The Aroch La'ner[4] explains that as most of the festivals in Megilas Ta'anis were in celebration of events connected to the Beis HaMikdash, it became obsolete when the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed. Although a few of these festivals were not connected, as they were part of Megilas Ta'anis they were also discontinued. The corollary of this is that nowadays there is no problem in adding new festivals – although obviously it would not make any sense to add them to Megilas Ta'anis.[5]

Voluntary Chagim

The Pri Chadash[6] discusses those in his time who instituted festivals celebrating various miracles that happened to them and does invoke the rule that "if the original festivals were ceased, how can we add new ones?!" He therefore concludes that these festivals and celebratory meals cannot be obligatory, even if one observed them for many years.[7] However, it should be noted that even according to the Pri Chadash, we are perfectly entitled to celebrate days like this on a voluntary basis.

Furthermore, it is hard to understand the rationale behind the view of the Pri Chadash. If the leaders of the generation feel that it is appropriate to institute a festival, what limits their authority to do so?[8] I believe that he learned from the gemara that the revoking of Megilas Ta'anis contained an implicit decree that no new chagim could be made until the rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdash.[9] As with other rabbinic decrees, this can only be rescinded by a court of higher wisdom and numbers.[10]

This understanding of the gemara is certainly not obvious. The language used, that Megilas Ta'anis ceased (בטלה), doesn't sound like a beis din issued an active decree to revoke it. It also seems improbable that the Tana'im and Amora'im disputed whether such a historical event occurred. Neither is there any indication that an explicit decree was made to prevent the institution of new festivals.

Therefore I believe that even if we reject the explanation of the Aroch La'ner and find some other resolution to the contradiction in the gemara, the principle of not adding new festivals could only have been a policy and not a strict rule. If the leaders of the generation feel that this policy needs to be changed because of the needs of the times, they have every right to do so.

That being said, obligating people to celebrate a new festival is much less straightforward. As I have pointed out many times before, the only ones who have the power to make binding institutions on the entire Jewish people are the Sanhedrin or its equivalent (all or virtually all the Rabbis of the generation).[11] In the absence of such an authority, although we are all obligated to thank Hashem for the good he has given us, the manner in which we do so remains a matter of personal choice.[12]

Hallel

Based on the above, any festivals instituted by lesser authorities than the Sanhedrin or its equivalent must not contain any form of observance that requires a formal institution. For example, celebratory meals are clearly appropriate as they do not require any formal institution. By contrast, adding a new 'mitzvah' with its own beracha would not be possible.[13]

The 'grey area' is when we have an existing mitzvah which we want to extend; one example of this being the reciting of Hallel. While adding days on which we say Hallel poses no halachic questions if done for a good reason,[14] we cannot just say extra brachos without establishing the halachic basis for this. Saying a beracha where none is required is a severe transgression.[15]

In Brachos on Mitzvos, I already explained at length that this situation exists regarding Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, a custom started by the people as an extension of the Rabbinic institution of saying Hallel on Yom Tov. The rishonim dispute whether or not the beracha is also extended to Rosh Chodesh.

For those who say it, should the status of Hallel on Yom Ha'atzmaut and Yom Yerushalayim be different to that of Hallel on Rosh Chodesh? One possible reason to distinguish is due to the fact that in contrast to Rosh Chodesh, the custom of saying Hallel on Yom Ha'atzmaut and Yom Yerushalayim has not spread to the entire Orthodox Jewish world. One could argue that only such a widespread custom could justify a beracha being recited, as only such customs may become compulsory.[16]

However, taking a closer look at the history of Hallel on Rosh Chodesh reveals that in the times of the gemara, this custom was not universal. The gemara relates that Rav, who lived in Eretz Yisrael, was not aware of the custom until he visited Bavel.[17] Rabeinu Tam, one of the main proponents of saying a beracha on Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, assumes that even then a beracha was recited.[18]

To summarise, those who don't say a beracha on Hallel on Rosh Chodesh should certainly also not do so on Yom Ha'atzmaut and Yom Yerushalayim. Those who do say a beracha on Hallel on Rosh Chodesh certainly have some justification for doing the same on Yom Ha'atzmaut and Yom Yerushalayim.

My personal practice is to say a beracha on Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, although as I hinted in the above post, I am not 100% convinced that this is correct. Due to this uncertainty, added to the possible distinction between Rosh Chodesh and the newer festivals, I do not say a beracha on Hallel on these days. However, here too I am far from convinced of the correctness of this position and I am open to reconsidering in the future.

Yom Yerushalayim Same'ach!


[1] Rosh HaShana 18b-19b.
[2] Ibid. This festival was a later addition to Megilas Ta'anis, after the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash.
[3] Ibid. 19b.
[4] R' Yaakov Etlinger, Germany 1798-1871.
[5] I have found only one other commentator who deals with this contradiction in the gemara – the Chasam Sofer writes that in fact the conclusion of the gemara rejects the earlier premise that we don't institute any new festivals after the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash. He argues that on the contrary, there is a Biblical obligation to celebrate and praise Hashem on a day that we were saved from danger (Shu"t Chasam Sofer 1:191). I find this explanation more difficult, but either way the halachic conclusion is the same.
[6] R' Chizkiyah di Silo, 1656 (Livorno) – 1695 (Yerushalayim).
[7] The Chasam Sofer quoted above rejects this ruling at length.
[8] Obviously, if those who attempt to impose a festival are not the legitimate authorities, there decision carries no weight. Such people have no right to institute anything. The Pri Chadash clearly means that even those who do have the authority to make other institutions cannot declare a new chag.
[9] Although see B'ikvei HaTzon siman 32, where R' Hershel Shachter explains that adding any festivals not related to the building of the Beis HaMikdash is a violation of the prohibition of Ba'al Tosif (adding new mitzvos. Despite this, he justifies the celebration of Yom Ha'atzmaut as it appears to be the start of the process leading to the rebuilding of the Beis HaMikdash). Without getting into a lengthy discussion of the parameters of this prohibition, I find this argument hard to defend. Adding a new festival should be no worse than the addition of the fourth beracha in Birkat HaMazon.
[10] Mishna, Eduyos 1:5.
[12] Nevertheless, based on the principle of ברוב עם הדרת מלך, finding a way that as many people can identify with as possible is far superior to each person doing his own thing.
[13] We can only make a beracha on a compulsory mitzvah, due to the appearance of the word וצונו (= He commanded us).
[14] Chazal compare saying Hallel to blasphemy (Shabbos 118b), as the mitzvah is belittled and made into a mere song (Rashi). Some have claimed that any reciting of Hallel when halacha does not require it falls under this category of blasphemy (see Nefesh HaRav, page 97), although this position is hard to justify when there is a specific reason for saying Hallel on that day (see Yabia Omer 6, Orach Chaim siman 41).
[15] See Rambam, Hilchos Brachos 1:15.
[16] As explained in Brachos on Mitzvos, some take the position that even these minhagim are never really compulsory unless endorsed by the Sanhedrin, although these rishonim also maintain that a beracha is not said on Hallel on Rosh Chodesh.
[17] Ta'anis 28b.
[18] Sefer HaYashar, Chidushim siman 537. Also quoted by Tosfos in Sukkah 44b and by many other Rishonim.

No comments:

Post a Comment