Yom Tov, Yom Tov Sheni and the Calendar

(4) Initially, they would accept testimony to determine the start of the month throughout the entire thirtieth day from the beginning of the month of Elul, before Rosh HaShana, and if witnesses arrived from afar and testified that they had sighted the New Moon the previous night, they would declare that day the Festival. Once, the witnesses tarried coming until the hour was late, and the Levites erred with regard to the song, i.e., the psalm that they were supposed to recite, as they did not know at the time whether it was a Festival or an ordinary weekday. From that point on, the Sages instituted that they would accept testimony to determine the start of the month only until minḥa time. If witnesses had not arrived by that hour, they would declare Elul a thirty-day month and calculate the dates of the Festivals accordingly. And if witnesses came from minḥa time onward, although the calculations for the dates of the Festivals would begin from the following day, the people would nevertheless observe that day, on which the witnesses arrived, as sacred, so that in future years they would not treat the entire day as a weekday and engage in labor from the morning on the assumption that the witnesses will arrive only after minḥa time. And they would also observe the following day as sacred. On the second day, they observed Rosh HaShana in full, both by sacrificing its offerings as well as by calculating the upcoming Festivals from that date. After the Temple was destroyed and there was no longer any reason for this ordinance, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that they would once again accept testimony to determine the start of the month the entire day. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: And this, too, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted, that even if the head of the court of seventy-one is in any other place, not where the Great Sanhedrin is in session, the witnesses should nevertheless go only to the place where the Great Sanhedrin gathers to deliver testimony to determine the start of the month. Although the date of the month is dependent on the head of the Great Sanhedrin, as it is he who declares that the month is sanctified (see 24a), nevertheless, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the members of the Great Sanhedrin may sanctify the month in the absence of the head of the court.

(9). In an attempt to console him, Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yehoshua: I can learn from a verse that everything that Rabban Gamliel did in sanctifying the month is done, i.e., it is valid. As it is stated: “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, sacred convocations, which you shall proclaim in their season” (Leviticus 23:4). This verse indicates that whether you have proclaimed them at their proper time or whether you have declared them not at their proper time, I have only these Festivals as established by the representatives of the Jewish people. Rabbi Yehoshua then came to Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas, who said to him: If we come to debate and question the rulings of the court of Rabban Gamliel, we must debate and question the rulings of every court that has stood from the days of Moses until now. As it is stated: “Then Moses went up, and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, and seventy of the Elders of Israel” (Exodus 24:9). But why were the names of these seventy Elders not specified? Rather, this comes to teach that every set of three judges that stands as a court over the Jewish people has the same status as the court of Moses. Since it is not revealed who sat on that court, apparently it is enough that they were official judges in a Jewish court. When Rabbi Yehoshua heard that even Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas maintained that they must submit to Rabban Gamliel’s decision, he took his staff and his money in his hand, and went to Yavne to Rabban Gamliel on the day on which Yom Kippur occurred according to his own calculation. Upon seeing him, Rabban Gamliel stood up and kissed him on his head. He said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student. You are my teacher in wisdom, as Rabbi Yehoshua was wiser than anyone else in his generation, and you are my student, as you accepted my statement, despite your disagreement.

