As I sit writing this post in Jerusalem, I imagine that a significant proportion of its eventual readers has recently emerged from “Two-day Yom Tov” – a second day of festive Sukkot celebrations and restrictions. The institution of second day Yom Tov for those living outside of Israel, which was decreed by one of the last sitting Sanhedrins, is at the heart of debates between traditionalists and modernisers of the Jewish world.
On the one hand, as a law upheld by the conclusion of the Talmud, it is regarded by traditional authorities such as Rambam as an unimpeachable decree (at least until a new Sanhedrin can be formed to rule on the matter). Its opponents however counter that the initial calendrical confusion which gave birth to the extra festive day of doubt has long ceased to be relevant. The extra day as it exists in our era represents a burden and strain on those who celebrate it, particularly when – as with Sukkot this year – it falls repeatedly on working days.
This post will not address the question of authority of Jewish courts to amend or repeal an earlier ruling – a matter I posted on recently here. Instead I will focus on a fascinating and original approach of Rabbi S. R. Hirsch to the question of second day Yom Tov and the dynamics of the Jewish calendar in general.
Initially the Court’s declaration of a New Moon contained a degree of flexibility, with months established on the basis of witness testimony of the new moon’s appearance. It was only as a result of persecution and exile that the process of witness verification was suspended by the Sanhedrin in favour of a fixed calendar.
At first glance the introduction of a formal perpetual calendar that requires neither verification nor external adjustment appears to represent modernisation and progress. Its sophisticated methods of calculation made redundant the Sanhedrin's reliance on the laborious and potentially erratic process of interrogating witnesses.
In his rejection of such as approach, R' Hirsch points to a series of Talmudic rulings (Rosh Hashanah 20-25) which challenge the notion that Rosh Chodesh is an attempt to pay tribute to the natural lunar cycle. This series of rulings teaches, for example, that even if the entire nation had witnessed the new moon on the 30th day but the Sanhedrin was unable to declare the new moon formally before nightfall, the new month would begin only on the 31st day. Perhaps most significantly, Rosh Chodesh can deliberately be declared on the 31st day even if it had been witnessed on the 30th, if such an 'incorrect' declaration would be beneficial to the nation (for example to prevent Yom Kippur and Shabbat from falling on consecutive days). What this suggests is that the process of declaring the New Moon consciously removes the Jewish calendar from the natural cycles of heavenly spheres, placing it instead under the control of human decision making. A similar analysis emerges from the Sanhedrin’s control over how to calculate the Jewish leap year, with the Court declaring and controlling the Jewish calendar often on the basis of national interests rather than strict celestial cycles.
On the basis of this explanation we can understand the significance of this commandment of sanctifying the new moon being commanded to the Jews, as a preface to their monotheistic emergence from pagan Egypt. This first commandment that the Jews received as a nation established as a matter of fundamental importance the freedom and power of God (and by extension the free will that He grants to humanity) over the heavenly spheres and natural forces worshipped by the determinist pagans. For Egyptians and other such pagans there is no concept of renewal or freedom from the almighty forces of nature.
Returning to the theme of second day Yom Tov, R' Hirsch notes that it was the same leader (Hillel the Younger) who calculated and recorded the future calendar system for the post-Sanhedrin exile who also legislated the creation of the 'two-day Yom Tov'. Beitza (4a) describes how the ruling concerning this additional festive day was maintained for Jews living outside of the land of Israel even once the adopted lunar calendar had apparently negated the need for it. R' Hirsch suggests that a reason for retaining these apparently superfluous days of festivity was to prevent the newly-regulated and precise lunar calendar from being seen as an improvement — and a more accurate way of following the natural lunar cycle. 'Second Day Yom Tov' can, to an extent, challenge this misunderstanding by demonstrating that declarations of holy days and times do not merely reflect the cycles of nature but are controlled by human thought and decision-making. In our times this idea has developed further with a dynamic halachic debate over who qualifies as a resident of Israel or the Exile for the purposes of this law.
First posted to Facebook 23 September 2021, here.
