📋 Shiur Overview
Summary of the Chavrusa Shiur: Rambam Hilchos Kiddush HaChodesh Chapter 5 — Yom Tov Sheni Shel Galuyos
—
Halacha 11: The Foundation of Yom Tov Sheni — Minhag Avoseinu B’yadeinu
The Rambam’s Words
The Rambam says that Yom Tov Sheni today is based on “minhag avoseinu b’yadeinu” (the custom of our forefathers is in our hands) — even though there is no longer a real doubt (because we follow the fixed calendar), every city must conduct itself as it did during the time of doubt. Places where we know that messengers used to arrive — observe one day. Places that “have no custom” — observe two days.
Plain Meaning
The foundation of Yom Tov Sheni is no longer a function of actual doubt, but rather a takanah (enactment) based on the historical custom of each city. The custom was frozen from the period when the new month was sanctified based on testimony. Places where messengers used to arrive — one day; places where not — two days.
Novel Points and Explanations
1) The criterion “a place where messengers arrive” — in practice, not in theory:
The Rambam follows the criterion of whether the messengers of Beis Din (the messengers of Tishrei) actually arrived at a city, not whether they could have arrived. This is the key to his approach. The Rambam’s language “if that place was” with the condition of custom implies that there must be testimony/custom that they actually arrived — it’s not enough that they could have. The standard is approximately ten days’ travel from Jerusalem (because the messengers of Tishrei must leave after Rosh Hashanah and arrive before Sukkos).
2) “They have no custom” — the key concept:
The Rambam distinguishes between:
– A place where there is a custom (= testimony that messengers used to come) — one day.
– A place that “has no custom” — two days, even if messengers could have arrived.
It doesn’t follow the calculation of whether messengers could have arrived — it only follows the custom. This is “the next step of his innovation.”
3) The custom doesn’t require “historical research”:
When you come to a city with an old Jewish community (like Tyre), you don’t need historical research. You look at how the community conducts itself — that is the custom. If you see they observe one day, that’s proof that messengers once arrived there. The custom itself is the testimony.
4) “So that it not become corrupted regarding the festivals” — the foundation of freezing the custom:
Even in the time when messengers went out, even in the time when they sanctified based on testimony, there was already a reality that certain years the messengers didn’t arrive on time, and they remained with the custom of the previous year — “so that it not become corrupted regarding the festivals.” You can’t do it one way sometimes and another way other times. This is the reason why even Shavuos, where there was never a real doubt (because we already know from Nissan), we also observe two days.
5) “Lo sisgodedu” — why the custom remains even when messengers arrive:
The Rambam says that even in the time when they sanctified based on testimony, if a city already has a custom of two days, the custom remains — because of “lo sisgodedu.” Even if one year messengers happen to arrive, it doesn’t help — they remain with the custom of the previous year. The prohibition of “lo sisgodedu” (not to make separate groups, not to have divisions in custom) is the basis for why the custom is stable and doesn’t change from year to year.
6) “Torah achas yiheyeh lachem” — a reason for consistency:
We can hear another reason why we remain with the custom — when every year the halacha is different (one year one day, another year two days), people don’t take it seriously. When every year is the same halacha, it’s consistent and people take it seriously.
7) The fixed calendar is completely irrelevant:
The fixed calendar is completely irrelevant to the halacha. Even though we know exactly when Rosh Chodesh is, it doesn’t help at all — because the calendar is not the basis of the enactment. The enactment is: we remain with the custom. The calendar cannot nullify the custom.
8) Batel ta’ama — the reason is gone, but the law remains:
When an enactment is made where batel ta’ama (the reason has fallen away — because today there is a fixed calendar, there is no doubt), the law remains. “This is so with all decrees in the world” — so it is with all decrees. The Rambam apparently has no problem with this, because he generally follows the approach that the reasons for mitzvos don’t nullify the law. Once, when the reason was still active, one could distinguish according to the reason (according to messengers — where they actually arrived). Today, when the reason is no longer practical, we remain stuck with the practical situation of that time. “A law remains a law, a law doesn’t follow the reasons.”
—
The Distinction Between Eretz Yisrael and Chutz La’aretz
Plain Meaning
The term “galuyos” in “Yom Tov Sheni Shel Galuyos” doesn’t necessarily mean it should follow Eretz Yisrael as a kedushah-based definition. According to the Rambam, “galuyos” simply means the places where two days were actually observed — it’s a practical, not a geographic-kedushah, definition.
Novel Points and Explanations
1) Distinction in the Rambam’s language — Eretz Yisrael vs. Chutz La’aretz:
In Eretz Yisrael, the Rambam says that a place that was settled in the time of testimony — one day is observed. He does not say that we need to know there was a Jewish community there; he only says if there is a custom. In Chutz La’aretz, however, you need a custom that proves messengers arrived. The distinction: in Eretz Yisrael the default is one day (because it’s close to Beis Din), in Chutz La’aretz the default is two days.
2) Geographic analysis — whether Eretz Yisrael is smaller than ten days:
It’s discussed whether it’s even possible for a place in Eretz Yisrael to be more than ten days away from Jerusalem. Kiryat Shmona (the farthest place in the north) takes about 2 days to walk today; even to Sidon (Syria) is about 89 hours walking — less than ten days. The verse about the spies who went for 40 days is mentioned, but that’s because they spent time in each city, not because Eretz Yisrael is so large. Therefore, in Eretz Yisrael itself, the Rambam’s rule is apparently not so novel — it’s simple that messengers can arrive everywhere.
