The gemara discusses whether the 2 days of yom tov outside of EY was a takana of yoma arichta (therefore nolda bazeh asurah bazeh) or kept only misafek (therefore nolda bazeh muteres bazeh). Abbaye holds that it was only misafek, but nonetheless even when we know the keviah d'yarcha we need to keep 2 days bec. - "hizharu biminhag...". There is an important machlokes between Tosafos succah 44b and the Ran (22a bidapei harif) in succah whether the status of this hizharu was on the level of minhag (Tosafos) or on the level of takana derabonon (Ran).
Acc. to both Tosafos and the Ran it comes out that before the fixed calendar they only kept 2 days misafek, and would presumably not make brachos on kiddush and mitzvos either day 1 or day 2 (safek l'kula), but after they fixed the calendar and no longer had a reason to keep 2 days, there was a formal decision to maintain the custom to keep 2 days [acc. to Tosafos this decision had status of minhag, and acc. to Ran as a formal takana], and then they began making brachos on both yom tov rishon and yom tov sheini.
8 comments:
If all they were mistaken was was to maintain the minhag, how could they introduce b'rachos? Especially if the concern is a gezeirah of the malchus, why are we not worried that people will continue to make these b'rachos if it (chv"s) reverts to safek?
A) once they set the calendar, the 1st day was observed as vadai, and the second as an institutionalized minhag. Tosfos hold that one may introduce brachos for an institutionaled minhag - like chibut aravah and yomtov sheni.
B) Presumably the concern that under gezairas hamalchus klal yisrael will lose track of the calendar and will not observe the yomtov on the right day at all was a greater concern than whether they'd continue to make brachos even when the 2 days observance reverts to safek. One might also argue that once a takanah was in place to say two days of brachos (one for the vadai yom and one for "hizaharu"), that takanah would remain in effect even if the two days turned into safek, and it would thus be appropriate to continue sying brachos both days.
- Sholom Fried
hi sholom,
nice to see you check in. on a slightly paranthetical note, when tosafos discusses the authority to make brachos on minhag and uses yom tov sheini as a proof, they push it off by saying that since we don't say "vitzivanu" it is not a problem. they then ask, that we do say shehechiyanu on shofar, and push it off by saying rosh hashana is different. r' akiva eiger points out that we also say vitzivanu on matzah and maror, and suggests that maybe it is only a problem if the nusach habracha is with a lamed, but "al achilas matzah" is not a problem. that would explain why tosafos only mention shofar. but what about the bracha on hallel on yom tov sheini, where we say "likro es hahallel"?
following this logic what would they do about tefilah? would they daven shel chol or shel yom tov? and lich'ora they would have to wear tefillin on yom tov acharon and yom tov rishon!
Avi: perhaps according to the "yaish medakdikim" quoted by tosfos who would skip the bracha for hallel on r"ch, there would be no bracha for hallel on yomtov shainee as well. a stretch?
- Sholom
sholom,
I hear that within the approach of tosafos. but the minhag of sefardim who do not make a bracha on hallel of r.c. but do make a bracha on yom tov sheini (i assume), would still have to be explained. perhaps they would claim that yom tov sheini is a real takana and not just a minhag like the ran (not like tosafos), so there is no proof at all from yom tov sheini.
martin,
nice to communicate on the blog, that way no one yells at us for talking in shul!
good point from lehadlik ner shel yom tov. regarding shmini atzeres, it is more than just a safek problem, but to make a bracha is an inherent contradiction to it being the yom tov of shmeini atzeres. regarding the bracha on shofar, that is also an interesting point, but tosafos says that since the kedusha of r"h was kedusha achas, we are entitled to even make brachos with a lamed.
see poras yosef ta'anis 2a who is medayek from tosafos that the machlokes in beitzah 4b as to whether it is 1 kedusha or 2 is based on whether it is a minhag to maintain the original custom (1 kedusha), or a concern of the gezeira coming back (2 kedushos). therefore kedusha achas assumes that y"t sheini is just a minhag like Tosfos, and 2 kedushos assumes that it is a takana d'rabonon like the Ran.
Post a Comment