כללי הוראה ט. מנהגים

MISHNA: In a place where the people were accustomed to perform labor on Passover eve until midday, one may do so on that day. In a place where the people were accustomed not to perform labor, one may not do so. The performance of labor on the eve of Passover is not prohibited by Torah law, but is dependent on local custom. If one travels from a place where people perform labor on Passover eve to a place where people do not perform labor, or from a place where people do not perform labor on Passover eve to a place where people perform labor, the Sages impose upon him the stringencies of both the place from which he left and the stringencies of the place to which he went. In both cases, he may not perform labor. The Sages stated a principle: And a person may not deviate from the local custom, due to potential dispute. Similarly, one who transports Sabbatical Year produce from a place where a crop has ceased in the fields to a place where it has not yet ceased or from a place where it has not yet ceased to a place where it has already ceased is obligated to remove the produce from his possession, in accordance with the stringencies of both locations. It is permitted for homeowners to eat Sabbatical Year produce in their houses only as long as that species of fruit remains in the field as ownerless property. However, once that particular fruit is no longer available for animals in the fields, one is required to remove what remains of that species from his home. The statement in the mishna is referring to one who transported fruit from a location where it ceased in the fields to one where it did not, and vice versa. Rabbi Yehuda says that he need not remove the produce, as he can say to a local resident: You, too, go out and bring this produce from a place where it remains in the field.

After discussing stringencies resulting from customs, the Gemara elaborates on the second day of a Festival observed in the Diaspora. Rav Safra said to Rabbi Abba: Communities in a situation like us, who, based on calculations, already know the determination of the month and are no longer concerned lest the Festival be observed on the wrong day, clearly, on the second day of a Festival, we do not perform labor in the settled area due to the need to avoid deviation that causes dispute, as it is the custom in the Diaspora to refrain from performance of labor on those days. However, in the desert outside the Jewish community, what is the halakha? He said to him that this is what Rav Ami said: In a settled area it is prohibited; in the desert it is permitted.

The Gemara raises an objection from a different source: From when on the fourteenth of Nisan is it prohibited to perform labor, for those who are accustomed not to work on Passover eve? Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: From the time of or. Rabbi Yehuda says: From sunrise.

As the mishna discusses the requirement to observe local customs, the Gemara relates: The residents of Beit She’an were accustomed not to travel from Tyre to market day in Sidon on Shabbat eve. In deference to Shabbat, they adopted a stringency and would not interrupt their Shabbat preparations even for a short sea voyage. Their children came before Rabbi Yoḥanan to request that he repeal this custom. They said to him: Due to their wealth, it was possible for our fathers to earn a living without traveling to the market on Friday; however, it is not possible for us to do so. He said to them: Your fathers already accepted this virtuous custom upon themselves, and it remains in effect for you, as it is stated: “My son, hear your father’s rebuke and do not abandon your mother’s teaching” (Proverbs 1:8). In addition to adhering to one’s father’s rebuke, i.e., halakha, one is also required to preserve his mother’s teaching, i.e., ancestral customs. The Gemara relates additional customs: The residents of the city of Ḥozai were accustomed to separate ḥalla from rice dough. They came and told Rav Yosef about this custom. He said to them: Let a non-priest eat this dough in their presence to show them unequivocally that this custom has no legal basis. Abaye raised an objection to him: With regard to matters that are permitted, but others were accustomed to treat them as a prohibition,

And the people of Kabul came and issued a decree to prohibit bathing together for two brothers, due to their concern that it is similar to bathing with one’s sister’s husband. It was taught in the Tosefta: A student may not bathe with his teacher, since it is disrespectful to see one’s teacher naked. But if his teacher requires his help when bathing, it is permitted. The Gemara relates: When Rabba bar bar Ḥana came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he ate the fat found over the straight part of an animal’s stomach. The fat along the stomach consists of two parts: The inner, straight portion, which is shaped like a bowstring, and the outer, rounded portion, which is shaped like a bow. With regard to the fat surrounding the inner, straight portion, the custom in Eretz Yisrael was lenient, whereas in Babylonia it was stringent. Rav Avira the Elder and Rabba, son of Rav Huna, entered to see Rabba bar bar Ḥana. When he saw them coming, he concealed from them what he was eating. They came and told Abaye what had happened, and he said to them: Through his conduct, he rendered you Samaritans, as he could have told you that it is permitted but did not do so.