3) Doubtful places — Syria and the borders of Eretz Yisrael:
There is a doubt regarding certain places like Syria — whether it’s kibush yachid or kibush rabim, and whether one day or two is observed there. The Rambam says that if we don’t know, two days must be observed (Halacha 12). Practically, most Jews won’t know what it was in such places. It’s also possible that in Syria or Lebanon there were communities that observed one day.
4) Messengers outside Eretz Yisrael:
The Gemara explicitly speaks of messengers of Tishrei who go out from Eretz Yisrael to communities in Chutz La’aretz, with examples of places where messengers of Tishrei arrive but not messengers of Nissan.
—
The Great Innovation: Egypt
Plain Meaning
Egypt is a place where messengers could have arrived (the Rambam himself says it takes about nine days from Jerusalem to Egypt — less than ten). According to the calculation, one day of Yom Tov should have been observed in Egypt.
Novel Points and Explanations
1) The Rambam’s answer — didn’t actually arrive:
The Rambam’s answer is: in the Second Temple period there was no Jewish community in Fustat/Cairo (although in Alexandria of Egypt there was). Therefore, although the messengers could have arrived, they actually did not arrive (because there was no one for them to reach). According to “minhag avoseinu b’yadeinu” — there is no custom of one day, therefore two days are observed. The Rambam himself lived in Egypt (Fustat) and saw that two days were observed there.
2) A difficult question on the Rambam:
If the entire foundation is “minhag avoseinu b’yadeinu” — and in Fustat there were no Jews in the Second Temple period — then there is no custom of forefathers at all, not for one day and not for two days! It was a place of gentiles. Why then should two days be observed? The custom-based approach can’t say anything about a place where there was never a Jewish settlement!
3) Egypt — the practical case according to other opinions:
“Everyone agrees that in Egypt (Alexandria) one day is observed” — because there is a custom/tradition that messengers actually arrived there. The innovation is specifically regarding Fustat/Cairo.
—
Halacha 12: New Cities — “Places That Were Established in the Wilderness”
The Rambam’s Words
The Rambam speaks of places that “were established in the wilderness” or “a place where Jews now dwell,” whether in Eretz Yisrael or in Chutz La’aretz. A new city in Chutz La’aretz must observe two days.
Plain Meaning
A new city where there was never a Jewish community during the time of sanctifying the month based on testimony is also obligated in two days in Chutz La’aretz.
Novel Points and Explanations
1) The innovation of “majority” — the Ra’avad/Ramban’s foundation:
The Ra’avad (also attributed to the Ramban) innovates that it follows “majority”: the majority of the world observes two days (because most places don’t receive messengers), therefore the default for a new city is — two days. This solves the problem of Egypt: even without a specific custom of forefathers, we follow the majority/default of two days. The Ra’avad understands “minhag avoseinu b’yadeinu” more broadly — not just “the custom of this place” but a general custom of Klal Yisrael. This is a great innovation — it’s not necessary from the logic itself, but it’s needed to reconcile the custom of Egypt.
2) The general custom: “Every place where messengers don’t arrive”:
The custom is not a local custom of each city separately, but a general custom for the entire world — “every place where messengers don’t arrive observes two days.” This is the default. The only way to observe one day was through messengers actually arriving. When messengers didn’t arrive, it was always two days. Therefore, even a new city that never existed during the time of sanctifying the month based on testimony is also obligated in two days, because it falls under this general custom.
3) Question about extending the custom:
Extending “minhag avoseinu b’yadeinu” to places where there was never a custom (because the city didn’t exist) is a great innovation. With old cities we understand — minhag avoseinu b’yadeinu, we remain with what we had. But with a new city, where is the “custom of our forefathers”?
Answer: The custom is not tied to a specific city, but to a rule — “every place where messengers don’t arrive.” Therefore every new city automatically falls into this rule. We are “stuck” with the custom of that time — that is, with the practical situation of that time (where messengers actually arrived or not), not with the theoretical situation (where messengers could have arrived).
4) Question: Why not follow the calendar in a new city?
Today we know everything with the calendar. In an old city with a custom — we understand, we maintain the custom. But a new city where there is no custom — why shouldn’t we just follow the calendar? Answer: The custom of Chazal is a general custom — everywhere that messengers didn’t arrive, two days are observed. This applies also to new places.
5) The America case:
When Jews came to America, there was no custom of the place. Two days are observed because the rule of Chazal is that in places where messengers didn’t arrive, two days are observed. This is not a custom of the specific place, but a general custom of Klal Yisrael.
6) The Ritva argues:
The Ritva argues with the Rambam’s innovation — both regarding a new city and regarding the rule of “Chutz La’aretz = two days.” (The details of his dispute are not elaborated.)
—
The Meaning of “Wilderness” — New Cities in Eretz Yisrael
The Rambam’s Words
The Rambam writes about cities that “were established in the wilderness.”
Novel Points and Explanations
1) Why “wilderness”?
“Wilderness” means a place where there was nothing — not on the route of messengers, not in the proximity of an existing city. This excludes a place that was on the way of messengers but simply didn’t have a Jewish population. If a place was in the proximity of a city (for example, a field around Jerusalem that was later inhabited), it’s not a “wilderness” — it’s part of the old city, and the custom of the city applies.
2) Practical difference — Eretz Yisrael:
In Eretz Yisrael it’s hard to find a place that is truly a “wilderness” — because Eretz Yisrael was fairly inhabited, even in the south (Negev). Jerusalem, Bnei Brak, Jaffa — everything was in proximity. Even Dimona is “already not much farther.” Therefore it’s hard to say there was an “extra territory” in Eretz Yisrael.
