Question: I have numerous questions that relate to the Jewish leap year when a full month is added to our lunar year every couple of years. Why is Adar the month that is picked for this addition? Why do we call it Adar Alef? Why is Purim celebrated in the second Adar? Also, while both are named Adar, only of them one must be the real Adar – which one?
Shea Aronovitch
Via e-mail
Synopsis: Last week we noted that the Jews from the Babylonian exile adopted Adar as the name for the twelfth month. While Jews add a month periodically to the lunar calendar after the twelfth month as per the Baraita in Rosh Hashana (7a) (see also Pesachim 6a), the Babylonians did not. The second of the two Adars is considered the “leap” – or extra – month, which we refer to as Adar Sheni (or Adar Bet). We read the four special Torah readings (Shekalim, Zachor, Parah and Parashat HaChodesh) as well as celebrate Purim during the second Adar (Orach Chayyim 685:1). R. Eliezer b. R. Yosi argues that we observe the mitzvot of Purim during the Adar closest to Shevat, while R. Shimon b. Gamaliel argues for current practice.
Rabbi Dov Aaron Brisman of Philadelphia ponders (Responsa Shalmei Chova, Yoreh De’ah 94) the proper leap-year observance of a yahrzeit for a man who died during a non-leap year on the second day of Rosh Chodesh, the first day of Adar. There is agreement that Kaddish is recited on that date in both Adars, while when to fast is more controversial.
Answer: Rabbi Brisman focuses on the source of the uncertainty about which of the two Adars is the added one and what that means for performance of mitzvot. Taz (Orach Chayyim 568:sk3) explains that the two views are based on the dispute between R. Meir and R. Yehuda (Nedarim 63a). Any reference to ‘Adar’ is to be understood as Adar Sheni (the second Adar) according to R. Meir, while R. Yehuda insists that “Adar” implies Adar Rishon, the first Adar.
Taz explains the Mechaber’s (Orach Chayyim 568: 7) ruling according to R. Meir because this is the stated view codified by Rambam (Hilchot Nedarim 10:6). However, “yesh omrim – there are those who say” that the halacha is otherwise, as cited by Rema (op cit. O. C. 568:7), in accord with Rosh (that the reference to Adar implies the first Adar). The latter view is confirmed in Responsa Terumat HaDeshen (294). Therefore, Taz rules that one who has a yahrzeit observance for someone who died during Adar of a common (non-leap) year should fast in the first Adar in accord with the rule ein ma’avirin al hamitzvot – we do not allow a mitzvah to be bypassed – as we noted last week.
Two difficulties are addressed by Rabbi Brisman: First, this statement of Taz demands explanation, for if simply put “Adar” means the first Adar, why do we need to mention the reason of “ein ma’avirin”? This reason seems to imply that there is a halachic requirement to fast as well on the date of the death in the second Adar. Is not the first Adar the real anniversary of death – the actual yahrzeit according to the “yesh omrim” cited by Rema, without the need for further proof?
Also, the dispute between R. Meir and R. Yehuda concerns everyday speech – whether, when a person mentions Adar, we understand him to mean the Adar closest to Shevat, or the second Adar, closest to Nissan. But the situation discussed here is about the time of an actual yahrzeit [which is a time when the mazal – a spiritual understanding of luck – is weakened] (Bach, Yoreh De’ah 402, citing Sefer Chasidim), and whether it is a mitzvah for the one observing the yahrzeit to fast since he, too, is subject to weakened mazal at the anniversary of his parent’s death. In this context, the mention of Adar is not referring to everyday speech but rather to the specific time as required for the performance of the mitzvot.
Rabbi Brisman observes that the Gemara’s conclusion (Nedarim 63a-b) further strengthens the view that Adar, mentioned simply, means Adar Rishon of a leap year. Even R. Meir, who is of the view that a simple mention of Adar implies Adar Sheni, would agree that “Adar” means Adar Rishon in the case above. When one is unaware of, or not paying attention to, the fact that their current year is intercalated (declared a leap year), any reference to “Adar” is taken to mean the first Adar, especially in the example where a parent died during Adar of a common year and the son accepted upon himself to fast on that date in Adar in subsequent years. When the son says he will fast during Adar, it is to be understood that for a leap year he is referring to Adar Rishon.
Rabbi Brisman also offers a spiritual insight in an attempt to resolve these issues. Among others, he cites the dispute between Terumat HaDeshen and Maharil over the proper observances of yahrzeits during the two Adars of a leap year.
Terumat HaDeshen would have the yahrzeits observed during the first Adar because of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel’s statement (Megillah 6a) that the reason we observe Purim in the second Adar is because our sages wished to connect one redemption (that of Purim) to the other (of Passover). Therefore, if not for that reason, the first Adar would be the proper time for observance of Purim. Maharil disregards this explanation due to the view cited – that we do not delay a mitzvah.
However, according to that view, we should ideally read the Megillah during the first Adar, which we do not do, because we only observe it for one day (reading once by night, and again once by day along with all the other Purim-related mitzvot). Yahrzeits, however, can be observed in both months – Adar II and Adar I.
Rabbi Brisman comments that, in fact, each Adar possesses the characteristics of Adar, enough so that each one is eligible to have all Adar-related mitzvot and observances performed. However, each side of the dispute offers a special reason not to observe these mitzvot on one Adar or the other. He also notes Magen Avraham (op. cit. Orach Chayyim 568:sk20), who sees the Gemara’s statement of connecting one redemption to the other redemption as the reason why we only observe Purim and Megillah in the second Adar and not during both.
There is a clear difference when it comes to fasting, as Rabbi Brisman points out. Those who are more stringent, the machmirim cited by Rema, are stringent because they have vowed to fast. This is not aveilut itself but an additional vow to fast on the yahrzeit. Generally, halacha follows the lenient opinion with regard to aveilut matters, so the stringent interpretation to fast during both Adars on the yahrzeit date is because of the vow. The Adar referred to in the original vow might be understood as both Adars. According to Rema, Kaddish would however only be recited on the yahrzeit in one of the Adars. Magen Avraham, who considers both Adars to be the true Adar, would rule that Kaddish and lighting the memorial candle is relevant in both Adars.
Rabbi Brisman relates the view of Tashbatz, who says that in the first year after the death of one’s parent, the fast would be on the first Adar because of the premise that mourning concludes at twelve months after the death. (Shach adds that according to this view, the fasting would be in the first month while the Kaddish and yahrzeit candle would be during both Adars during the first year.) Subsequent years would have the yahrzeit and fast held during the second Adar during a leap year.
However, we, who follow Rema (where there is no contrary custom), would fast only on the yahrzeit during the first Adar.
As you see, the question is not simply which is the “real” Adar, but rather when the time-related mitzvot are to be performed during these two months.
We wish all an enjoyable Purim and may we all merit a speedy redemption where our dearly departed will join together with us to welcome Moshiach and then celebrate Pesach in the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem.
