Responsa sur Les Proverbes 1:37

All the customs for which the Sages said that one should follow the custom, that is for a custom made to prevent a transgression such as the one in Pesachim 50: a place in which it is customary to do work on the eve of Passover until noon one does work, and if not to do work one does not. For according to the Torah it is forbidden to do work from noon onwards, for it is the beginning of the time to slaughter the Passover sacrifice. And there are places where they distanced and refrained from work the entire day, and the custom should not be changed. And likewise, the Mishnah (Pesachim 53): in places with a custom to sell small animals to non-Jews one sells, places with a custom not to sell one does not; in places with a custom to eat roasted meat on Passover eve one eats, in places with a custom not to eat one does not; in places with a custom to light candles Yom Kippur eve one lights, in places with a custom not to light one does not; in places with a custom (Pesachim 54) to work on the 9th of Av one works, in places with a custom not to work one does not. And it says in Pesachim 50 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. Their children came before Rabbi Yoḥanan. They said to him: Due to their wealth, it was possible for our fathers 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). All these customs are to distance from Torah transgressions. And the Sages said not to change them. But if there is a custom in a place to transgress, it should be changed even if great rabbis follow the custom, for a court cannot remove a biblical law, even the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem has no such right, except to withhold action but not to perform actions. Even a prophet is not heeded, unless he is established as Elijah on the Carmel, who was obeyed to offer sacrifices outside the temple on a special occasion. And not only should one change a custom to transgress, but also a custom to distance from transgression bit which may result in transgressions should be changed. As it is said in Perek Makom Shenahagu (Pesachim 50b): The residents of the city of Ḥozai were accustomed to separate hallah 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. For we are concerned that they will end up mixing up what is permitted with what is forbidden. For from this custom they will think that rice is a type of grain. This is also in the Yerushalmi: If you become unsure of the Halakha do the customary, meaning that if there is a loosening in the Halakha, you become unsure of what the Halakha is, and you see the customary actions of others, then follow their customs. For you can rely for the great rabbis to lead others to follow the Halakha. But if you are sure of knowing the Halakha you have no right to follow the custom that contradicts the Halakha. This is the ruling for customs related to what is permitted and forbidden. In financial matters the courts have the power to make financial regulations according to the times and needs. Even to transgress a Torah law and to transfer assets from one to another, per the Baraita in the first Perek of Baba Batra 8a: Similarly, it is permitted for the residents of the city to set the measures, the prices and the wages, and to fine people for violating their specifications. And it is said in Yevamot Perek Ha'Isha Raba (89): As Rabbi Yitzhak said: From where is it derived that property declared ownerless by the court is ownerless? As it is stated: “And whoever does not come within three days, according to the council of the princes and the Elders, all his property should be forfeited...” (Ezra 10:8). Rabbi Elazar says that the proof is from here: “These are the inheritances that Elazar the priest, and Joshua, son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers’ houses of the tribes...” (Joshua 19:51). What do heads have to do with fathers? This comes to tell you: Just as fathers bequeath to their sons anything they want to, so too, the heads bequeath to the people anything they want to. And all this by making regulations that declare one person's assets ownerless and give it to another. But according to a custom I do not know how they take money from one to another. Understandably with transgressions the custom spreads so that everyone in one place considers the same act a transgression. Even if in other places it is permitted, such as a certain fat that is eaten in Israel but not in Babel. Also working on Passover eve and Av 9th and others. But in finance when the early Sages introduced a marital custom for which there is no source nor hint to allow the wife to bequeath her assets to whom she wishes. And later generations continued this custom to allow the wife to bequeath to whom she wishes. And the scribes wrote and the witnesses signed, even though this is certainly a mistake. And even if there was a judge in the generation who permitted what was written, and through this, the custom is spread and perpetuated. This is not a custom on which one may rely to take assets from one to another. For one may only transfer assets by a court order. Certainly if the judge based his ruling on the early Sages we would listen. But I have seen that judges rule to begin with that the wife has the right to bequeath to whom she wishes, without relying on the earlier ruling, but believe this is the halakha. And it is not permitted to transfer assets, it can only be declared ownerless by the court. Also heard of a judge who ruled in agreement to an earlier judge, but was not able to justify his ruling; he just considered it the custom since he followed the earlier judge. And I said this is not appropriate. Even if judges repeated the same judgment generation after generation based on the first ruling, it is a mistaken custom, and it has to be abolished. For it allows a Torah transgression to move assets away from the rightful heir, other than allowing the court to declare assets ownerless. Also when Sages setup a regulation they obligated others to follow it, without additions nor detractions. And if later Sages wish to add to or detract from the regulation they need to first abolish the first regulation and then to institute a new one as they wish. And as long as they did not do so, there is no power in a custom to abolish a regulation. Asher ben HaRav Yechiel.

They responded: "My son, do not walk on a path with them" (Proverbs 1:15), for every transgression is loathsome, and this transgression is criminal.