3) Practical difference regarding the Chazon Ish:
The Chazon Ish’s opinion (that certain places in Eretz Yisrael require two days) is not just a stringency of one “strange” opinion — because it’s “mistaref yachad” (it’s supported by multiple factors), especially because it’s hard to say that a place in Eretz Yisrael was completely an extra territory.
4) A “strange halacha” — new city in Eretz Yisrael:
Apparently, if there is a new city in Eretz Yisrael, according to the Rambam it should be the same halacha as a new city in Chutz La’aretz — two days. This feels like a “strange halacha” — and no one conducts themselves this way. But practically it’s hard to find such a case in Eretz Yisrael, as explained above.
📝 Full Transcript
The Rambam’s Approach to Yom Tov Sheni Shel Galuyos — Minhag Avoseinu B’yadeinu and the Innovation of “Actually Arrived”
Introduction — Chapter 6 of Hilchos Kiddush HaChodesh
Speaker 1: We’re learning Chapter 6 here today, apparently?
Speaker 2: We’re only talking about Chapter 1.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, let’s… I saw the article, what’s it called… the letter vav or the Rambam’s in the back, brings all the expressions, at length it’s very easy to use.
The Rambam’s Foundation — Minhag Avoseinu B’yadeinu
Speaker 1: What are we talking about? That the Rambam said… I mean it wasn’t finished in that shiur. The Rambam said that the law that one must observe the second… Yom Tov Sheni, even, let’s say clearly, even after it’s no longer a true doubt, but nevertheless minhag avoseinu b’yadeinu to observe Yom Tov Sheni. That’s what the Rambam says, if it’s minhag avoseinu b’yadeinu, it must follow as it was then, even though it’s not, even though it’s not truly a doubt, let’s say not truly a doubt, but each city must conduct itself as that city conducted itself in the time of the doubt. Right?
Speaker 2: So, therefore, which cities had to do with Eretz Yisrael?
Speaker 1: It had nothing to do with makom shehashluchim higi’im, which means approximately ten days from Jerusalem, because for shluchei Tishrei one must go with that, and it’s only ten days’ journey. One must check instead what arrived there.
Geographic Analysis — Is Anywhere in Eretz Yisrael Less Than Ten Days?
Speaker 1: This apparently, the sefarim that the Rambam says apparently is apparently clear. If it goes with that, why should it go? It can’t be otherwise. It comes out, let’s say what comes out clearly. There’s only this thing that’s not clear, that the Rambam apparently is indeed somewhat of an innovation even according to his sefarim. It comes out apparently certainly that if there’s a place in Eretz Yisrael that’s more than ten days away, it’s actually apparently not such a place in Eretz Yisrael at all.
Speaker 2: More than ten days?
Speaker 1: It says about the meraglim who walked for forty days.
Speaker 2: Who did for forty days?
Speaker 1: One can’t walk forty days in Eretz Yisrael. One can ask Google, how long is the farthest place from the center of Jerusalem in Eretz Yisrael?
Speaker 2: No, he says a word, there is. Let’s imagine that it’s evening. In Jerusalem, I don’t know, where is that? Kotel?
Speaker 1: Yes, for example from here to, I don’t know.
Speaker 2: No, today Kiryat Shmona is the farthest place in the north, yes, for example. It could be that Israel itself, it takes three hours to walk.
Speaker 1: He says two days to walk.
Speaker 2: It means that even if one stops it’s three, four days.
Discussion — The Farthest Places in Eretz Yisrael
Speaker 1: The Rambam said… again, one can send one messenger to each place. The farthest place, let’s say you want to go to Tzidon, he won’t let himself go because there’s a border. 89 hours.
Speaker 2: How is it 89 hours?
Speaker 1: Even if he travels on today’s road.
Speaker 2: Okay, perhaps once the road was a bit longer.
Speaker 1: It’s less than ten days.
Speaker 2: The Rambam said until Egypt, yes?
Speaker 1: Think about it, it’s even farther, right?
Speaker 2: The Rambam says the finish line until Cairo?
Speaker 1: It doesn’t say it takes a week to spy out the land. The spies should have taken a few days, and each important strong… It could be they traveled to the Euphrates River…
Speaker 2: No, it says until… how did we walk? 1133 hours.
Speaker 1: Many times one spends a few days in a city to know the city.
Speaker 2: Wait, how many days is 1133 hours?
Speaker 1: It’s many days. If one can’t walk more than ten hours a day, it’s sixteen days according to their calculation.
Speaker 2: The Rambam says it’s shorter.
Speaker 1: Apparently because one can walk. They don’t go from their long way. Apparently there’s a shorter way. One can go from here. If one can go straight, they won’t let me stop so straight this is now. But if one can go straight, then the Rambam is right that it takes… The Rambam says it takes nine days to Egypt, yes?
Speaker 2: Do you know what he says?
Speaker 1: He tells me to go until everything simply because one can’t go through such a thing. But actually, when one can simply go like this, it’s probably… yes, depending on how long it takes. In short, it’s hard for me to grasp… in Jerusalem and Egypt, is through Ashkelon in King Samuel’s negaim in Beis Bachur.
Speaker 2: Ah, so said, through Ashkelon is there, right? Ashkelon is one before Gaza, right? Ashkelon is there.
