Responsa על תענית 8:7

The first is that they do not petition for rain properly. Even though it is stated in the first chapter of Ta’anit (10b): “It is taught: Hananyah says: In the Diaspora, [we do not begin petitioning for rain] until the sixtieth day of the [autumn] season; and R. Huna b. Hiya said in the name of Shmuel: The law accords with Hananyah.” We always follow the Babylonian Sages and practice in accord with their opinions whenever the Babylonian Sages and the Eretz Yisrael Sages dispute each other, for we consider the Babylonian Talmud to be primary. This all applies on matters concerning permitting or prohibiting, obligating or exempting, declaring pure or defiled. But when the matter hinges on the temporal needs, and it does not entail an alteration that transgresses the words of the Torah, it is proper to follow the year, the times, and the season. And Babylon sits on a great deal of water, and they did not require rain until the sixtieth day of the season. Alternatively, the planting season was later in Babylon. But in Germany, where the planting season begins in the middle of Tishrei [=the beginning of autumn], it is well known that if the rains do not fall immediately after the seeds are planted, they will be ruined, as the birds and rats will eat them all. So why should we not practice in accordance with the people of Eretz Yisrael, who petition for rain in Marheshvan [=early autumn], like Rabban Gamliel? For in this matter there is no dispute between the people of Babylon and the people of Eretz Yisrael in the sense that these offer a rationale for why it is proper to follow their position, and those offer a rationale for why it is proper to follow their position. Rather, in Babylon they acted on the basis of their needs, and the Mishna (in Ta’anit), which states that we begin petitioning in Marheshvan, was taught in Eretz Yisrael, in accordance with its needs. Do not wonder: Now that I have written that there is no dispute between them, why is it necessary for Shmuel to rule in accordance with Hananyah? For one can say that since the Mishna teaches that Rabban Gamliel says that we begin petitioning for rain on the seventh of Marheshvan, and R. Elazar stated that the law accords with Rabban Gamliel, I might have said that this should not be altered in any place, so as not to violate the words of the Mishna, as R. Elazar ruled. We thus learn from Shmuel that this is not akin to violating the words of the Mishna, for it was taught in the Land of Israel, according to their locale and needs. Now we may reason a fortiori: If the people of Babylon practice in accordance with their locale and needs by deviating from the Mishna, then certainly the people of Germany should act in accordance with their needs by not deviating from the Mishna. Indeed, we find that this entire Mishna was only taught to the people of Eretz Yisrael, and in accordance with their needs. For [the Talmud] challenges the statement of R. Asi in the name of R. Yohanan (Ta’anit 4b) that the law accords with R. Yehuda, who stated that the last person to pass before the ark [=lead the prayers] on the last day of Sukkot invokes [rain] based on R. Elazar’s statement that the law accords with Rabban Gamliel, who said that we petition for rain starting on the seventh of Marheshvan and that there is no gap between [when we begin] petitioning and [when we begin] invoking, as the Talmud concludes. The Talmud answers: “This is for us, and that is for them.” The Babylonians have produce in the field that they must bring into the house after Sukkot but before the rains begin. Therefore, they do not petition for rain until the seventh of Marheshvan. Alternatively [the Talmud answers]: “Both are for Eretz Yisrael. This refers to a time that the Temple stood, and that refers to a time that the Temple no longer stood.” Thus, we see that all of these times [for beginning to petition for rain] are accord with the needs of the locale and time.