Shulachn Aruch: Chapter 496 - The Laws [Governing the Observance of] the Second Day of a Festival in the Diaspora

The Alter Rebbe is referring to the era, during which the San ­hedrin determined the beginning of each month based upon when the new moon was sighted. Messengers were then sent to the communities that were distant from Eretz Yisrael. However, due to the distances involved, these communities may not have been notified as to when the new month began until after date of the upcoming festival had passed. Since each lunar month is either 29 or 30 days long, the Sages ordained that all communities outside of Eretz Yisrael observe two festive days for each festival so that the inhabitants of these lands would definitely be observing the festival. Even after a fixed calendar was instituted, the Sages ordained that all communities outside of Eretz Yisrael continue observing this second festive day to uphold the custom of our ancestors. See sec. 495, footnote 100, and sec. 600:1-2, where this concept is explained in depth.

The Alter Rebbe is referring to the limit of 2000 cubits that the Sages established as the distance one may walk in any direction from his home or city on Shabbos and festivals. See sec. 397:1, where this concept is explained.

Pesachim 52a.

Pesachim, loc. cit. See also Rambam (Hilchos Talmud Torah 6:14, ch. 7), for a description of what such a ban involves.

The Alter Rebbe is referring to someone who violates a Rabbinic prohibition on the second day of the festival. For example, the person instructs a non-Jew to perform a forbidden labor, which even on the first day of a festival, is forbidden merely by Rabbinic decree (see Magen Avraham 496:1).

The Alter Rebbe is explaining that since the person intentionally violated a Rabbinic command on the second day of the festival, which itself was instituted by the Sages, he disregarded the very foundation of the observance of the second day of the festival. Therefore, he is given this very severe punishment.

In this instance as well, the person’s conduct disregards the very foundation of the observance of the festival as defined by the Torah.

In this instance, the person is not placed under a ban of ostracism because he did not abrogate the mitzvah in its entirety. The rationale is that since the observance of the first day of the festival is Scripturally mandated and the person observed the Scriptural dimensions of this day, he did not abrogate the mitzvah in its entirety by violating a Rabbinic aspect of this command.

מכת מרדות, which we have translated as “stripes for rebellious conduct” is the term used for punishment by whipping due to violating a Rabbinic prohibition. In contrast to this, the term “lashing” is used for the punishment meted out to a person who is liable for whipping according to Scriptural Law.

There is a significant difference between the two punishments – whoever is punished by lashing for transgressing a Scriptural prohibition receives 39 lashes, unless he is physically incapable of bearing that full number of lashes, while one who is punished by stripes for rebellious conduct for transgressing a Rabbinic prohibition receives merely the number of lashes deemed appropriate by the court. See the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat (Hilchos Nizkei Guf VeNefesh, subsections 15-16), where the Alter Rebbe speaks of related matters.

It should be noted that Chulin 141b states that stripes for rebellious conduct are also given to one who violates a Scriptural prohibition that is not punishable by lashing.

In his responsa (responsum 24), the Alter Rebbe cites Mordechai {quoted in Beis Yosef (Even HaEzer 154)}, who explains that ostracism is a more severe punishment than stripes for rebellious conduct. See subsection 3 below, where this concept is implied by the Alter Rebbe’s statement.

See sec. 318:2, where the Alter Rebbe rules in a similar manner regarding a person who transgresses because he followed the directives of a scholar who erred in his understanding of Scriptural Law.

There are many occasions when a person can unwittingly violate a Scriptural prohibition out of ignorance, e.g., one who ties a knot on Shabbos in a manner forbidden by Scriptural Law (see sec. 317). Although even an inadvertent transgression is quite severe, nevertheless, one is not punished for such a transgression by an earthly court. Rather, earthly courts only mete out punishments for the willful violation of Jewish Law.

A Torah scholar is given the lighter punishment as a token of respect for his Torah knowledge.

Beitzah 6a.

As the Alter Rebbe explains in that source, the Sages permitted Jews to perform melachah so that the body of a deceased Jew could be buried on the second day of a festival.

Kohl, also referred to as antimony or stibium, is a grayish-blue substance applied to the eye for both cosmetic and medicinal purposes. The Alter Rebbe is referring to applying kohl for medicinal purposes.

Beitzah 22a.