As the mishna discusses the requirement to observe local customs, the Gemara relates: The residents of Beit She’an were accustomed not to travel from Tyre to market day in Sidon on Shabbat eve. In deference to Shabbat, they adopted a stringency and would not interrupt their Shabbat preparations even for a short sea voyage. Their children came before Rabbi Yoḥanan to request that he repeal this custom. They said to him: Due to their wealth, it was possible for our fathers to earn a living without traveling to the market on Friday; however, it is not possible for us to do so. He said to them: Your fathers already accepted this virtuous custom upon themselves, and it remains in effect for you, as it is stated: “My son, hear your father’s rebuke and do not abandon your mother’s teaching” (Proverbs 1:8). In addition to adhering to one’s father’s rebuke, i.e., halakha, one is also required to preserve his mother’s teaching, i.e., ancestral customs.

The Gemara asks: But is there a prohibition of: He shall not profane, by rabbinic law? The Gemara answers: Yes, and it is taught in a baraita: With regard to matters that are permitted, but others are accustomed to observe a prohibition with regard to them, you may not permit these matters before those people, as it is stated: “He shall not profane his word” (Numbers 30:3). If they contravene their custom they are in violation of the prohibition: He shall not profane his word, by rabbinic law, as that is similar to violating a vow. The Gemara attempts again to raise a difficulty with regard to Rav Yehuda’s opinion. We learned in a mishna (57a) that if a man said to his wife: Deriving benefit from me until Passover is konam for you if you go to your father’s house until the following festival of Sukkot, then, if she went to her father’s house before Passover, she is prohibited from deriving benefit from him until Passover, as she violated the condition, thereby enabling the vow to take effect.

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to matters that are permitted, but others were accustomed to treat them as a prohibition, you are not allowed to treat them as permitted in a manner that may cause the negation of their custom, as it is stated: “He shall not profane his word” (Numbers 30:3). The verse indicates that any vow in which a person renders a matter forbidden to himself, i.e., “his word,” is considered a quasi-vow, which may not be profaned. The Gemara presents another interpretation of the verse: Alternatively, the verse states: “He shall not profane his word”; from here it may be derived that a halakhic authority cannot dissolve his own vows. Whose opinion is this? It is that of Rabban Gamliel, who maintains that a man should nullify his wife’s vow even if it does not actually take effect.

Il faut recourir à un rabbin lorsqu’on veut se dispenser de suivre un usage religieux local (minhag)Lorsque dans un pays on a pris l’habitude de se défendre une chose, cependant permise par les prescriptions religieuses, cela revient, pour les habitants de ce pays, à avoir fait vœu de se défendre cette chose. C’est pourquoi une personne qui a coutume de jeûner la veille du jour de l’An, ou entre le jour de l’An et le jour des Expiations, ou bien de ne pas manger de viande ni boire de vin, du premier au onze d’Ab, ou du 17 Tamouz au 11 Ab^(a)Les abstinences du commencement de Ticheri n’ont pas pour but de mortifier le corps, mais de nous préparer au repentir de nos péchés, en nous tenant loin des jouissances matérielles qui endorment la conscience. Les abstinences de la fin de Tamouz et du commencement d’Ab doivent commémorer pour nous les souffrances de nos pères à l’époque de leurs luttes contre les Assyriens et contre les Romains., et qui ne voudrait plus pratiquer ces abstinences, parce qu’elle ne se trouverait plus assez forte pour les supporter, devra, pour s’en dispenser, avoir la permission de trois rabbins. Cette mesure est nécessaire, si la personne avait pensé au début qu’elle pratiquerait toujours ces abstinences. Quand on veut suivre un de ces usages (minhag) et avoir le droit de l’abandonner à un certain moment, il faut dire, dès le début, qu’on ne fait pas vœu de toujours suivre ce minhag. Si, dans un pays, on regarde comme défendue une chose qui est permise par les prescriptions religieuses, une personne qui suit cet usage, parce qu’elle croit la chose réellement défendue, n’est pas liée de ce fait et, lorsqu’elle s’aperçoit de son erreur, elle a le droit de ne plus suivre le minhag en question. Un auteur dit: Si cette personne découvre son erreur, elle a besoin, pour se délier, d’obtenir l’assentiment de trois rabbins, tout comme si elle avait fait un vœu. — Quand, sachant une chose permise, une personne se fait un devoir de la regarder comme défendue, aucun rabbin ne peut lui faire remise de ce vœu.GLOSE: L’usage est de suivre la première opinion.

Quand les notables d’une communauté ont institué une coutume formant «haie à la Loi», cette coutume subsiste comme un vœu, et doit être suivie par la postérité, même si elle a été établie sans l’assentiment des membres de la communauté. Lorsque des habitants d’une autre ville viennent s’établir dans une ville où existe une de ces interdictions, ils sont tenus de s’y conformer. Inversement si des habitants d’une ville, où existe une de ces interdictions, viennent s’établir dans une autre ville, où elle n’est pas en vigueur, ils ne doivent plus obéir à l’interdiction dont il s’agit.