Minhag -> Halacha

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.

One who goes from a place where they do [work] to a place where they do not do [it] should not do [work] in the town [so as not to cause] disagreement. But the may do [it] in a wilderness [adjacent to it]. However one who goes from a place where they not do [work] to a place where they do [it] should not do [work at all]. We place upon one [both] the stringincies of the place from which one came and the stringincies of the place to which one went. And nevertheless he should not appear as if he is idle on account of the prohibition. [That is because] one should never deviate [from local custom, so as not to cause] disagreement. And likewise one who has in mind to return to his place should act like the people of his place—whether to be lenient or to be stringent. And this is so long as he does not appear as one who [is acting differently than the custom of place he is in] in front of the people of the place [so as not to cause] disagreement.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. And Rav Huna said: No clear halakhic ruling was issued in his favor, but the custom is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Therefore, if someone asks, he should be instructed to act accordingly. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is not even a custom established by the Sages. Rather, the people were accustomed to act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and we do not tell them they have acted inappropriately.

The Gemara clarifies these statements. The one who said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir means that this ruling is taught in the public lectures on Shabbat. The one who said that the custom is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir means that one does not teach this in public, but if someone comes to ask for a practical ruling, one instructs them in private that this is the halakha. And the one who said that the people act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir means that one does not even instruct someone that this is the halakha, but if he acts in accordance with Rabbi Meir, he has acted in a valid manner and we do not require him to return and recite the prayer again.

MISHNA: Apropos different local customs discussed in the first mishna in this chapter, this mishna discusses various halakhot with regard to which there are different customs. In a place where the people were accustomed to sell small livestock to gentiles, one may sell them. In a place where the people were not accustomed to sell them due to certain concerns and decrees, one may not sell them. However, in every place, one may sell to gentiles neither large livestock, e.g., cows and camels, nor calves or foals, whether these animals are whole or damaged. The Sages prohibited those sales due to the concern lest the transaction be voided or one side reconsider, creating retroactively a situation where a Jew’s animal performed labor for the gentile on Shabbat in violation of an explicit Torah prohibition. Rabbi Yehuda permits the sale of a damaged animal because it is incapable of performing labor. Ben Beteira permits the sale of a horse for riding, because riding a horse on Shabbat is not prohibited by Torah law.

MISHNA: With regard to one who hires laborers and tells them to rise exceptionally early and to continue working until exceptionally late, if this is in a locale where laborers are not accustomed to rising so early or to continuing to work until so late, the employer is not permitted to compel them to do so. In a locale where employers are accustomed to feeding their laborers, the employer must feed them. If they are in a locale where an employer is accustomed to providing their laborers with sweet foods, he must provide such food. Everything is in accordance with the regional custom in these matters.

Ameimar says: The laknei and batnei birds are permitted. As for the sakna’ei and batna’ei birds, in any place that it is customary to eat them, one may eat them; in any place that it is customary not to eat them, one may not eat them. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the matter of whether it is permitted depends on custom? The Gemara responds: Yes, but it is not difficult: This place where they are forbidden is a place where the peres and ozniyya are found. Since they are similar to these birds, one must be concerned that people will confuse them, even though the sakna’ei and batna’ei are themselves kosher. That place where they are permitted is a place where the peres and ozniyya are not found.

For a practice that is only customary, even if traced to the prophets, for example, taking the willow branch on the seventh day of the feast of Tabernacles, and—needless to add—if it is ascribed to the Sages, for example, reciting the Hallel on new moons and the intermediate days of Passover, no blessing is to be recited at its performance. Thus also any act, in regard to which you are in doubt whether it requires a blessing or not, should be performed without a blessing. One should always carefully avoid saying blessings unnecessarily; and should be heedful to recite, as often as there may be occasion, the blessings that are requisite. And so David said "Every day I will bless Thee and praise Thy name forever" (Ps. 145:2).

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.