Beitzah, loc. cit. See also sec. 328:9, 21 where the Alter Rebbe rules that when the danger to the eye has already passed, but a bit of the infection remains, kohl may not be applied by a Jew on Shabbos, but it may be applied by a non-Jew.

Similarly, although it is forbidden to take medication for minor ailments on Shabbos (see sec. 328:1) and on the first day of the festivals, one may do so on the second day of a festival (see Yom Tov Sheini Kehilchaso, 1:16).

A shvus is an activity that is forbidden on Shabbos and festivals, not because it is a Scripturally forbidden melachah, but rather because it is forbidden by Rabbinic decree. The Sages prohibited these activities either because they resemble a melachah or because peforming the shvus might lead to the performance of a melachah (see Rambam, Hilchos Shabbos 21:1).

In that source, the Alter Rebbe writes:

>>If, however, [the person] is not in danger of losing a limb even though he is bedridden, or he is in such discomfort that his entire body becomes sickened, any activity forbidden by Rabbinic Law may not be performed on his behalf by a Jew unless he deviates from his ordinary weekday practice. If, however, [the Jew treating the patient] makes such a deviation, it is permitted to perform even [an activity that is] definitely [defined as a Scripturally] forbidden labor…. [The rationale is that] performing [a forbidden labor] while deviating [from the ordinary practice] is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law.

In the source cited, the Alter Rebbe rules leniently regarding performing an activity that is forbidden by Scriptural Law, provided the person deviates from the ordinary way of performing that activity. By contrast, in the main text here, the Alter Rebbe is discussing performing an activity forbidden by Rabbinic Law in such a manner. One might think that since the Alter Rebbe refers the reader to sec. 328:19, he is implying that his ruling here is a stringency – and even an activity that is forbidden by a Rabbinic ordinance may only be performed on behalf of a sick person if it is performed in an unusual manner. However, this is not the case. Rather, in this subsection, the Alter Rebbe is merely building on his statements in subsection 4 above, where he rules regarding a non-Jew performing an activity to relieve a Jew who is suffering from a minor ailment on the first day of a festival. In that instance, the non-Jew may only perform a labor forbidden by Rabbinic Law, as stated in sec. 318:20. See Marei Mekomos VeTziyunim.

In that source, the Alter Rebbe writes:

>>[The above concepts do not apply] with regard to the two days of Rosh HaShanah. They are considered as one long day and a single continuum of holiness, even for the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael….

>>Why are [the two days of Rosh HaShanah] considered as one long day? [After all, today] we are aware [of the day] fixed for the new month [to begin], and we know that it is the first day [of Rosh HaShanah] that is of primary importance. [The two days are nevertheless considered as one long day] because even when the Court would sanctify [the months] on the basis of the sighting [of the new moon], there were times when [this festival] was observed for two days.

>>How did this come about? Originally, when [the eve of] the thirtieth of Elul arrived, the entire Jewish people and the Court would observe – from nightfall – the prohibitions against forbidden labor and would observe the sanctification of the day, lest witnesses come the following day and testify that they had seen the new moon that night. [Were that to happen,] that day would be declared as Rosh Chodesh Tishrei, which is Rosh HaShanah, and thus the [preceding] night would [have been observed as] a festival.

In such an instance, Rosh HaShanah was observed for only one day in Jerusalem. However, if the witnesses did not come that day and thus, that day was the 30th of Elul, the Sanhedrin and the people would not treat the day with disrespect. Instead, they would observe that day as if it were Rosh HaShanah until nightfall, observing all the prohibitions, in keeping with the sanctity of a festival that is the result of a Rabbinic decree. On the night following the thirtieth of Elul, Rosh HaShanah would begin, and once again, the entire nation would observe Rosh Hashanah. Thus, in this instance, Rosh HaShanah would have been observed for two days.

Needless to say, if the patient is in mortal danger, the festival may be desecrated on his behalf. See sec. 328:2, where the Alter Rebbe rules:

>>When a person is in mortal danger because of illness, it is a mitzvah to desecrate the Shabbos for his sake. One who does so eagerly is praiseworthy, while one who asks [whether it is permitted to do so is considered as if he] sheds blood….

>>Even when there is a mere doubt that one is in mortal danger, [any activity necessary to save his life] supersedes the Shabbos [prohibitions].