Speaker 1: In short, one travels here on the sea, one walks on the sea, he knows the way. If he walks through the desert, it will take longer. Through… what does it say? Eleven days, eleven days, eleven days. In short, it’s not a walk. Apparently one can arrive going through the desert. In the time. It’s a bit funny, but theoretically, let’s say theoretically, that if Eretz Yisrael were bigger than ten days, there would be a place there.
The Same Thing in Reverse — Places in Chutz La’aretz
Speaker 1: The same thing in reverse, if there are places in chutz la’aretz, for example Syria, it also takes several days to walk there. Yes, you go from Jerusalem to, I know, what’s the city called in Syria? Chalab, yes, what’s it called today? Aleppo. Yes, how long does it take to walk?
Speaker 2: He says it takes one hundred forty hours, which is also a lot.
Speaker 1: It’s more than ten days, one hundred forty hours. Yes, when a person can walk, let’s say ten hours a day.
Speaker 2: Okay, but he can travel on a donkey.
Speaker 1: Who told the messengers to walk on foot? I can go a bit faster, I can take a horse.
Speaker 2: No, I’m talking about the shluchei Rosh Chodesh.
Speaker 1: Didn’t they have horses?
Speaker 2: Why does one calculate then ten days of walking? One must calculate from a horse, or from a donkey, I know what.
Speaker 1: Isn’t walking on Shabbos?
Speaker 2: No, they shouldn’t on Shabbos.
Speaker 1: It’s not walking on Shabbos, it’s not Shabbos.
Speaker 2: In short, and the same thing in reverse, if there is, this is what the Rambam says.
The Rambam’s Great Innovation — “Actually Arrived”
Speaker 1: Now, until here it’s apparently simple. What the Rambam added, which is a tremendous, crazy innovation, is a greater thing. The Rambam said that if one goes with “makom shehashluchim magi’im”, the city must be a place where the messengers actually arrived b’foel in the time of the Beis HaMikdash.
Why did the Rambam say this? Because the Rambam had difficulty that according to our sefarim that we just said, in Egypt one should have observed one day Yom Tov, because it’s certain that the messengers would have arrived in time. He had difficulty, he lived in Egypt and he saw that they observe two days. Why?
So he said, ah, the answer is this: In the time of the Beis HaMikdash, there were no Jews in that city in Egypt, therefore the messengers didn’t arrive there. It could be they could have arrived, but they wouldn’t have been able to do anything. We follow minhag avoseinu b’foel, here they wouldn’t have been able to arrive. And therefore what? One doesn’t need to arrive exactly therefore, we follow minhag avoseinu. The minhag of this place is to observe two days.
The Question on the Rambam — Where is the Minhag Avos?
Speaker 1: It becomes even more difficult for him. Why? Granted such a place, here there wasn’t even one Jew, let’s say, in the time of the Second Temple, why should one say? This is something like a majority. This is the majority, so one wanted to enter into the majority.
Again, what is the Rambam’s majority? I ask you a question. Let’s say the Ra’avad is right, that “minhag avoseinu b’yadeinu” means “minhag makom zeh”, and here in Cairo where the Rambam lives, he lived in Fustat later, you know what? Here where the Rambam lives there was no Jewish community in the time of the Second Temple. Therefore there wasn’t, technically, factually they didn’t arrive. They could have arrived, but they didn’t arrive.
Speaker 2: Wasn’t there in Alexandria of Egypt?
Speaker 1: There was in Alexandria, Alexandria yes, and here no. So he says, let’s say.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: You see that the custom is to observe two days, so one must understand it this way. So the Rambam says. If they didn’t arrive in Poland, therefore one must observe… they don’t have a custom to observe one day.
But further everything is difficult, you don’t have any custom. If the whole reason, I haven’t finished, the whole reason why the Rambam wants… think about it, the whole reason why the Rambam must seek practically that they arrived, is because of minhag hamakom. But here there is no minhag hamakom, because what you say that there was no Jewish settlement here, there was nothing, there were gentiles. So why does the Rambam want to say? Why does one observe two days in Egypt? It doesn’t enter into the calculation, we follow custom, laws of custom.
The Ra’avad’s Innovation — Majority / Default
Speaker 1: Therefore the Ramban, before this apparently the Ramban was mechadesh his innovation, he doesn’t say it’s his innovation, it looks like this is how he understood, that it went with the majority. The majority of places, in other words, one must normally, the default, I mean perhaps majority would be better as default. The majority of the world is two days. Why? Because the majority of the world the messengers don’t reach. Therefore if you make a new city, by default you must observe two days because of the majority.
This is a great innovation from the Ra’avad. This is no longer necessary from his reasoning, it’s more necessary to resolve the custom of Egypt.
Discussion — Whether There’s a Law in Eretz Yisrael
Speaker 2: But one can say that there’s a law in Eretz Yisrael, “v’yarashta es ha’aretz”, like the above expression of “Yom Tov Sheni shel Galuyos”. Where does this expression appear? In the Gemara, no?
Speaker 1: Okay, I mean to say a bit… No, I say, according to the Rambam simply “galuyos” doesn’t necessarily mean the exile from Eretz Yisrael. The expression doesn’t require that.
The second thing is… that if one were to be precise about which area the messengers arrived or not, and if one doesn’t know for certain one would have to observe only one day, because then one should follow the calculation, there isn’t the concept of minhag avoseinu b’yadeinu.
No, the Rambam said, it appears that the only place where one must have the Rav is to resolve the custom of Egypt, because if one would only follow the fact of how far the messengers could have arrived, one would have to observe one day in Egypt. And the same thing, if one would follow knowing for certain one would have to observe one day. Rather what, that the majority of the world observes two days, therefore one observes two days.
