I. Technology and Halakhah
The influence of technology on halakhah offers a fascinating study of flexibility within a framework of conservation. Experts apply an eternal law to new situations, using analogies and abstract principles to fit previously unimagined objects and situations into an ancient framework. Contrary to what some have called a “paralysis” in halakhah, there is a vibrant halakhic literature on new technologies and innovations (see R. Howard Jachter’s letter in Tradition 37:1 – link). But technology can influence halakhah in another way — by changing sociological patterns.
An interesting example came to my attention recently, while paying a shiva call for my friend and mentor, R. Dr. Aaron Levine. R. Levine was a giant of Torah knowledge, particularly well versed in financial halakhah, the complex maze of torts and acquisitions known as Nezikin and codified in Choshen Mishpat. His expertise in academic Economics — he was the longtime chairman of Yeshiva University’s Economics department — was not a separate area of his interest but part and parcel of his Choshen Mishpat activities. He was a paragon of Torah U-Madda synthesis, in which all areas of knowledge unite as varying aspects of a single truth.
II. When Is Yom Ha-Atzma’ut?
R. Levine was also a Religious Zionist and the synagogue over which he presided thanked God annually for returning Jewish sovereignty to Israel by reciting Hallel on Yom Ha-Atzma’ut. While the holiday was initially established in 1949 on the fifth of Iyar, its date was slightly modified in subsequent years. In 1950, when the date fell on Shabbos, the holiday was moved forward to Sunday in order to avoid desecration of Shabbos in the festivities. Later experiences led to more details of changes in the date, with the latest going into effect in 2004 moving the date from Monday to Tuesday, as happens this year (see the details here: link).
In America, where the celebrations can be more easily controlled to avoid the desecration of Shabbos, many authorities did not recognize the change of date, among them R. Ahron Soloveichik and R. Hershel Schachter. They insisted that people recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar — the day of the miracle of the declaration of the State of Israel — regardless of when Israelis celebrate the day. R. Aaron Levine’s son, R. Efraim Levine, told me that his father had to change his position on this question over time.
Initially, R. Levine followed R. Soloveichik’s ruling on this subject and instructed his congregants to always recite Hallel on the fifth of Iyar. However, the internet forced him to change his position. If I understand correctly from our brief conversation, R. Levine’s reasoning was that, in the past, Yom Ha-Atzma’ut celebrations were local, taking place in synagogues and schools with perhaps some articles in the Jewish newspaper. It was easy for a community to determine its own date to celebrate.
III. The Global Village
Today, however, advances in communications have turned celebrating a holiday into a global event. We not only receive e-mails and newsletters from around the world, announcing when and how others will celebrate the day. We see and hear live feeds from other communities. We join their festivities! We no longer celebrate locally and, therefore, a synagogue cannot determine its own date for the holiday but must observe the international date. Therefore, in recent years R. Levine had his synagogue follow the official Israeli date for Yom Ha-Atzma’ut.
This new form of interaction that technology has engendered yields a changed sociological reality for which halakhah must account. It is not the technology itself that demands halakhic consideration but the way we use it, the way our communities are structured and people interact. I am generally suspicious of exaggerated claims of change due to technology. However, I suspect that other cases of changing halakhic applications due to new sociological realities will slowly emerge with these new technologies.
I’m not so sure that most people who would want a halachic system, would really want the halachic system they claim to want.
R’ Spira: With all due respect to those sources, those are post-facto kvetches, as should be obvious.
The bracha of “Et Tzemach David” was simply not said in Eretz Yisrael; thus it was created not by the Anshei Knesset HaGedola or a Sanhedrin.
R’ Abba,
Thank you for the valuable question regarding piyutim, which seemingly refutes R. Soloveitchik. Clearly, this could not (or at least should not) have escaped R. Soloveitchik’s attention, as R. Soloveitchik commented extensively on the High Holiday piyutim (as becomes apparent from the recently published “Rabbi Soloveitchik machzor”, available for purchase at http://www.ou.org/torah/ravmachzor ). Perhaps there is a difference to be drawn between the silent amidah and chazarat hashat”z. The silent amidah is sacrosanct for R. Soloveitchik and may not be changed, but chazarat hasha”tz – which is tefillat hatzibbur – lends itself to additional prayers beyond that which Anshei Knesset Hagedolah authorized. Of course, even during chazarat hasha”tz, the addition of piyutim is with the greatest of hesitation, as evident by the need for the introductory paragraph “Misod chakhamim unevonim”.
That said, R. Soloveitchik’s extrapolation from the gemara in Megillah 17b to refuse to even allow kinot to be composed over the Holocaust is clearly refuted by your excellent question, R’ Abba. If piyutim could be written after Anshei Knesset Hagedolah, why can’t kinot be written over the Holocaust? Okay, HaGa’on HaRav R. Soloveitchik didn’t agree, but I agree with your lomdut R’ Abba more than the lomdut of R. Soloveitchik. Indeed, I do recite a kinah for the Holocaust (following the example of my teacher R. Joshua Shmidman), with all due reverence to Moreinu VeRabbeinu R. Soloveitchik. However, R. Soloveitchik’s reasoning is certainly powerful enough to prohibit adding an Al Hanissim for the amidah (or birkat hamazon) of Yom Ha’atzma’ut until authorized by a Sanhedrin. The blessings of the amidah and birkat hamazon were formulated by the Anshei Knesset Hagedolah, and can only be changed with the assent of a Sanhedrin.