As regards the scroll of Esther, all are qualified to read it except a deaf person, an imbecile and a minor. R. Judah declared a minor to be qualified. R. Levi said: The scroll of Esther must be read [on Purim] at night and repeated in the daytime, as it is stated, So that my glory may sing praise to Thee—i.e. by night, and not be silent—i.e. by day. (Therefore it is customary to read it at the termination of the Sabbath of two [successive weeks].) [41a] When R. Meir once passed by a Synagogue he heard the reading of a section [of the scroll of Esther]. ‘How long,’ he said to them, ‘will you be cutting up the Torah into sections?’ [‘We do it’], they replied, ‘on account of my glory may sing praise unto Thee’, and he allowed them [to continue the practice]. People have adopted the practice of reading it on two Saturday nights of Adar until fifteen days of the month have elapsed. In what manner is it read? At [the termination of] the first Sabbath of Adar the people read together up to In that night, and on the next Saturday night they read from In that night up to and speaking peace to all his seed.
In the case of the Song of Songs, it is read on the last [two] nights of the [Passover] Festival, half of it on the first night and the other half on the second night.
Ruth [is read] on the termination of the first day of Pentecost to [the end of] its [first] half, and concluded on the termination of the last day of the Festival. Others hold that with all the Festivals, we begin to read [the respective scrolls] on the Saturday night preceding them. People have also adopted the following procedure, viz. that no ruling is authoritatively laid down unless a custom had been definitely established. As regards the saying of the Rabbis that ‘a custom cancels a ruling’, it applies to a custom of the pious men of old; but a custom which has no support from the Torah is only like an error of judgment.

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: I speak to you of a prohibition, as residents of villages are prohibited from reading the Megilla with a blessing on the fifteenth of Adar, as Rav Shemen bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The verse “to confirm these days of Purim in their appointed times” (Esther 9:31) teaches that the Sages instituted many times for their reading, and it is prohibited to deviate from these dates. And you speak to me about a custom that does not involve a prohibition. How can a prohibition be established in a manner that involves the formation of factions among the people?

MISHNA: With regard to one for whom a Canaanite slave, a woman, or a minor was recitinghallel, he repeats after them what they are saying word for word. The mishna notes: And may a curse come to him for being so ignorant that he needs them to recite it for him. If an adult male was recitinghallelon his behalf, he need not repeat each word, as the adult male can fulfill the obligation to recite hallel on his behalf. Rather, he simply answers: Halleluya, to each phrase that is recited. In a place where they were accustomed to repeat certain verses, he, too, should repeat them. If the custom is to recite them plainly, without repetition, he should recite them plainly. In a place where the custom is to recite a blessing when reciting hallel, he should recite a blessing. Everything is in accordance with the local custom in these matters.

GEMARA: The Gemara infers: From the fact that the mishna teaches the halakha employing the phrase: A man who eats, by inference one may conclude that there is also a place in Judea where the groom does not eat at the house of his father-in-law, and does not enter into seclusion with his betrothed. Abaye said: Conclude from it that in Judea too there are different places with different customs, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: In Judea, at first they would seclude the groom and bride together for a brief period before their entry into the wedding canopy, so that he would grow accustomed to her companionship in order to ease the awkwardness when they would consummate the marriage. And in the Galilee they did not do so.

כי עם קדוש אתה ליהוה FOR THOU ART AN HOLY PEOPLE UNTO THE LORD — This implies: show yourself holy (abstinent) in respect to things which are permitted to you — i.e. things that are actually permitted but which some treat as forbidden you should not treat as permissible in their presence (Sifrei Devarim 104:7).

"for a holy people are you to the L-rd your G-d": Sanctify yourself with what is permitted to you, viz.: That which is permitted and others forbid to themselves (as a special act of piety), you are forbidden to permit to yourselves in their presence.