“Lo Sisgodedu” — Why the Custom Remains
Speaker 1: One only needs to check if the Rambam in the responsa or somewhere where he brings this. Let’s finish, let’s finish to understand the clarity.
Now, and not only that, so this is one innovation that the Rambam says, yes? The reasoning that it should follow the fact, that makes sense. That in Eretz Yisrael, what you say that it should follow Eretz Yisrael, there’s no reason why it should follow Eretz Yisrael. The expression galus, okay, it has no reason.
If one follows the custom, one knew, greatly, once it was practical. It can even be once, not only the way, even once it was critical, “lo sisgodedu”, right? If one year the messengers arrived, it didn’t help, one remained with the custom from last year. Even in the time when the messengers went out, even in the time when they sanctified based on testimony. Why? Because “lo sisgodedu”.
Messengers Outside Eretz Yisrael — The Gemara’s Discussion
Speaker 1: The Rambam says, this is somewhat of an innovation, because the messengers didn’t go out from Eretz Yisrael. They went out from Eretz Yisrael, he takes it through a covenant, it’s not a weak thing.
Who says at all the thing that one should also arrive to communities outside? The Gemara speaks all the time about this. They learned all these expressions, it’s makom shehashluchim magi’im, that’s the expression, shluchei Tishrei and the like.
The Gemara brings from examples, the place, I don’t remember, a place where shluchei Tishrei would arrive, not shluchei Nisan. I mean it’s not outside that place, I don’t remember. It’s all things that stand, the details aren’t… This is certain that when one went with four now, there were also certain communities. You would have seen for example that there were shluchei Tisha, why not? Lo sisgodedu, from this one sees that one observes Shavuos. On Shavuos there was never truly any doubt. Lo sisgodedu. You can’t do it one way sometimes and another way sometimes.
The biggest problem comes out this thing such a new foundation. Wait, wait, wait, I’m coming to the new foundation. But I want to say clearly there. What one follows in the makom shehashluchim makes sense. If one froze the custom, kol makom shehashluchim hayu magi’im, also makes sense.
The Rambam’s Innovation: A New Place in Chutz La’aretz Must Observe Two Days
Speaker 1:
What the Rambam learned from this that a new place in chutz la’aretz must observe two days, is a very funny innovation. Why? And apparently what I said that it’s a settlement from Rabbi of Egypt, but… one minute, I’m talking about one city, in chutz la’aretz, that everyone conducts themselves like the Rambam. Here there’s no dispute that not like all the deed. Everyone agrees that in Egypt one observes one day, and it can actually be that there were communities, perhaps in Lebanon, in Eretz Yisrael states were observing one day. Not clear. It could be that there was in Syria, I was suddenly.
But the Rambam will say, the Rambam agrees that there can be such a place. The Rambam says, if you have a tradition, that here one asks messengers, you can observe. But if not, one must follow the majority. And the majority is an innovation from the Rambam. Why should there be such a reasoning of majority? There’s something unclear in this… It’s unclear in this enactment of freezing the custom that if one knows that the messengers used to arrive. It’s an innovation. Now also the majority is from a different level. Another innovation, if so, even in Eretz Yisrael, some place in the desert, it’s understood, I don’t want with the error to want to extract the precision from the Rambam.
A person not just simply in a city, a city that can be a city. No difference, the Rambam says both. The language of the Rambam is… both. Let’s find my Rambam. The language of the Rambam is very interesting. The language of the Rambam is… let’s open my Rambam, and afterwards one will…
The Language of the Rambam Halacha 12
Speaker 1:
The language of the Rambam in the beginning in Kiddush HaChodesh here of blessed memory halacha 12. Ah, one makes it in large and small. You say language 12?
When he says the essence of this matter, afterwards he says, “If it was a place in Eretz Yisrael”, that one knows, afterwards he says, “a place that is within ten days’ journey or less, or that they are newly established in the desert of Eretz Yisrael, or a place where Jews now dwell.”
The place where Jews now dwell means in chutz Yisrael, or in Eretz Yisrael. Not clear, I mean there’s still something more here, there’s a concept of doubt, because the Rabbis said, the place is Syria from the law, the place is Syria from the kingdom of hands. Practically it is that most Jews won’t know what it was. A settlement opens today in… he cleans now once, that halacha 11 speaks of when one knows yes. He wants that in Egypt… this must be implied, what happens when one doesn’t know? Apparently one will have to observe two days.
Speaker 2:
Yes, certainly.
Discussion: Halacha 11 and Halacha 12 — Custom and Doubt
Speaker 1:
He says this in [halacha] 12, but what he says here in [halacha] 11 is that there are places in chutz la’aretz (outside the Land of Israel), the Rambam heard that there could be such places, or he heard of such places where they actually make one day. Why? Because they remembered that messengers used to come there. If messengers come, you can be in chutz la’aretz and make one day.
Now, what if he doesn’t know? Now, not knowing is one problem, and a new city where there’s nothing to know is another problem, right? Two different questions, right?
He says, what is the language of the Rambam? “If that place was in a place where there were Jews”, he doesn’t say that there’s such a thing as doubt, he has no doubt. “If it was permitted”, and there’s a custom that tells us that there were people then, and messengers came there.
After that he says, “in a place where they have no custom”, this is the chiddush (novelty), “they have no custom.” A place in chutz la’aretz that has “no custom,” even though [messengers] could have come, right? Correct? Because that’s the problem. And apparently in Egypt [messengers] could have come, but there’s no custom. I mean, today there is, we made two days, but “they have no custom” means he knows…
Speaker 2:
No, he doesn’t say that. He says, “they have no custom” means apparently, and therefore he doesn’t know… He doesn’t know that the custom was. He doesn’t know that messengers came. I don’t believe anyone truly kept track of the custom.