§ It was stated that there is a dispute between amora’im with regard to the halakha for the two Festival days observed in the Diaspora. Rav said: An egg that was laid on this day is permitted on that one, and Rav Asi said: An egg that was laid on this day is prohibited on that one. The Gemara asks: Let us say that Rav Asi holds that the two days are one sanctity. But didn’t Rav Asi himself recite havdala, the prayer of distinction at the end of a holy day, from one Festival day of the Diaspora to the other? This shows that, in his opinion, the first day is the true Festival, while the second day is considered a weekday. In earlier generations, they observed the second day of the Diaspora because they were unaware when the court sanctified the New Moon to mark the beginning of the month. Today, that determination is accomplished by means of calculations known to all, and the second day is observed as the custom of our fathers, not due to any uncertainty. The Gemara answers: Rav Asi was uncertain whether the Sages’ ordinance that the second day is to be observed as a Festival was a fixed ordinance that applies even when the calculations determining the New Moon are known to all; or whether the ordinance was based strictly on the uncertainty stemming from their lack of awareness. Today, when everyone is aware of the beginning of the month, the second day is a weekday. And therefore he acted stringently here, and prohibited eating an egg on the second day that had been laid on the first day. And he also acted stringently here, and recited havdala between the two days. Rabbi Zeira said: It is reasonable to say in accordance with the opinion of Rav Asi that the Sages considered the two days as one and it is not a practice instituted due to uncertainty, as today we know the determination of the first day of the new month based on a fixed calendar and the precise dates of the Festivals are known by all, and nevertheless we observe the two Festival days of the Diaspora. Abaye said: On the contrary, It is reasonable to say in accordance with the opinion of Rav that the second day is observed as a Festival due to uncertainty, as we learned in a mishna (Rosh HaShana 22b): Initially, after the court sanctified the new month, they would light torches on the mountain tops, from one peak to another, to signal that the New Moon had been sanctified. After the Samaritans [Kutim] disrupted this method by lighting torches at the wrong times, the Sages instituted that messengers should depart to inform the people of the start of the month. Since the messengers could not reach all Diaspora communities before the beginning of the Festival, the Sages instituted that an additional Festival day should be observed there, due to the resultant uncertainty with regard to which day was the actual Festival day. Abaye continues his argument: And this indicates that if the Samaritans had desisted from their interference, the Sages would have restored the earlier custom and we would observe only one day. And, similarly, in a place where the messengers arrived from Jerusalem on time, we observe only one Festival day. 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.

(2) The following rules apply when a court issued a decree, instituted an edict, or established a custom and this practice spread throughout the Jewish people and another court arose and sought to nullify the original order and eliminate the original edict, decree, or custom. The later court does not have this authority unless it surpasses the original court in wisdom and in its number of adherents. If it surpasses the original court in wisdom, but not in the number of adherents, or in the number of adherents, but not in wisdom, it cannot nullify its statements. Even if the rationale for which the original court instituted the decree or the edict is nullified, the later court does not have the authority to negate their statements unless they are greater.
How is it possible that the later court will surpass the original court in number? For every Supreme Sanhedrin consists of 71 judges. The intent is the number of sages in the generation who consent and accept the matter stated by the Supreme Sanhedrin without opposing it.

(1) The Supreme Sanhedrin in Jerusalem are the essence of the Oral Law. They are the pillars of instruction from whom statutes and judgments issue forth for the entire Jewish people. Concerning them, the Torah promises Deuteronomy 17:11: "You shall do according to the laws which they shall instruct you...." This is a positive commandment.
Whoever believes in Moses and in his Torah is obligated to make all of his religious acts dependent on this court and to rely on them.

(2) Any person who does not carry out their directives transgresses a negative commandment, as Ibid. continues: "Do not deviate from any of the statements they relate to you, neither right nor left."
Lashes are not given for the violation of this prohibition, because it also serves as a warning for a transgression punishable by execution by the court. For when a sage rebels against the words of the court, he should be executed by strangulation, as the following verse states: "A person who will act deliberately...."
We are obligated to heed their words whether they:
a) learned them from the Oral Tradition, i.e., the Oral Law,
b) derived them on the basis of their own knowledge through one of the attributes of Biblical exegesis and it appeared to them that this is the correct interpretation of the matter,
c) instituted the matter as a safeguard for the Torah, as was necessary at a specific time. These are the decrees, edicts, and customs instituted by the Sages.
It is a positive commandment to heed the court with regard to each of these three matters. A person who transgresses any of these types of directives transgresses a negative commandment. This is derived from the continuation of the above verse in the following manner: "According to the laws which they shall instruct you" - this refers to the edicts, decrees, and customs which they instruct people at large to observe to strengthen the faith and perfect the world. "According to the judgment which they relate" - this refers to the matters which they derive through logical analysis employing one of the methods of Biblical exegesis. "From all things that they will tell you" - This refers to the tradition which they received one person from another.