It was stated that there is a dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. One said that the mitzva of the willow branch is an ordinance of the prophets, as Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi instituted it in the Temple as obligatory. And one said that the mitzva of the willow branch is an ancient custom practiced by the prophets and adopted by others as well. It was not instituted as a binding ordinance. The Gemara suggests: Conclude that it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who said that it is an ordinance of the prophets, as Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The mitzva of the willow branch is an ordinance of the prophets. The Gemara concurs: Indeed, conclude that it is so.

but a man of understanding will draw it out” (Proverbs 20:5). Counsel in the heart of man is like deep water; that is a reference to Ulla, who had a thought but did not articulate it. But a man of understanding will draw it out; that is a reference to Rabba bar bar Ḥana, who understood the allusion even though it was not articulated. The Gemara asks: And in accordance with whose opinion do Ulla and Rabba bar bar Ḥana hold, leading them to reject Rabbi Abba’s statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion? The Gemara answers: They hold in accordance with that which Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One recites the blessing over fire both at the conclusion of Shabbat and at the conclusion of Yom Kippur. And that is how the people act.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rav Shemen bar Abba: These crushed testicles are permitted for consumption, but you should not eat them due to the dictum: “And do not forsake the Torah of your mother” (Proverbs 1:8). Since Rav Shemen bar Abba was from Babylonia, where it was customary to be stringent, it was prohibited for him to eat crushed testicles even when he was in Eretz Yisrael.

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 resumes its discussion of the statement that the righteous would not experience mishaps. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Zeruz, son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Meir, testified before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi about Rabbi Meir that he ate the leaf of a vegetable in Beit She’an without tithing or separating teruma, as he holds that Beit She’an is not part of Eretz Yisrael and therefore is not sacred with its sanctity. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted all the produce of Beit She’an on the basis of his testimony.

MISHNA: If she pledged to bring him money and not articles to serve as a dowry, her sela, i.e., four dinars, becomes six dinars with respect to the husband’s obligation in the marriage contract. This follows the standard outlined in the previous mishna: The groom increases his obligation by one half since he will profit from this money. Additionally, the groom accepts upon himself to give ten dinars to the account for her needs, for each and every hundred dinars that she brings. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Everything is in accordance with the regional custom.

The Gemara asks: And why do I need three calves? One calf should be sufficient for three guests. Rav Ḥanan bar Rava said: Abraham prepared three calves in order to feed the guests three tongues with mustard, a particular delicacy. With regard to this incident, Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai says: A person should never deviate from the local custom, as Moses ascended to heaven on high and did not eat bread while he was there, whereas the ministering angels descended down to this world, as guests visiting Abraham, and they ate bread. You say: And they ate bread? Can it enter your mind that they actually ate food? Rather, say that they merely appeared as though they ate and drank.

§ The Gemara offers an alternative resolution: Come and hear, as Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: How should one act with regard to this halakha of rival wives? In what form should it become widespread among the Jewish people? If we act in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai and permit a rival wife in levirate marriage, the offspring will be a mamzer according to the statement of Beit Hillel. If we act in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel and grant full exemption to the rival wives, the offspring will be of flawed lineage according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, as he is the child of a woman prohibited in marriage by a regular prohibition. Although he is not a mamzer, his lineage is nevertheless defective. Instead, let us enact a general decree for rival wives

Once he saw that the season of Tevet, i.e., the winter solstice, had arrived, and saw that the day was progressively lengthening after the solstice, he said: Clearly, the days become shorter and then longer, and this is the order of the world. He went and observed a festival for eight days. Upon the next year, he observed both these eight days on which he had fasted on the previous year, and these eight days of his celebration, as days of festivities. He, Adam, established these festivals for the sake of Heaven, but they, the gentiles of later generations, established them for the sake of idol worship.

The Gemara relates: Ravin the Pious was appointed an agent and went to betroth a woman to his son, but in the end he betrothed her to himself. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in the aforementioned baraita: What he did is done, but he has treated him in a deceitful manner? How could a pious individual act in this fashion? The Gemara answers: The woman’s family would not give her to the son, and agreed only to let her marry the father. The Gemara further asks: Even so, before betrothing her he should have first informed his son that they refuse to let her marry him. The Gemara explains that Ravin thought: In the meantime, while I am busy reporting back to my son, someone else will come and betroth her.