Cupping therapy is a time-honored therapeutic practice observed in many cultures to treat pain, inflammation, problems with blood flow, and other issues. The practitioner ignites a flammable substance such as alcohol or herbs in a special cup. After the fire goes out, the cup is placed upside down on the patient’s skin. As the air inside the cup cools, it creates a vacuum, causing the skin to rise and redden as the blood vessels expand.

Pesachim 51b. As the Alter Rebbe explains in sec. 468:10, “… it is impossible to perform work so privately that no one will ever find out about it.” Eventually, the person’s actions will become public knowledge.

However, in sec. 305:14, the Alter Rebbe rules that, on Shabbos, in a courtyard, one may perform an act that is forbidden to be performed in public because of maris ayin, the impression that would be created, provided only a Rabbinic prohibition is involved. The rationale for this ruling is that if the person performed this act in public, he would not be suspected of transgressing a Scriptural prohibition. Therefore, the Sages, “did not rule that stringently and forbid [this act] even in a place where there are no observers.”

These two rulings seem to be contradictory. Why is a Jew from Eretz Yisrael prohibited against performing melachah in private on the second day of a festival, the observance of which is Rabbinic in origin, when one is permitted to do an act in private on Shabbos that is prohibited solely because of the impression that might be created?

Rabbi Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach addresses this difficulty (quoted in Yom Tov Sheini Kehilchaso, ch. 3, note 2), explaining that there are various instances in which the Sages ruled strictly regarding the second day of the festivals, and even applied stringency regarding Rabbinic decrees. See subsection 1 above, sec. 475:30, sec. 490:1, sec. 600:4, sec. 649:21.

Pesachim 51b, as understood by Rabbeinu Zecharyahu HaLevi, Rabbeinu Nissim, and others.

Rabbi Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach rules that this law also applies in places where Jews have yet to accept the full observance of Jewish Law (Yom Tov Sheini Kehilchaso, ch. 3, note 2).

Chulin 110a. See also sec. 468:10, where the Alter Rebbe issues a similar ruling, stating that people visiting a town where it is not customary to do melachah on the day before Pesach are permitted to do so outside the town’s festival limits.

See the notes to subsection 11 below, where the different approaches to this issue are explained.

In subsection 11 below, the Alter Rebbe rules that residents of the Diaspora who are in Eretz Yisrael for a festival should only observe the festival for one day, regardless of whether or not they plan to return to the Diaspora at some point after the festival. In his Igros Kodesh (Vol. 7, Letter no. 2089), the Rebbe writes that the Alter Rebbe’s ruling in subsection 11 differs with regard to the rationale for the ruling in the present subsection, and maintains that these people are obligated to observe the second day of the festival according to the letter of the law. By contrast, in this subsection, the Alter Rebbe refers the reader to sec. 468:11, where he explains that the reason for not permitting visitors to perform melachah at times when the local residents are forbidden to do so is merely to prevent strife.

In that source, the Alter Rebbe explains that it is feared that if the visitor performs melachah at times when the local residents are forbidden to do so, it will lead to friction and strife, for the local people will not understand the reason behind his lack of observance.

See sec. 468:10, where the Alter Rebbe issues a similar ruling. As can be understood from that ruling, as long as a person does not intend to permanently settle in the Diaspora, they are considered residents of Eretz Yisrael. This applies even if the person intends to remain in the Diaspora for a prolonged period of time.

See subsections 1 and 2 above and footnotes there, where these punishments are mentioned.

With this statement, the Alter Rebbe is implying that such people are not inherently obligated to observe the laws of the festival. Rather, they are only required to observe the second day of the festival to prevent strife. See footnote 26, above.

An eruv tavshilin is a halachic practice that allows one to cook on a festival for Shabbos when the festival falls on Friday. See sec. 527:1-2, 8.

A visitor to that person’s house will have no way of knowing whether or not the person made an eruv tavshilin.

The authorities who follow this approach maintain that according to the letter of the law, such a person is not at all required to observe the festival. All that is necessary is that he conduct himself in a manner that the local Jews will not be aware that he is not observing the festival. See the footnotes to subsection 7, above.

