הרחת בשמים ביו"כ

On יו"כ afternoon many have the custom (which I have, incidentally, never specifically come across in the minhagic literature, but rather 'only' observed being done myself [1]) to take advantage of the break between services and smell an אתרוג or the like (often one that is spiced with cloves). The purpose of doing so is twofold: 1) to revive one's senses after a tiring day and 2) on יו"כ we do not have festive meals; to that end, we may be missing some of the 100 ברכות that one is supposed to make on a daily basis [2].

One should only keep in mind that the proper ברכה on an אתרוג is ברוך...הנותן ריח טוב בפירות [3], not the generic בורא מיני בשמים that one makes for הבדלה.

[1] By this point in halachic history, nearly any מנהג that exists will written about somewhere (especially a straightforward one, as opposed to an esoteric one). There are still some, however, that are yet the domain of תורה שבעל פה (as all מנהגים ideally should be - by definition there are no מנהגים codified in תנך). Another example that comes to mind is decorating the shul in white for the High Holidays (a subject for an article in its own right), which merits nary a mention anywhere in our entire halachic corpus.

[2] as per :מנחות מג and שו"ע או"ח מו:ג

[3] שם או"ח קטז:ב

שייכות קול השופר עם אם סיסרא

The מנהג has already become widespread in all Jewish communities that we blow 100 blasts. They have relied, for this number, on the 100 cries that סיסרא's mother cried over her son. (שופטים ה) It was known to the חכמים as a tradition that the number of her cries was 100. דבורה sings about סיסרא's mother. מבעד" החלון נשקפה" until "תשיב אמריה לה" is 101 letters that contain the cries and wails of סיסרא's mother who was in pain over the loss of her son. The rest of the dialogue there is not words of pain, but rather of consolation.

What has one to do with the next? Why did they not set up the number to be 101 like the amount of her cries? [1]

The answer is that the sound of the שופר inspires mercy on the descendants of יצחק who was bound like a ram on the מזבח, whereas all the cries that סיסרא's mother cried were cries of cruelty, a cruelty the likes of which is difficult to find any place else in the entire world. A mother who is crying over the loss of her son should know the pain of other mothers who are also crying over the loss of their sons. But she was not like that, and all of her consolation was "certainly he is busy dividing up the spoils of war". This is how she mitigates her pain.

The 100 sounds of mercy made by the שופר should counterbalance the cries for סיסרא's mother that were full of cruelty, except for one, which is the pain that a mother has over her son. That one cry of mercy the sound of the shofar is not מבטל.

Therefore, the 100 sounds are corresponding to the 100 cries of cruelty.

[1] Yemenites do not blow 100 sounds, based on the opinion of the רמבם.

ספרדים indeed do blow 101, in that they add a תרועה גדולה (what אשכנזים refer to as תקיעה גדולה) at the end of davening: either before עלינו or after, which also doubles as a formal end to the service (similar to the תקיעה גדולה blown at the conclusion of נעילה). This number is the gematria of מיכאל, the intention being to strengthen his ability to defend כלל ישראל. (A full treatment of מיכאל's role in defending כלל ישראל is beyond the scope of this article, but see מדרש עשרת הדברות אות ו where he is referred to as such, being described as a כהן גדול who offers the souls of the righteous as קורבנות on the Heavenly מזבח. See also מדרש לקח טוב שמות כג:כ where he is identified as the מלאך who protected כלל ישראל in the מדבר. He is also charged, as per מלבים ישעי' ו:ו with bringing נבואה to נביאים, and keeping track of all the מעשים טובים that every Jewish person does.)

Another reason for blowing an extra תרועה גדולה is to confuse the שטן so that he does not prosecute against the כלל ישראל for going home after davening to eat and drink as though they have no fear of judgment.

Adapted from 'ספר התודעה (אליהו כי טוב) פרק שני 'מאה קולות

The Prayer for the Congregation

Many moons ago we began a series on the liturgical texts that are found between the reading of the הפטורה. Our last installment in that series can be found here.

The next piece of liturgy that is found in many rites is the Prayer for the Congregation. The concept of this prayer is that the שליח ציבור takes the opportunity (specifically on שבת morning where the shul is well-attended) to bless the ציבור that he represents, particularly (in some versions) those who contribute to the shul in a significant way, whether monetarily or otherwise.

To that end, we can explain the ספרדי custom (as rendered here by Haham Solomon Gaon at the tercentenary service for British Jewry) in which the חזן or Minister says the Prayer aloud on behalf of the congregation, to which they respond אמן. The prevalent אשכנזי custom, however, in which everyone mumbles to themselves with the חזן finishing off aloud as in most parts of תפלה, would seem to be out of place here.

Below we present a few (text as well as audio) samples of Prayer for the Congregation from the rites of which I was able to find samples.