The Gemara clarifies the meaning of the aforementioned verse: What is meant by “and turns away from evil”? Rabbi Abba bar Shmuel says: Job was forgiving with his money. It is the way of the world that one pays the storekeeper for even half-peruta of merchandise purchased from him. But if somebody bought an item of such little value from Job, he would forgive him his half-peruta.

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Tarfon says: Over water one recites: Who creates the many forms of life and their needs. Rava bar Rav Ḥanan said to Abaye, and some say to Rav Yosef: What is the halakha in this dispute? He said to him: Go out and observe what the people are doing and act accordingly.

Similarly, if he omitted from the marriage contract the clause: You will sit in my house and be sustained from my property all the days you live as a widow in my house, he is nevertheless obligated as though he had written it, as it is a stipulation of the court. The mishna comments: The residents of Jerusalem would write in this manner, that a widow may remain in her husband’s house throughout her widowhood, and the residents of the Galilee would write in this manner as well, like the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In contrast, the residents of Judea would write: Until the heirs want to give you your marriage contract. Consequently, if the heirs wish, they may give her marriage contract to her and release her, and she must find her own living arrangements and provide for herself.

The baraita continues: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the owner had invited guests to eat the food and due to the worker’s actions he was unable to serve them, then the worker must give him compensation for his humiliation and compensation for the humiliation of his guests. And similarly, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would say: There was a great custom in Jerusalem that if one gives raw materials for a meal to another to prepare the meal for him, and that person spoils it, that person gives the former compensation for his humiliation and compensation for the humiliation of his guests.

The Gemara asks: And now that we know the determination of the first day of the new month, what is the reason that we observe two Festival days in the Diaspora? Because they sent a warning from there, from Eretz Yisrael: Although now there is a fixed calendar and there is no uncertainty, be careful to observe the custom of your fathers that you received, because at times the monarchy will issue decrees of persecution restricting Torah study and the fixed calendar may be forgotten. And the people will come to have their proper observance of the Festivals be disrupted again. However, the fundamental halakha is that the observance of two Festival days is based on uncertainty.

And if you would say: I will act stringently, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Aḥai, then you are casting aspersions on the earlier bills of divorce, i.e., bills of divorce written in previous generations, as the agents who delivered them did not examine them to this extent.

איש על דגלו . The Arizal used to say that just as there were four flags in the camp of the Israelites, so the Jewish people are made up of four "classes," each one observing their own respective customs. He divided them into the Sefardim, Ashkenazim, Catalonians and Italians. Each group remains loyal to the customs handed down by its ancestors, and each set of customs is valued equally in the eyes of G–d.

וכל הבארות אשר חפרו עבדי אביו, “and all the wells which the servants of his father had dug, etc.” The Torah simply tells us that the Philistines were so jealous of Yitzchak’s success that they closed down wells which Avraham had dug in order to deny Yitzchak the opportunity of benefiting from his father’s foresight. They wanted to deny Yitzchak the water he needed to sustain his herds and flocks. Eventually, Yitzchak bestirred himself and he redug the same wells making sure he kept the names his father had given to these wells. The Torah reports this seemingly insignificant detail to acquaint us with the meticulous way Yitzchak adhered to the norms his father had taught him. Perhaps, this is even the reason why the Torah never reports that Yitzchak’s own name was changed, as distinct from the names of both his father and his son Yaakov. This would be a further illustration of the principle of מדה כנגד מדה, that G’d responds in kind. [Yitzchak had been named already prior to his birth and never needed to have his name adjusted in order to encourage him to become more perfect. Ed.]