But apparently, the Rambam says, “it was permitted,” if one knows that then there was a serious city, one knows for certain that messengers came there then. But what he wants to say, what he wants to arrive at, is that… that you can’t go according to calculation. It doesn’t go according to calculation, it goes according to custom. It also doesn’t go according to the calculation of whether messengers could have come. That’s the next step of his chiddush.
Speaker 1:
Certainly you know, it’s a difficult thing. Certainly, certainly, certainly. The custom of our fathers, certainly. Leave it alone, leave it alone, leave it alone. That’s not what he’s saying. Now I’ll really [explain].
Eretz Yisrael vs. Chutz La’aretz — A Distinction in the Rambam’s Language
Speaker 1:
He says this about Eretz Yisrael, he says about Eretz Yisrael. He says, a place that was settled in the time of seeing and conquering in Eretz Yisrael, one makes one day. In Eretz Yisrael he doesn’t say that we know there was a Jew. He only says if it’s a custom that came into their hands. He clearly doesn’t say it that way. He says clearly that one goes with the custom, and it makes sense. The whole thing, one goes with the custom. That place, if there’s a region in Tyre, I don’t know what, they make one day, fine, they make one day, they make one day. But only because there’s a custom. Not because he knows there was a Jew and it helps. It doesn’t help.
Speaker 2:
For Samaria you ask a good question, why shouldn’t it help? Perhaps it does help?
Speaker 1:
I don’t know, but it shouldn’t help. I don’t understand why not. If there’s a Jewish community that is established, you go there, you see how they conduct themselves, that’s the custom. The custom doesn’t need any historical research. If you go to Tyre, you see, you ask, if there’s an old Jewish community from the time of the Temple, and you see how they do it, you see them making one day, you’ll say, “Okay, apparently, why do they do this? Because once messengers came there.” Therefore it remained that way.
I mean, why is it strange that one shouldn’t know? Today one doesn’t know anything, why? Not because it was torn apart. It could be that until recently there were Jews in Tyre who made one day. One must look, I remember there was information. There were, I think, Jews who until recently made one day, because it’s close enough. Let’s say one goes with a tradition until the time of the Temple, that it was so, until the time of seeing, and later is the time of the Temple.
The Chiddush of “Majority” — A New City in Chutz La’aretz
Speaker 1:
Now, but since the Rambam made the chiddush that it doesn’t only go on the messengers, but it also goes on a majority, because otherwise he could have said a reasoning, the custom wouldn’t be everything… How does one look at the custom? Is the simple understanding that everywhere one must make two days, unless it is known to you that there’s no reason or no? Actually we know, that’s how it would be in the books. The books would be reversed. Actually we know, there’s a custom based on the doubt of the court. I think that perhaps there’s no custom, I have a new place, why should I do it? It’s a very strange thing.
Speaker 2:
Apparently, in other words, Jews came to America, right? Let me think, I think about this a lot. And the Rambam says, he answers the question, which isn’t clear why. We came to America, there was no custom. Why do we make two days? But there’s a custom of Klal Yisrael that a place where Jews didn’t receive messengers [makes] two days. That’s the custom. The custom of Chazal, we’re not talking about the two questions.
There is, when one comes to a city and asks how they conduct themselves here, that’s a certain testimony. Apparently, let’s say that’s a certain presumption that this is how they began already in the time of the Temple. But in a new place, there’s no custom at all. What does one go by? One goes with the general rule that Chazal said that in places where no messengers came, one should make two days. Why? Because there’s no custom.
Question: Why Not Go According to Calculation in a New City?
Speaker 1:
If so, why must one go with messengers actually coming? Why isn’t it enough to say that messengers could have come? One must really think about this. One could say this, the reason why they once made two days is because when there were messengers, it was truly Yom Tov, they didn’t know. So in order not to stumble in desecration of Yom Tov, they made two days. That was once. But now one knows everything with calculation. So therefore, a place where they’ve always done this, okay, let them maintain the custom of the place, but a new place, why shouldn’t one just go with calculation? That’s the good question.
Speaker 2:
One must understand what the custom was. The custom was that everywhere that messengers didn’t come, one should… I asked to think. That’s the idea, but even then there’s still another level of chiddush here, that he doesn’t just say if messengers can come, that’s still not enough.
I say, the custom, the places where the custom was two days, wasn’t just a foolish custom, it was a very wise custom from a concern. Once, this is certainly, certainly, certainly, there are already calculations, why should one make the custom there? One should understand that. Okay, you’re called truly with calculation, but one isn’t once and one continues it. And for a new city it’s truly an interesting thing. One certainly doesn’t make.
The Ritva Argues on This Matter
Speaker 1:
So one must see who… wait, the Ritva argues on the matter of a new city, but does he argue on the matter of becoming chutz? One minute, one minute, on both. Let me see if I’m still clear.
Investigation: “A Place Where Messengers Arrive” — Actually Came or Could Have Come?
Speaker 1:
So, number one, it doesn’t go with… It goes with how there were messengers then. And we need to know whether this means, investigation number one, we need to know whether this means the place where messengers can arrive, or the place where they arrived. What are the reasons that it should be one way or the other? I don’t know.