(1) All the statements made previously regarding the [prerogative to] sanctify Rosh Chodesh because of the sighting of the moon, and [to] establish a leap year to reconcile the calendar or because of a necessity, apply to the Sanhedrin in Eretz Yisrael. [For it is they] alone, or a court of judges possessing semichah that holds sessions in Eretz Yisrael and that was granted authority by the Sanhedrin, [who may authorize these decisions].1The Ramban [in his gloss on Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 153)] differs and explains that although it was necessary for the judges who established the calendar to have semichah, there was no necessity that this function be carried out by the Sanhedrin or a court deputized by it.
[This concept is derived] from the command given Moses and Aaron [Exodus 12:2]: "This month shall be for you the first of months" The Oral Tradition as passed down, teacher to student, from Moses our teacher [throughout the generations, explains that] the verse is interpreted as follows:2This explanation was recorded for posterity in Rosh HaShanah 21b. This testimony is entrusted to you and those [sages] who arise after you and who function in your position.3I.e., to the Sages of the Sanhedrin, who preserve the tradition of the Jewish court as initiated by Moses and Aaron.
When, however, there is no Sanhedrin in Eretz Yisrael, we establish the monthly calendar and institute leap years solely according to the fixed calendar that is followed now.

(2) This concept is a halachah communicated to Moses on [Mount] Sinai:4In the Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam defines a halachah communicated to Moses on [Mount] Sinai as a law that is neither explicitly stated nor alluded to in the Written Law, but communicated through the Oral Tradition.
See also the statements of the Ramban (loc. cit.), who objects to the Rambam's statements, and asks which source states that this is a halachah communicated to Moses on Mount Sinai. When there is a Sanhedrin, the monthly calendar is established according to the sighting of the moon. When there is no Sanhedrin, the monthly calendar is established according to the fixed calendar that we follow now, and the sighting of the moon is of no consequence.
When the fixed calendar is followed, there are times when the day established [as Rosh Chodesh] will be the day on which the moon is sighted, and there are times when the sighting will either precede or follow it by a day.5As explained in Chapter 6, the fixed calendar is based on the mean motion of the sun and the moon - i.e., their average rate of progress in the heavens. As explained in Chapter 11 onwards, the progress of the sun, and to an even greater extent that of the moon, deviates from this mean from time to time. Although ultimately these deviations will balance out, at any given time the day established as Rosh Chodesh may be before or after the day on which the moon can be sighted. It is, however, an extremely extraordinary phenomenon for [the day established as Rosh Chodesh] to be a day after the sighting [of the moon], [and this is possible only] in the lands that are west of Eretz Yisrael.6As explained in Chapter 18, Halachah 13, in the lands west of Eretz Yisrael the moon is sighted earlier than in Eretz Yisrael.

(3) When did the entire Jewish people begin using this calendar? At the conclusion of the Talmudic period, when Eretz Yisrael was in ruin, and an established court no longer remained there.7Based on the Rambam's statements in Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.), the Chatam Sofer (Yoreh De'ah, Responsum 234) explains that the Rambam's intent is that, from that time onward, a formal court no longer held sessions in Eretz Yisrael; the land, however, remained populated by Jews. (See the notes on Halachah 5.) In the era of the Sages of the Mishnah, and in the era of the Sages of the Gemara until the time of Abbaye and Ravvah,8This concept is derived from Rosh HaShanah 21a, which states that Ravvah fasted two days on Yom Kippur, because he did not know which day was established by the court in Eretz Yisrael. [the people] would rely on the establishment [of the calendar] in Eretz Yisrael.9This refers to the establishment of the fixed calendar by Rabbi Hillel (Hillel II), approximately two generations after the composition of the Jerusalem Talmud.
Most commentaries assume that the Rambam's intent is that until the time of Rabbi Hillel (not Hillel the Great, but a descendant of his, who lived several hundred years afterwards), the court sanctified the moon based on the testimony of witnesses. Rav Kapach objects to this interpretation, noting that the sanctification of the moon required judges with semichah, and it appears that the practice of semichah had been nullified prior to this time.
Noting the precise words used by the Rambam, "[The people] would rely on the establishment [of the calendar] in Eretz Yisrael," Rav Kapach explains that the sanctification of the moon based on the testimony of witnesses had ended several generations previously, with the cessation of the practice of semichah. Nevertheless, the international Jewish community would look to the court in Eretz Yisrael for the establishment of the calendar. For the family of the Nesi'im had a private tradition regarding the calculation of the calendar. Nevertheless, at the time of Rabbi Hillel, this practice was also discontinued, and a fixed calendar was established that did not require the authority of any particular court.