In that source, the Alter Rebbe writes:

>>[Different rules apply,] however, with regard to all other stringencies that are observed in the place to which [the person] moved that do not involve the performance of forbidden work. If [the person] does not intend to settle permanently in [the place to which he moved], he is permitted to act leniently even within the city itself, provided he does so privately, in a manner in which people at large will not find out about the matter so that [his conduct] will [not] lead to strife.

The Alter Rebbe is referring to the weekday Amidah, which is commonly referred to as the Shemoneh Esreh, “the eighteen blessings.” It should be noted that the weekday Amidah is actually comprised of nineteen blessings. See sec. 89:1.

Pri Chadash (Orach Chayim 496:3) notes that although the weekday Shemoneh Esreh is slightly longer than the festival Shemoneh Esreh, the length of time one takes to recite the prayer will not necessarily attract notice.

See sec. 31:2. In that source, the Alter Rebbe rules that tefillin should be worn on Chol HaMoed. However, as implied by footnote 10 there, the Alter Rebbe reversed his stance in his Siddur, and ruled that tefillin should not be worn on Chol HaMoed.

In that source, the Alter Rebbe writes:

>>If, however, [the person] does not intend to permanently settle in [the city where he is currently located], but instead, intends to return to his [original] place or [go] to another place where the prohibition is observed, he [remains bound] by the stringencies of the place from which he departed….

>>Nevertheless, he should not display [his behavior] in the presence of the people in the city [to which he came, making it obvious to them] that he is not working because of the prohibition practiced in his [former] place, lest strife arise. Instead, he should create the impression that he is not working because he has no work to do.

See sec. 468:9, where the Alter Rebbe rules in a similar manner.

The Alter Rebbe’s intent is that even if such a person is not within the boundaries of a city in the Diaspora on the second day of the festival, he must nonetheless observe all the laws of the festival.

One is only required to make an eruv tavshilin when the festival falls on Thursday and Friday.

See sec. 468:10, where the Alter Rebbe rules in a similar manner.

With this ruling, the Alter Rebbe distinguishes between a resident from Eretz Yisrael who journeys to the Diaspora alone, and one who makes the same journey with his wife. The Alter Rebbe’s assumption seems to be that by traveling together, a couple (or a family) is making a statement that it is very likely that they will remain in the Diaspora, even if their expressed intent is to return to Eretz Yisrael.

Pri Chadash (Orach Chayim 468:4) makes a similar distinction between a family that travels to Eretz Yisrael with the expressed intent of remaining and working there for an extended time, and one that travels to Eretz Yisrael for the expressed intent of visiting the holy sites and returning to their original home. Pri Chadash maintains that since the family is planning to work in Eretz Yisrael, they should only observe the festivals for one day, despite the fact that they ultimately plan to return to the Diaspora.

It should be noted that many authorities differ with Pri Chadash. However, there are contemporary authorities who follow the approach of Pri Chadash in the present era when couples frequently travel from the Diaspora to Eretz Yisrael (or vice versa) and have purchased return tickets for their trip back to their original place of residence. It could be argued that they are clearly only in their new location temporarily, regardless of whether or not they work in their new location. See Igros Moshe (Orach Chayim, Vol. 3, responsum 74). See, however, the following footnote.

See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 17, p. 504; the Rebbe’s Igros Kodesh, Vol. 11, Letter no. 3773, and Vol. 17, Letter no. 6193, where the Rebbe quotes this ruling. See also Toras Menachem, 5744, Vol. 3, p. 2089. In this source, the Rebbe explains that being together with one’s family endows the person’s location with a dimension of permanence, even if he is only there for a temporary visit. Hence, in such an instance one should conduct himself according to local practice.

Pesachim 51b, as explained by Rabbeinu Chananel, see below.

See the Rebbe’s Igros Kodesh, Vol. 7, Letter no. 2089. In that source, the Rebbe writes that the difference of opinion mentioned in this subsection also applies with regard to the ruling in subsections 7-9, where the Alter Rebbe rules that residents of Eretz Yisrael who are in the Diaspora for a festival should observe the second day of the festival, only so as not to provoke strife. The second opinion mentioned here follows the approach outlined in those subsections. Conversely, the adherents of the first approach presented here would maintain that residents of Eretz Yisrael visiting the Diaspora are required to observe the second day of the festival according to the letter of the law.