You can make both things one, that we have an assumption that a place where messengers can arrive, which is reasonable, I don’t know, business, and they didn’t come. There where they could have come, they weren’t a city. No, no, no, they weren’t a city. No, no, no, they weren’t a city. They weren’t a gentile city, where there was a war. What’s a part? A Jewish city understands here, that one doesn’t need to actually have documentation that shows they came. Assume that
The General Custom: “Every Place Where Messengers Don’t Arrive”
Speaker 1: The answer, again, the majority comes. Assume that Jewish cities that have been there since then, one doesn’t know how the answer. No! One knows if they came or not. The custom told us this. Because there are places where they came, because there are places where they came, because there are places where they came. Forget what it says. That’s what it says. There are places, once he calculated earlier, there were places there were wars where one couldn’t go and so forth. And therefore it’s further. That’s what the custom thought. It has nothing to do. One isn’t a measurement, it doesn’t go on a measurement, it’s a reality, sometimes it reached, sometimes not.
So there are places, and now we have a new thing, and then it wasn’t clear. Even then there was a rule, there was a certain push. In this place the messengers don’t usually come, therefore one makes it once finished. Okay, let it be so. The messengers and tables didn’t come.
What is when I now go to a place that I know that messengers didn’t actually come there then, right? Perhaps they didn’t come. But they could have come easily, the Jews go.
So the question, how does the minute work? If we project ourselves backward, would we have sat here in Egypt at the time when they were gathering according to seeing, would messengers have come here. So are we actually from the group that knows or no?
Answer: The Custom is “Every Place Where Messengers Don’t Arrive”
Speaker 1: Since when they don’t actually come, you remain with the custom. Since it’s a strange custom. It’s as you say, one must say that the custom is in every place where messengers don’t arrive at the time then you must make two days. That’s the custom that they practiced then, and that’s the custom that remains now.
Although it’s not truly the custom they practiced then, it’s not truly the custom they practiced then, that then was only then. If it can come, that the two days is a custom because of concern for desecration of Yom Tov, it’s a great chiddush to say at all custom and making from the house this. And I’ll take from this to places where there wasn’t a custom at all.
I don’t remember that it’s a very big problem, because that’s the power of custom. That even by you there’s no reason, because there’s no more doubt, because there’s already a calculation, but the custom of our fathers is in our hands. But to extend the custom of our fathers is in our hands to places that we don’t know, is a great chiddush.
It makes sense, that one remained in the custom, it makes sense, that’s the logic of all prohibitions, it’s very hard to change a whole time. Things remain, that’s not a problem. But the situation has changed, and the reason why then they did nothing. It’s still a chiddush.
The Rambam’s Approach: One Torah Shall Be for You
Speaker 2: Well, something normal, you can actually understand it.
Speaker 1: Now the Rambam is from such, you can hear it, not about the Gemara already says presumptions that the leniency makes it another get. You can hear it this way in the general rule of law. One Torah shall be for you. It’s difficult, every year the halacha is different, people don’t take it seriously. Every year is the same halacha, it’s not so strange that one says it’s so.
The question is only the question of… now, how the halacha is. Drama wanted to think that the halacha is so, and not only that, it goes something a majority. I don’t know what the word majority is. I don’t know what the word majority is.
Discussion: New Cities — Practical or Theoretical?
Speaker 1: Because a new city isn’t the question of what one would have done when it would have been then. No, now also not. Because even if messengers would have come isn’t enough. If it would have been then when messengers would certainly have come in Egypt, it doesn’t help. If this is in a place where the messengers can one come?
Speaker 2: Yes, that’s what the Rambam says, it doesn’t help.
Speaker 1: Did we need to actually come to a place a new city, even though it didn’t actually come. Actually, it’s to a place so actually, you’re stuck with the custom that says every place where messengers don’t arrive at the time then you must make two days. That you’re stuck.
So, all new Jewish cities aren’t the simple understanding that here there was a custom. There’s a general custom for the whole world that every place where messengers don’t arrive make two days.
Chiddush: The Default is Two Days
Speaker 1: Now one can already hear that the way to make one day was only one way through making messengers. When there were no messengers the default was always two days. That was true then.
Speaker 2: Yes.
The Calculation Doesn’t Help
Speaker 1: It was like… I said that he said until two days, but take out even there’s calculation. If you don’t go with calculation. The calculation isn’t a calculation. We won’t help the calculation. We won’t help the calculation.
What is the custom? Okay? Forget the calculation. The calculation isn’t a heavenly portion around. Doesn’t help us. And it remains and it was for you.
Question: How Does One Remain with the Custom?
Speaker 1: The question how one remains, it’s very strong when one remains… That’s the question. Let us have had to say it, because the people… Let us have said.
Speaker 2: Very good.
Question on the Essential Enactment
Speaker 1: Now you ask a question on the essential enactment. I’m not talking about the essential enactment. The enactment is when one remains. The calculation doesn’t help at all. Calculation doesn’t help at all.
But the problem is, that what you note is something another strange side. The moment one makes an enactment the reason is nullified, it’s very hard to explain according to what to make the enactment.
Answer: We Live in That Period
Speaker 1: Now you can say no, it doesn’t come simply because we live in that period. If we would have lived then, it would have already come once.
Like other people say, today there’s email, crazy, an email would have immediately come from the court saying that it’s the sanctification of the month. It’s such foolishness they built the city a thousand years later. What is this a thousand years ago we would have had a…
So you understand that one remains stuck not only with the…
Chiddush: One Remains with the Practical Situation of Then
Speaker 2: Very interesting.