From that which is described in the Talmud there (Sotah 49b, Bava Kamma 82b, Menachot 64b), where they forbade [Greek wisdom] on account of what happened when Jerusalem was besieged. They [in Jerusalem] would lower a basket of golden dinars every day over the wall, and [the Romans] would send back sheep for the Tamid offering. There was an old man there who knew Greek wisdom, and mocked them in Greek wisdom that so long as the Jews practiced Temple worship, they would never be defeated. So they sent [instead of sheep] a pig. At that moment, they declared that cursed is a person who raises pigs [in Israel], and cursed is one who teaches his son Greek wisdom. The Talmud then asks, "Is that so? But isn't there a statement 'Why would one speak the Syriac [Sursi] language? One should speak either the sacred tongue, Hebrew, or the Greek language!'" The Talmud answers that references to Greek language are one thing, and references to Greek wisdom is another. From that we see that books were never included in that decree, for if its that they are written in Greek, that was not the prohibition, and all of them were fluent in it. And to the contrary, it says in the Talmud (Megillah 18a) that the Greek language is kosher for everyone [to read the megillah in]. And if the problem is the wisdom itself, what does that have to do with the elder who mocked them in Greek? Therefore, in my opinion, "Greek wisdom" refers to speaking in Greek riddles and obscurities which the masses cannot understand, and only those knowledgeable and trained in riddles could. This is similar to the Talmud's statement (Eruvin 53b), "The maidservant of Rabbi's house would speak in wise language (i.e., enigmatically), saying, The ladle is knocking against the jug. Let the eagles fly to their nest." And this meant that the cup used to get wine from the barrel was knocking at the bottom of the barrel because the wine was finished. And the other statement is that the students should return and the meal is ended. Similarly, it states there that "when Rabbi Yosei bar Asyan would speak enigmatically, he would say: Prepare for me an ox in judgment on a poor mountain." He was asking for beets in mustard, since ox is tor in Aramaic; judgment is din. Combined they form teradin, beets. Tur Masken translated to chardal, mustard. And there are other examples there, and the Sages referred to it as "wise language", like the verse (Proverbs 1:6) says, "The words of the wise and and their riddle." Similarly in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 12a), "They sent [an encoded message] to Rava, 'A pair came from Rakat, but was apprehended." Such riddles, when said in Greek, are called "Greek wisdom", and that is what they prohibited because of the story, and they allowed Rabban Gamliel's household because they were close to the authorities, and they needed to use it because that was the way they would speak in the king's court, so that people would not know their mysteries and secrets. However, Rashi wrote in Menachot that "Greek wisdom" refers to "hints", and it seems he means to explain that they would not say anything, only using gestures with their hands, fingers, or other limbs. This accords with that which the Sages talk about (Gittin 59a) "A deaf-mute may express his wishes through gestures and respond through gestures." And also (Yevamot 119b) "Just as a deaf-mute marries through gestures, he can divorce through gestures." That is the way they would act before kings, as is mentioned in the Talmud (Chagigah 5b), "Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya was standing in the house of the Caesar. A certain heretic, who was also present, gestured to him, indicating that his was the nation whose Master, God, turned His face away from it. Rabbi Yehoshua gestured to him that His hand is outstretched over us in protection. The Caesar said to Rabbi Yehoshua: What did he gesture to you, and how did you respond? He replied: He indicated that mine is the nation whose Master turned His face from it, and I gestured to him that His hand is outstretched over us. He said to that heretic: What did you gesture to him? He said to them: I gestured that his is the nation whose Master has turned His face from it. They asked: And what did he gesture to you? He said to them: I don’t know; I did not understand. They said: How can a man who does not know what others gesture to him dare to gesture in the presence of the king? They took him out and killed him." And so Rashi explains there that he gestured through hints. So this is "Greek wisdom", which the Greeks were accustomed to, or there was a book they had related to this, and its author was Greek. But my question on this interpretation is that the Talmud did not need to write that the elder mocked them in "Greek wisdom", it could have said he mocked them through gestures, where no speaking at all takes place, and only gestures. Therefore, I believe "Greek wisdom" is as I explained above, and its possible Rashi is saying that any communication that is enigmatic is called "hinting/gesturing". We find this in the Talmud (Kiddushin 80b), "From where is there an allusion to the prohibition against seclusion? As it is stated [concerning one who incites others to idolatrous worship]: 'If your brother, the son of your mother, entices you' (Deuteronomy 13:7)." Similarly in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 10a and Makkot 2b) regarding an allusion to false witnesses. Regardless, whether "Greek wisdom" refers to gestures or enigmatic statements and riddles like I explained, it was only prohibited because of the story.

Regarding the second matter, they responded: "Do not walk on a path with them" (Proverbs 1:15), for even though it is not forbidden, it is not right to breach the fences of tradition.

They responded: "At the head of the crowds she calls, she raises her voice in the streets," (Proverbs 1:20-21), My children have cursed me. "O that I were as in months gone by," (Job 29:2) when I was beloved by My children. Why should you stand by leniencies? If only they would guard my strictures!

The people of Bet Shean customarily did not travel from Tyre to Sidon on Friday. Their sons came before R. Yohanan and said to him: “Our fathers had this practice, but it is intolerable for us.” He said to them: “Your fathers have already accepted it upon themselves, and it is written: ‘Heed, my son, the discipline of your father…’ (Mishlei 1:8).