
I wrote that two weeks ago I ruled that the shul wouldn't say
tachanun in reaction to the death of Arafat. While most of the congregation applauded the loss of
tachanun, if not the loss of our enemy, there was some opposition. One member asked me for the sources of the
halakha and I have spent the time since shoring up the
halakhic support for the
psak.
First of all, the
Shulchan Arukh is very clear in
Orech Chaim 575:11-13 that when we fast for rain, and the rain falls, we can say Hallel. Siman 576 then expands the need to fast to all difficult situations - including a feared enemy.
In any case, every shul Rav I've spoken to agrees that we have the power to suspend
tachanun for a communal
simcha, but that wasn't enough for the textually minded. Two
poskim - one black, one white - ruled on the matter.
Rav Nachum Rabinovich, the Rosh Yeshiva of Ma'ale Adumim, agreed with my decision (said that I did the right thing) and said that since
tachanun was a minhag, I as Maara d'Atra could make that decision.
Rav Ephraim Greenblatt (the famed
Rivevot Ephraim, whom I know from Memphis) was less enthusiastic about my ruling but said that I had halakhic grounding, specifically the
Chaya Adam, klal 155, siman 41.
Rav Greenblatt pointed out that people associate omitting
tachanun with the death of a
tzadik and thus my
psak was difficult. I explained that the omission of
tachanun is only with the
yahrzeit of a
tzadik - the death of a
tzadik (according to the Shulchan Arukh) requires everyone who hears to tear
kriah! However, the death of an enemy requires rejoicing and the yahrzeit is forgotten (because of the
yimach-shemo stuff)
Since then, it was pointed out to me that there were those in Israel who ruled the same as I:
see this story from (ugh) Arutz-7.It's gratifying to know that my
halakhic-intuition was on the mark.