(4) When the Sanhedrin functioned and the calendar was established based on the sighting [of the moon], the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael and, [similarly, the inhabitants of] all the places where the messengers of Tishrei10See Chapter 3, Halachot 11-13. would arrive, would celebrate the holidays for one day only.
The inhabitants of the distant places that were not reached by the messengers of Tishrei would celebrate two days because of the doubt involved. For they did not know the day that the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael established as [the beginning of] the new month.

(5) In the present era, when the Sanhedrin no longer exists, and the court of Eretz Yisrael establishes [the months] according to the [fixed] calendar,11Implicit in the Rambam's words is a concept explained in greater detail in Halachah 13: The determination of the calendar depends on the establishment of the calendar by the court in Eretz Yisrael. according to law, it would be appropriate for [Jews] throughout the world to celebrate the holidays for one day alone.12As prescribed by the Torah. Once the date on which the festivals should be celebrated could be universally known because of the fixed calendar, the safeguard of celebrating the holidays for two days was no longer necessary. For [the inhabitants of] the distant regions of the diaspora and the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael rely on the same [fixed] calendar and establish [the festivals] accordingly. Nevertheless, the Sages ordained [that the inhabitants of the diaspora] retain the custom of their ancestors.13Beitzah 4b explains that this rule was ordained lest the gentile authorities oppress the Jewish people and prevent the inhabitants of the diaspora from communicating the tradition of the calendar to their descendants. They would then have to rely on information conveyed from Eretz Yisrael again.

(6) Therefore, [the inhabitants of] all the places that the messengers of Tishrei would not reach in the era when the messengers were sent out should celebrate two days even in the present era, just as they did when the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael established [the calendar] according to the sighting of the moon.
In the present era, the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael continue their custom and celebrate one day;14See, however, Halachot 11 and 12. for they never celebrated two days. Thus, our celebration of the second day of the holidays in the diaspora at present is a Rabbinic institution.15I.e., originally, the second day of the holidays was observed because of the doubt of the day on which to observe the Torah's commandment. In the present era there is no longer any doubt, and the observance of the second day of a holiday has the status of a Rabbinic ordinance.

(7) [Even] when the calendar was established based on the sighting of the moon, the majority of the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael would celebrate Rosh HaShanah for two days, because of the doubt involved.16To explain: Generally, the court would endeavor to structure the calendar so that the moon would be sighted on the thirtieth night of Elul. In expectation of the probability that the following day would be declared Rosh HaShanah, the people would observe all the holiday prohibitions and sound the shofar on the thirtieth day. Nevertheless, since it was possible that the moon had not been sighted, the people outside the immediate surroundings of Jerusalem would observe the following day as well.
See the Jerusalem Talmud (Eruvin 3:9) which states that the observance of Rosh HaShanah for two days was ordained by "the prophets of the earlier generations." Sotah 48b states that this term refers to the prophets of the First Temple era. They would not know the day on which the court established the new month, because the messengers would not depart on the holiday.17See Chapter 3, Halachah 8.

