The Babylonian Diaspora in Tannaitic and early Amoraic times had to keep two days of Yom Tov of Pesach and Sukkot because of doubt. These holidays commenced on the 15th of the month. The Jews in Babylonia lived a long distance from Israel. The messengers from Israel who left to report the declaration of the new moon would not necessarily get to Babylonia by the 15th. Therefore, the Jews in Babylonia had to observe two days of Pesach and Sukkot, just in case the new moon had not been declared on the day that it was supposed to and the holidays were delayed a day.

But what about Shavuot? This holiday was 50 days away from the new moon of Nissan. There was sufficient time for the messengers to get to the Babylonian Diaspora.

Here is Rambam, Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 3:11-12:

“In the distant places, which the messengers would not reach, the holidays would be observed for two days because of the doubt. For they would not know the day on which the high court established the new month. There are places where the messengers (sent out for) Nissan would arrive (in time for the celebration of Pesach), but the messengers (sent out for) Tishrei would not arrive (in time for the celebration of Sukkot).”

“ … It would have been appropriate for them to observe Pesach for one day, since the messengers reached them and informed them when Rosh Chodesh had been established, and for them to observe Sukkot for two days, since the messengers had not reached them. Nevertheless, so that there would be no difference between the festivals, the Sages instituted the ruling (התקינו) that two days would be celebrated in all places that were not reached by the messengers for Tishrei—even for the festival of Shavuot.”

To explain further:

The messengers in Nissan could reach further than the messengers of Tishrei because there was no traveling in Tishrei on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.

There is a statement in the Talmud at Rosh Hashanah 21a about the places where the Pesach messengers reached shortly before the 15th. It was decreed that these places still have to keep two days of Pesach, since these places were always keeping two days of Sukkot. The statement begins, “Machriz Rabbi Yochanan … ” The reference is to a decree by the leading Amora Rabbi Yochanan, 3rd century CE, Eretz Yisrael.

———

I am only aware of one passage in the Babylonian Talmud regarding the practice of observing a second day of Shavuot (see below.) The statement about an institution of a law affecting Shavuot is entirely something hypothesized by Rambam. Probably he believes it was part of the same 3rd century decree.

———

The status of the second day of Shavuot became the focus of controversy in a story from 1831. I will now be citing Eliezer Segal, “Holidays, History and Halacha,” (2000). (Segal lives in Canada and wrote a weekly column in a Jewish paper for years. Then he turned his columns into books. Sound familiar?)

Siegal summarizes: “The story involved a man in the Galician town of Brody who had taken ill and was deemed to have only hours left to live. The man had no children, and, therefore, his widow would become subject to the biblical law of levirate marriage. This meant that she would be unable to remarry, unless she obtained a formal release from her late husband’s brother through the ceremony of chalitzah. Since her brother-in-law lived in Italy, this would be difficult to accomplish, rendering the unfortunate widow an agunah … Out of consideration for his wife’s fate, the husband proposed to divorce her in the last remaining hours of his life. Unfortunately, the timing of the events was problematic. It was Shavuot when it would normally be forbidden to write a get.”

Segal continues: “When the case was brought before the local halakhic authority, the eminent Rabbi Eleazar Landau … (he) ruled that in the present circumstances concern for the potential suffering of a widow should override the flimsy basis of the second day of Shavuot. He ordered that a scribe be brought on the second day and that the divorce be duly issued.” (Rabbi Landau was the grandson of Rabbi Yechezkel Landau.)

When Rabbi Shlomo Kluger, head of the beit din in Brody, learned about the effort to write a get on the second day of Shavuot, he put an immediate stop to it. The man died the next day. A good deal of criticism was lobbied against Rabbi Kluger. To settle the issue and absolve himself from criticism, he appealed to the Chasam Sofer (died 1839). (The Chasam Sofer’s lengthy response is found in Responsa of Chasam Sofer, 1:145.)

(Rabbi Kluger wrote: “In order that the voice of the woman’s blood should not cry out to me saying that I am guilty of her blood, I decided to present my arguments before his honor, the illustrious gaon, to make known whether I ruled correctly or, heaven forbid, made an error.”)

The Chasam Sofer agreed with Rabbi Kluger. He explains that for the other second days, they had their origin in doubt. Our continued observance of them—despite our knowledge of the calendar (see Beitzah 4b)—is merely the continuation of a custom which originated in doubt. But for Shavuot, there was never a practice of observing two days based on a doubt. Rather, he understands Rambam—as saying that the Sages enacted a decree—that the second day of Shavuot be observed. Since it has its origin in a decree, it has a stronger basis. He also implied that any diminishing of the status of the second day of Shavuot would invite further challenges to the authority of rabbinic traditions.

The responsum discussed and rejected other possible grounds to be lenient as well. (For a more detailed summary of the responsum, see Rabbi Gil Student, “The Shavuos Get,” torahmusings.com, May 17, 2010.)

As to the underlying forces at work, Segal explains: “The Chasam Sofer was waging a desperate campaign against forces that—in his view—threatened the very survival of Judaism. The experience of the German enlightenment, which over two short generations had bought about a massive defection from the Jewish ranks, certainly provided legitimate grounds for alarm; and he feared liberal ideologies had already made significant inroads in Brody, the scene of our controversy, which was strategically situated on the border between central and eastern Europe.”

———

Another source which tells the above story is Rabbi Shlomo Yosef Zevin, “The Festivals in Halacha,” (ArtScroll translation), pages 237-239.

———

There is a story at Pesachim 52a about an Amoraic sage who did melacha on the second day of Shavuot. This was viewed as a sin that deserved punishment and what his punishment should be was discussed. This shows that there was a practice of requiring the observance of the second day of Shavuot in Amoraic times. But Rabbi Rachmiel Zelcer—in his “Ner LeMeah on Shavuot”—observed that there is no comment in the Talmud there that the punishment for a sin regarding the second day of Shavuot would be any different from the punishment regarding a sin on the second day of Pesach or Sukkot. This is evidence against the view of the Chasam Sofer.

(The second day of Shavuot is also mentioned at Megillah 31a.)

I can be reached at [email protected]. I thank Rabbi Gil Student for the reference to Rabbi Zelcer.