Speaker 1: According to the Rambam, perhaps this can open to a certain reason and commandments. According to the Rambam who said what was only relevant at the time. It fits very well, it fits very well, it fits very well that the decree remains a decree, a decree doesn’t go with the reasons. So it is with all decrees in the world.
Here it comes out one learns another thing, that since it remains a decree, and we don’t have… Once when it was as if the reason, they could distinguish according to the reason, according to the messengers, what came they had practically then.
Today there’s no way to make practical messengers. They’re stuck from practically of then, not from theoretically of then, because then is already now. If you already go from now, you can already initially nullify the whole thing. We remain with the once. The once you’re stuck.
So that’s the stuckness that was taken here with us. That’s what happened. And I say this, that the reason within, the Rambam apparently shouldn’t have any problem with this, because the Rambam is reasons in commandments go.
The Rambam’s Approach in Reasons for Commandments
Speaker 1: Once there was a halacha about corners. Listen, once there was a halacha about corners, let me explain. And all holidays are remembrances to think. Ah, holidays are going back in time, not living now. Go now back to Egypt, go now back to the corners. Ah, one doesn’t sit in Egypt anymore, and if you would be now in Egypt you would be different.
Now, if so, now that the Rambam…
The Rambam’s Language: “Desert” — New Cities in Eretz Yisrael
Speaker 1: But it’s certain that the source of the Rambam is only this, that in Egypt the custom isn’t to make two days. If the custom would have been to make one day, he would have said the most normal, and he started in a new little city. He wanted to go to Eretz Yisrael, but he couldn’t travel because he has the second day of exile. I can’t make any choice, I can call this.
Speaker 2: No, no, now one can say it to the fourth chiddush that the Rambam came out with.
Discussion: What Does “Desert” Mean?
Speaker 1: Ostensibly, on this there is a dispute, not everyone explains that it says this in the Rambam, but the simple reading in the Rambam’s commentary is “a person who was innovated in the desert in the Land of Israel.” Why does he say such a word “desert”? But every other place was a settlement.
On this perhaps it’s not necessarily precise. I don’t have here…
Speaker 2: Very good, very good. I don’t have a good proof here. I didn’t say.
Answer: “Desert” means a place that wasn’t on the way
Speaker 1: Let me just think. There’s a city that expanded. Jerusalem was so big, I lived bigger. It reached into your area, one doesn’t need to send messengers. It’s one city.
Or I’ll say even more, the fields of the city. There was a doubt about… It supports a doubt. A doubt ostensibly, it was a city. So say no, think of a field, yes? It was around the city, also a doubt. Now, later they made a city there. It’s essentially part of the old city.
When he says desert, he means to say no. A place where there’s no doubt to say about messengers. Not just a doubt, not just for them a doubt, it’s on the way of the messengers. You understand that it’s not a desert, here is the road where one travels on, it’s not where messengers would go, exactly here a Jew never placed a house. That is certainly not.
Certainly, for what he says desert, very good, it’s not spoken. When he says desert, he says, the desert. A desert was nothing, one didn’t go there, one didn’t go.
Question: Where is there a desert in the Land of Israel?
Speaker 2: Where is there a desert in the Land of Israel?
Speaker 1: And the Rambam is certainly an old city, and from Bnei Brak to Jaffa isn’t so long, and not so long. And again, and again, it was exactly a desert, Bnei Brak, it’s still a desert.
Speaker 2: But spiritually, I didn’t say that it’s a…
Speaker 1: No, I didn’t say that it’s the Rambam’s from the holy desecration of things, remember.
But no, in short, it’s correct, from this we say indeed that the Chazon Ish isn’t a stringency from one side only, because it’s certainly joining together, because here he stands somewhere in the area. It’s difficult to say that here was an extra territory.
Discussion: Where is the place of the Rambam?
Speaker 2: Where is the place of the Rambam?
Speaker 1: Also not difficult, it’s difficult, but it was somewhere in the Negev and sometimes sheep pass through.
Speaker 2: Really a land to cross over to Esau in the desert in Israel?
Speaker 1: No, I mean the Sinai desert where the Jews went, no, that’s not clear.
Speaker 2: A land to send his father, I have the great Shmuel, may his soul rest. I think it speaks of the… I don’t remember how the verse goes that I’m saying. A land to send his father, I have the ten who were captured, great…
Speaker 1: No no no, it can’t be a land, it can’t be a land, it can’t be, it’s a land, one asks him quickly to recognize. Review the law. A verse in Jeremiah.
Speaker 2: Yes, you’re right. It’s in the Imrei Emes, he speaks of the desert the Jews went through. When they went once. He speaks of the…
Speaker 1: Yes, it’s the page of Torah later. Beautiful in my eyes, to place servants there, yes? Why don’t you remember that the Almighty took the desert which is such a place? He speaks of the desert the Jews went through.
Speaker 2: Anyways, okay, but that’s the Sinai desert, whatever, where were the Jews? Once there were people there in the Land of Israel.
The Land of Israel was inhabited
Speaker 1: Okay, but in the Negev there’s a person here, I don’t know, one of the families went there to Dimona. Dimona is already nothing further.
The Land of Israel was quite settled, because there was a period when they made Jerusalem, everyone ran to the Galilee. But there were wars in the Galilee and one went to other parts. It turned out that it wasn’t such a large population, but there was enough passage that other yeshivas were established.
Conclusion: A clear halacha that no one follows
Speaker 1: In short, a story is that everyone claims that if there’s a place in the Land of Israel, which is a new city, then ostensibly the same halacha continues. This is such a clear halacha, but no one follows it.