(8) Moreover, even in Jerusalem, where the court would hold session, there were many times when the holiday of Rosh HaShanah was celebrated for two days. For if witnesses did not arrive on the thirtieth day [following Rosh Chodesh Elul], the day on which they had awaited [the arrival of] witnesses would be regarded as holy,18As mentioned above, except for the offering of the Rosh HaShanah sacrifices, the thirtieth day following Rosh Chodesh Elul was always observed as Rosh HaShanah in expectation of the arrival of witnesses. and the following day would be regarded as holy.19For it would actually be observed as Rosh HaShanah.
Since [there were times when] they would observe [Rosh HaShanah for] two days even when they sanctified the months according to the sighting [of the moon], [our Sages] ordained that even the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael20Including even the inhabitants of Jerusalem. should always celebrate [Rosh HaShanah] for two days in the present era, when [the holidays] are established based on the fixed calendar. Thus, even [the observance of] the second day of Rosh HaShanah in the present era is a Rabbinic ordinance.

(9) The celebration of the holidays for one or two days is not dependent on geographic distance [alone]. What is implied?
If a place is located within a five-day - or less - journey from Jerusalem, and thus it was surely possible for the messengers to reach them, we do not postulate that the inhabitants celebrate only one day. For we have no way of knowing whether or not the messengers [of the High Court] would journey to this place.21As the Rambam continues to explain, the determining factor is not the geographic distance of a place from Jerusalem, but rather the custom followed in this place at the time when the High Court sent out messengers. Perhaps the messengers did not journey to this place because it was not populated by Jews at that time. [And if] it became populated by Jews after it [had become customary] to establish [the festivals] according to the fixed calendar, they [would be] obligated to celebrate two days.
Alternatively, [perhaps the messengers did not reach there,] because there was a blockade on the way, as existed between Jerusalem and the Galilee during the time of the Mishnah,22See Bava Batra 38a and Ketubot 17b, which tell of a time when a blockade prevented communication between Jerusalem and the Galilee. or perhaps the Samaritans would prevent the messengers from passing through their [territory].

(10) If the matter were dependent on geographic distance alone, all the inhabitants of Egypt would observe the holidays for only one day, for it is possible for the messengers of Tishrei to reach them. The distance between Jerusalem and Egypt via Ashkelon is a journey of eight days or less. Similar concepts apply regarding the majority of Syria. One thus can conclude that the matter is not dependent solely on geographic distance.

(11) Thus, the principles governing this matter can be summarized as follows: Whenever the distance between Jerusalem and a particular place exceeds a ten-day journey, the inhabitants should observe [the holidays] for two days, as was their previous custom. For the messengers sent out for Tishrei [cannot be guaranteed] to reach places other than those within a ten-day journey from Jerusalem.23For the messengers were forbidden to travel on Rosh HaShanah, Yom Kippur, and the two Sabbaths between Rosh HaShanah and Sukkot. In the years when Rosh HaShanah is observed on the Sabbath, the messengers could proceed a further day. Nevertheless, since this is not so in the majority of the years, a ten-day journey is accepted as the standard measure.
[The following rules apply when, by contrast,] places are a ten-day journey or less from Jerusalem, and thus it is possible that the messengers could have reached them: We see whether that place is [located in the portions of] Eretz Yisrael that were inhabited by Jews during the time the calendar was established on the basis of the sighting [of the moon] during the second conquest [of the land] - e.g., Usha, Shefaram, Luz, Yavneh, Nov, Tiberias, and the like. [The inhabitants of these places] should celebrate only one day.
If the place is part of Syria24Note Hilchot Terumah 1:3, which defines Syria as referring to lands conquered by King David before the entire territory of Eretz Yisrael proper had been conquered. Therefore, it was not considered part of the Holy Land with regard to most ritual questions according to the Torah itself. Nevertheless, the Rabbis extended many of the laws applying to Eretz Yisrael to this territory as well. - e.g., Tyre, Damascus, Ashkelon,25The inclusion of Ashkelon, which is located to the southwest of Eretz Yisrael, in Syria clearly indicates that the Rambam is referring to the halachic conception of the latter term, and not the geographic one, since Syria is to the northeast of Eretz Yisrael.
There is, however, a slight difficulty with the Rambam's statements: In Hilchot Terumah 1:9, he describes Ashkelon as being part of the diaspora.and the like - they should follow the custom of their ancestors. If [the custom was to celebrate] one day, [they should celebrate] one day. [If the custom was] two days, [they should celebrate] two days.