These two approaches are based upon two interpretations of Pesachim 51b-52a:

>>Rav Safra said to Rabbi Abba: “We, who know the determination of the month, do not perform labor [on the second day] of a festival in the settled area [so as not to] deviate [from local practice and cause] dispute. In the desert [where there is no Jewish community], what is [the halachah]? He answered him, “This is what Rav Ami said: In a settled area it is prohibited; in the desert it is permitted.”

The first interpretation of this passage is that of Rabbeinu Zechariah HaLevi (see HaMeor to Rif, Pesachim 17a), who explains that Rav Safra was a resident of Eretz Yisrael who had journeyed to the Diaspora. Therefore, in a settled area, he followed the practice of the inhabitants of the Diaspora so as not to create controversy. However, in the desert, where there was no question of controversy arising, he was instructed that he could perform melachah on the second day of the festival. The rationale for this ruling was that his status was ultimately dependent on his permanent place of residence.

The second approach is reflected by the Alter Rebbe’s ruling in this subsection. This approach is that of Rabbeinu Chananel and Ra’avan (Rabbi Eliezer ben Nasan), who explain that Rav Safra was a resident of the Diaspora and was planning to visit Eretz Yisrael. According to this interpretation, Rav Safra was asking: Although we know the determination of the month, in our settled area, i.e., in the Diaspora, we do not perform melachah on the second day of the festival. But what should I do in the desert in Eretz Yisrael? Am I bound by the custom where I reside, i.e., must I observe the festival for two days? Rabbi Abba answered Rav Safra that he was not bound by the practice of observing the festival for two days. Thus, this approach places the emphasis on the person’s present location. In his mahadura basra, sec. 1:8, the Alter Rebbe adds a mystical perspective to the perspective of Rabbeinu Chananel and Ra’avan:

>>(For the time of Divine favor above, and… the sanctity of Shabbos and the festivals – all transcend the limits of space and time, though they radiate “downward” into the physical realms to each and every place at the time appropriate for it. This also explains why a sublime holiness pervades in the Diaspora on the second day of a festival; hence, inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael who are temporarily in the Diaspora are obliged to observe the holiness of that day, even though they intend to return [to Eretz Yisrael].)

Although most halachic authorities follow the approach of Rabbeinu Zechariah HaLevi, which is presented in subsection 7, there are some authorities who rule according to the approach of Rabbeinu Chananel and Ra’avan (see for example, Chacham Tzvi, responsum 167).

It should be noted that despite the Alter Rebbe’s statement in mahadura basra, Lubavitch rabbis have been divided as to actual practice. Rabbi Avraham David Lavut, the Rebbe’s great-great-grandfather, urges that the ruling presented in mahadura basra be followed (see Shaar HaKollel 1:2). Rabbi Lavut supports this position by citing various sources in chassidic literature which reflect this position, including Likkutei Torah on Shemini Atzeres, p. 92c.

Nevertheless, in previous times, even the Chabad Rebbeim did not necessarily rule accordingly. For example, in a letter to Rav Shlomoh Zalman Havlin, who was sent to Chevron from Russia to serve as a mashpia (spiritual mentor) together with a group of students, the Rebbe Rashab (see his Igros Kodesh, Vol. 2, Letter no. 328) addresses this issue, stating that Rabbi Havlin should observe one day of the festivals, since he moved to Eretz Yisrael with his wife. However, the students should observe two days of each festival, since they intended to return to Russia, where their families resided. Thus, the Rebbe Rashab ruled according to the approach of Rabbeinu Zechariah HaLevi, which implies that a person’s status depends on how we determine his permanent place of residence. Similarly, there are directives from the Rebbe Rayatz and letters from the Rebbe which appear to support this approach.

On the other hand, there are letters from the Rebbe which appear to support the approach of mahadura basra. Indeed, the last extant letter written by the Rebbe on this subject (see the Rebbe’s Igros Kodesh, Vol. 17, Letter no. 6193) states: “Our custom in fact – and this is straightforward – is that one should conduct himself according to local practice.” This letter was dated 24 Nissan, 5718 (1958). Nevertheless, after that letter was written, there were other directives and public statements that could be interpreted as supporting Rabbeinu Zechariah HaLevi’s approach. For this reason, at present there are adherents of both approaches – and no accepted consensus – among Lubavitch rabbis.