They said to him: We know that the rain has come on the Master’s account. However, let the Master please say and explain to us these aspects of your behavior that are puzzling to us: What is the reason that when we greeted the Master, the Master did not return our greeting? He said to them: I am a day laborer, hired for the day, and I said to myself that I may not delay my work to answer you. They further inquired: And what is the reason that the Master carried the firewood on one shoulder and his cloak on the other shoulder? He said to them: It was a borrowed robe. I borrowed it for this purpose, to wear it, and I did not borrow it for that purpose, to place wood on it.

The Gemara comments: Babylonia and all of its surrounding towns [parvadaha] act in accordance with the opinion of Rav; Neharde’a and all of its towns act in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman of Meḥoza who was married to a man from Neharde’a. They came before Rav Naḥman to discuss her marriage contract. He heard from her voice that she was from Meḥoza, whose residents had a distinctive accent.

If your brother, your own mother’s son, or your son or daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your closest friend entices you in secret, saying, “Come let us worship other gods”—whom neither you nor your fathers have experienced—

Moses concludes the blessings applicable to the period of the Second Temple by warning ולא תסור מכל הדברים אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם היום ימין או שמאל, meaning that the people are not to introduce changes in the commandments of the Torah, and especially not to make any changes in the social legislation, משפטים. Neither are they to introduce variations in the observance of certain commandments which were part of the culture of nations that lived in the land of Canaan, and which had been well entrenched in the entire region. Especially, is this forbidden if by adopting those habits, which, though unrelated to idolatry and of no religious significance, you adopt them in order thereby to display some respect for the culture of the members of those tribes still residing in your midst. In the Torah’s view this would constitute ללכת אחרי אלוהים אחרים לעבדם, that you are on the path to adopt idolatrous practices, eventually even worshipping those idols. However, the admonitions up unto verse 36 i.e. יולך יהוה אותך ואת מלכך, refer to periods during the Second Temple, the period of the Seleucids until the Hasmoneans started their uprising to rid the land of the Neo Greeks. Eventually, Aristobulus, a King of the Hasmonean Dynasty, was exiled by the Romans to Rome at the command of Pompey. Starting with this incident up until verse 63 ונסחתם, Moses refers to the period of the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans. What follows are admonitions dealing with our present exile.

The Gemara reverses its interpretation of the mishna: No, actually it can be explained that the judges would bring in the litigants; and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Neḥemya says: This was the custom of the scrupulous people of Jerusalem: When they would judge, they would bring in the litigants and hear their statements, and then they would bring in the witnesses and hear their statements in the presence of the litigants, and then they would take them all outside of the courtroom and discuss the matter in their absence. Once they finished the matter they would bring them, i.e., the litigants, in, to hear their verdict.

GEMARA:The Sages taught: Certain philosophers [filosofin] asked the Jewish Sages who were in Rome: If it is not your God’s will that people should engage in idol worship, for what reason does He not eliminate it? The Sages said to them: Were people worshipping only objects for which the world has no need, He would eliminate it. But they worship the sun and the moon and the stars and the constellations. Should He destroy the world because of the fools? Rather, the world follows its course, and the fools who sinned will be held to judgment in the future for their transgressions.

They said to Hillel: Our teacher, if one forgot and did not bring a knife on the eve of Shabbat and cannot slaughter his Paschal lamb, what is the law? Since he could have brought the knife before Shabbat, he cannot bring it on Shabbat; but what should he do in this situation? He said to them: I once heard this halakha from my teachers but I have forgotten it. But leave it to the Jewish people; if they are not prophets to whom God has revealed His secrets, they are the sons of prophets, and will certainly do the right thing on their own.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeïra: According to those who declare it his property, should it not be subject to tithes? He said to him, according to what Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, as Rebbi Abin said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, not only this practice, but in any practical question which is weak in court and you do not know how to decide, go out and see how the public acts, and act accordingly. And we see that they do not give. Rebbi Mana said, that is, if the practice would follow the House of Shammai. But is there any public that acts according to the House of Shammai? Rebbi Abin said, they learned the rules of the vineyard of the fourth year only from the Second Tithe; just as you say that the Second Tithe is not subject to tithes, so the yield of the fourth year is not subject to tithes.

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.