R. Spira — perhap it would be best for you to discuss the matter with R. Sacks or the editorial board at the OU who approved the explicit statement in regard to the amidah that I quoted earlier in the discussion (from pp. 109-110):
“According to tradition, the Amida in embryonic form dates back to the Great Assembly in the time of Ezra following the Jews’ return from Babylon. Several centuries later, it was canonized in a fuller form by Shimon HaPakuli in the days of Rabban Gamliel II (Berakhot 28b).”
IH,
Perhaps better would be for R. Spira to take up the issue with Ravina and Rav Ashi,who permitted the statement regarding Birchas haminim in the Bavil.
R’ Nachum, R’ IH, R’ MDJ,
Thank you for the important responses. There was a Sanhedrin functioning until the days of Ravina and Rav Ashi. Therein lies the difference.
A sanhedrin of Musmachim?
Thank you, R’ MDJ, for prompting me to search further. According to Wikipedia, Rav Ashi ascended to the Heavenly Academy in 425 C.E., and the last Nassi of the Sanhedrin (Rabban Gamliel VI) ascended to the Heavenly Academy in 427. Thus, the timing appears perfect. The Talmud was arranged with the final sitting of the Sanhedrin.
Cf. comments of the Noda Bi’yehudah, Even Ha’ezer II, no. 79:
“Know, my beloved disciple, and let these words be engraved upon the chamber of your heart for recollection, the great principle that there is no permission for any of the Sages after the Talmud to say any matter against the Talmud…”
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1447&st=&pgnum=325
Oy. Where to start?
-”Ravina and Rav Ashi” is shorthand for “closing of the Talmud Bavli,” which happened, at the earliest, in 500 CE, maybe as much as a hundred years later. Ravina, as it happens, died fifty years after R’ Ashi.
-The Talmud Bavli was finished in, well, Bavel, where there was no Sanhedrin. That much should be obvious.
-The Sanhedrin had ceased to function by the time of Hillel II, who died over sixty years before Gamaliel VI. Hillel seems to have called it into “emergency” session to set the calendar, and it ceased after that, and likely had for all intents well before.
Nachum,
Although you are supporting my point, I must say that after having the same reaction you had about the end of the sanhedrin I went on line and found that some historians do believe it existed until it was suppressed under Theodosian II in the time of Gamliel VI.
There must be a modern scholarly go-to paper on the history of the Sanhedrin. Anyone know of one (preferably that has broad support).
It wasn’t exactly technology but actually the extra contact with Israel that pushed a date change, and this cannot really be called a change in Halacha. It’s not real Halacha anyway. And the change happened because the date was not really well established in the first place.
You could have had the same situation before had a lot of people listened to Israeli radio. That was not the case. It would be the e-mail and increased travel that maybe did it, and the transition may not yet really be complete by now.
There are other holidays celebrated on different dates. Not only the extra days outside Ertez Yisroel, which creates a totally different date for Simchas Torah and Yizkor on Pesach, but shushan Purim which is celebrated at a diffeernt date in Jerusalem and a few other places. But we have no tradition for doing this and people apapranetly more or less have decided to follow Israel in this, even though the reason in Israel does not apply here.
Customs and practices are still informal.
In our synagague there is somebody who has some kind of striong connection to Israel who brought in some papaer printed from the internet giving the order of service,
Now what we did is not say tachanun on two days and followed it said for Maariv including blowing a shofar (which happens to be veyr handy) and the person on teh omud who had yahrzeit said the brachah also for Hallel at night – automatically I think. the next day we said Hallel but did nothing else.
This is actuially only teh sedcond year we have done something like this. before maybe hallekl was said without a Bracha.
Computerized Jewish calendars I think show Yom Ha-Atzma’ut always occuring on the 5th of Iyar and Yom HaShoah on the 27th of Nisan (which was icked I think becaus ethe 27th of Nisan never comes out on a shabbos and only rarely on a Friday)
At some point people in Israel realized they could push the date around of both those occasions. I would like to know is theer any place where there is a chronology that tells just when the date changes took place? The only old one is that Yom Ha-Atzma’ut was never celebrated on a Shabbos.
Yom Hazikoron is not much observed outside of israel except maybe with a Keil Malah Rachamun.
Again, my understanding is the date for Yom Ha’atzmaut in Israel is simply a function of the well understood calendar shita:
יום העצמאות נקבע ליום ה׳ אייר, והוא חל באותו יום בשבוע כמו שביעי של פסח לפי סימני אתב״ש ז״ע – שהוא שביעי: עצמאות
However, I am sure that today other punishments would be used. (more akin to UN or EU sanctions against people they don’t like, but can’t bring to court)
dont we have such a system today (for civil cases) — its called seruvim by b”d — which everyone ignores. perhaps that should be the (current) solution.
2. “I don’t doubt that a system of alimony payments between criminal and victim could be used in lieu of a prison system.”
not practical in cases of stealing more than what one is worth. (and the analogy exists — “eved ivri”.) actually prison system does not exist in halacha (except for conditions not relevant to this discussion.)
3. to aiwac — your issue with get me’useh, and general pblm of agunot — is very simple, in my opinion. get rid of the pna steve b and others write so highly about, and substitute a completely english written k’tubah, with complete property and child custody provisions. (the pblm is – the document designed to protect women would then be completely invalid under us law. that should be the focus of lobbying, not the controversial get laws of nys)
4. adding “tachnunim” requests during “shma kolenu” is also halachicaly controversial. practiced by chassidim (generally) and frowned upon by yeshivish / litvish.