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after the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed, and the final halacha is that it is
obsolete with the two exceptions of Chanuka and Purim.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.
[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.
[11] See How
does halacha work? and Ubitul
Sanhedreya.
[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).
[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.