(12) When a place is located within a journey of ten days or less from Jerusalem, and it is part of Syria or the diaspora, and [its inhabitants] have no [established] custom conveyed [from previous generations], they should celebrate two days, as is customary in the world at large. [The same rules apply to] a city that was created in the desert of Eretz Yisrael, or a city first populated by Jews in the present era.26Based on this halachah, according to the Rambam, most Jews living in Eretz Yisrael today should celebrate the holidays for two days. Indeed, the Eretz Tzvi, a text that documents the prevailing customs in Eretz Yisrael before the waves of European immigration, states that in cities like Ramlah, that did not have an existing custom dating back to the Talmudic period, the holidays would be celebrated for two days, as the Rambam states.
It was not until the resettlement of Eretz Yisrael in the present era that such cities began observing the holidays for only one day. The source for this practice is the commentary of the Ritba (Rosh HaShanah 16b), who states that, in the present era, it is the geographic definitions of Eretz Yisrael and the diaspora that determine whether or not one should celebrate one day.
[It must be emphasized that even according to the Ritba, it is questionable whether the inhabitants of areas of the Negev below Beersheba should celebrate the holidays for only one day. For these places are also beyond the geographic limits of Eretz Yisrael of the Talmudic period.]
[At present,] the celebration of the second day of a holiday is always a Rabbinic institution. This applies even to the celebration of the second day of Rosh HaShanah, which is observed by all Jews in the present era.

(1) 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.

Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that when one travels from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he is required to act stringently in accordance with the local custom, this applies only when his intent is not to return. One is required to adopt the local customs when permanently settling in a new location. However, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana’s intent was to return to Eretz Yisrael, his point of origin, he continued to follow the custom of Eretz Yisrael.

(1) You have asked: How should people from outside Eretz Yisrael (hutz la-aretz) who temporarily visit there practice during the three festivals, as residents of Eretz Yisrael or as residents of hutz la-aretz?

(2) Response: In my humble opinion, on matters of festivals they must practice like a resident of Eretz Yisrael. This is not in the category of “the stringencies of the locale one left” [which must be observed]. This goes without saying with regard to the blessings, prayers, and Torah reading, which are not essentially stringencies, for if one practices stringency by reciting the blessings and prayers of the festival on a day that is not a festival, he has transgressed. However, it is even permissible for them to perform melakhot (labors forbidden on Shabbat and festivals), for if all of the people from the locale they left would move here permanently, it is obvious that they would not be allowed to observe more than one day, as this would violate “you shall not add on” (bal tosif). After all, one who sleeps in the sukkah on the eighth day incurs lashes. Similarly, on Pesah and Shavu’ot, one who observes one festival day more than is commanded violates bal tosif. [The Sages] did not say that “we impose upon him the stringencies of the locale he left” except with regard to a stringency that the people from the community one left may practice in a locale that practices leniently even if they would establish permanent residence in the latter locale. However, when it comes to something that the people from the stringent locale would be forbidden to practice if they were to establish residence in the lenient locale, [the Sages] did not make their ruling about such a case. And although “they sent [a message] from there: be careful about the practices of your fathers, lest there be decrees of persecution that will be ruinous” (Beitza 4b), this ruin itself is only relevant when they are in their place, in hutz la-aretz. However, while they are in Eretz Yisrael, it does not apply. And since in Eretz Yisrael it is forbidden to add a day to the mitzva, and the people of Eretz Yisrael do not have the capability of adding a day to what the Torah states and thus be stringent, even those who come from hutz la-aretz may not practice the second festive day of Diaspora communities while they are in Eretz Yisrael, even if they are there only temporarily, since the determining factor is the locale, and it is not in the category of “stringencies of the locale he left.”

(3) I have written my humble opinion. Tzvi Ashkenazi