:(אשכנז (מנהג פולין

מִי שֶׁבֵּרַךְ אֲבותֵינוּ אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקב. הוּא יְבָרֵךְ אֶת כָּל הַקָּהָל הַקָּדושׁ הַזֶּה עִם כָּל קְהִלּות הַקּדֶשׁ. הֵם וּנְשֵׁיהֶם וּבְנֵיהֶם וּבְנותֵיהֶם וְכָל אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם. וּמִי שֶׁמְּיַחֲדִים בָּתֵּי כְנֵסִיּות לִתְפִלָּה. וּמִי שֶׁבָּאִים בְּתוכָם לְהִתְפַּלֵּל. וּמִי שֶׁנּותְנִים נֵר לַמָּאור וְיַיִן לְקִדּוּשׁ וּלְהַבְדָּלָה וּפַת לְאורְחִים וּצְדָקָה לָעֲנִיִּים. וְכָל מִי שֶׁעוסְקִים בְּצָרְכֵי צִבּוּר בֶּאֱמוּנָה. הַקָּדושׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יְשַׁלֵּם שכָרָם וְיָסִיר מֵהֶם כָּל מַחֲלָה וְיִרְפָּא לְכָל גּוּפָם וְיִסְלַח לְכָל עֲונָם. וְיִשְׁלַח בְּרָכָה וְהַצְלָחָה בְּכָל מַעֲשה יְדֵיהֶם עִם כָּל יִשרָאֵל אֲחֵיהֶם. וְנאמַר אָמֵן:

ספרדי:

מִי שֶׁבֵּרַךְ אֲבוֹתֵינוּ אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב וּמֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן וְדָוִד וּשְׁלֹמֹה, וְכָל הַקְּהִלּוֹת הַקְּדוֹשׁוֹת וְהַטְּהוֹרוֹת, הוּא יְבָרֵךְ אֶת־כָּל־הַקָּהָל הַקָּדוֹשׁ הַזֶּה, גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, הֵם וּנְשֵׁיהֶם וּבְנֵיהֶם וְתַלְמִידֵיהֶם, וְכָל־אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם. מַלְכָּא דְעָלְמָא הוּא יְבָרֵךְ יַתְכוֹן, וִיזַכֶּה יַתְכוֹן, וְיִשְׁמַע בְּקָל צְלוֹתְכוֹן, תִּתְפָּרְקוּן וְתִשְׁתֵּזְבוּן מִכָּל צָרָה וְעַקְתָּא, וִיהֵא מֵימְרָא דַּיהֹוָה בְּסַעְדְכֶם, וְיָגֵן בַּעַדְכֶם, וְיִפְרוֹשׂ סֻכַּת שְׁלוֹמוֹ עֲלֵיכֶם, וְיִטַּע בֵּינֵיכֶם אַהֲבָה וְאַחְוָה, שָׁלוֹם וְרֵעוּת, וִיסַלֵּק שִׂנְאַת חִנָּם מִבֵּינֵיכֶם, וְיִשְׁבּוֹר עֹל הַגּוֹיִם מֵעַל צַוָּארֵיכֶם, וִיקַיֵּם בָּכֶם מִקְרָא שֶׁכָּתוּב יְהֹוָ֞ה אֱלֹהֵ֣י אֲבֽוֹתֵכֶ֗ם יֹסֵ֧ף עֲלֵיכֶ֛ם כָּכֶ֖ם אֶ֣לֶף פְּעָמִ֑ים וִיבָרֵ֣ךְ אֶתְכֶ֔ם כַּאֲשֶׁ֖ר דִּבֶּ֥ר לָכֶֽם׃ בשבת תשובה וְיִכְתָּבְכֶם הָאֵל בְּסֵפֶר חַיִּים טוֹבִים. 

וְכֵן יְהִי רָצוֹן וְנֹאמַר אָמֵן:

גדר ענין הוצאת לעז על הראשונים

In our previous article we explained the severity of being מוציא לעז על הראשונים. In this article we will אי"ה attempt to delineate the precise boundaries of הוצאת לעז על הראשונים.

While it would follow logically that any case in which הוצאת לעז על הראשונים is not a concern we would thereby be able to perform ברכת כהנים daily, nonetheless, this platform does not claim to disseminate final פסק הלכה on its own (as opposed to quoting direct sources of final פסק הלכה). Any practical action taken based on the foregoing should be cleared by a competent halachic authority. We take no responsibility for any experimentation based on our halachic conclusions.

There was a מנהג in Worms that every ר"ח סיון the community would then fast until after midday. [1] They would then daven מנחה at the earliest possible time and subsequently eat so as to avoid fasting a full-blown fast on ר"ח. They would then daven מעריב as they normally did the entire year.

Where ר"ח סיון fell out on ע"ש, however, they would then daven מעריב immediately following מנחה and then make קידוש.

שבות יעקב [2] recounts that where he saw this happening, he was very perplexed that they would daven מעריב so early. He even criticized the מנהג loudly yet no one listened to him. He even heard that many before him protested against this מנהג to no avail, raising a concern that perhaps future generations will think that the rabbis of generations preceding them were quiet and didn't protest, indicating that they in fact agreed with this practice, and so should be established להלכה for generations.

Where I myself, writes שבות יעקב, didn't daven מעריב with them as I normally would, people complained that I am separating myself from the ציבור, and that I don't have the halachic ability to change their מנהג.

Now, in order to clarify before all that their מנהג in this regard is mistaken, שבות יעקב therefore first defends their מנהג however he can and then responds to each defense in its place.

While the actual סוגיא is indeed quite interesting, nonetheless that is not our focus here, rather what is relevant to us is what שבות יעקב writes at the end of the תשובה, namely how to avoid הוצאת לעז על הראשונים i.e. implying that his forebears were neglectful of הלכה. To that end he writes that actually the earlier generations indeed followed הלכה properly, in that they used to daven מנחה as early as possible (with reading the פרשה of תענית, and saying memorial prayers in a doleful melody), after which they would daven מעריב at the regular time. Later generations mistakenly decided to daven מעריב immediately following מנחה, which is a reasonable mistake to make because even with regard to testimony one can get mixed up between one time on the clock and the next (פסחים יא), so all the more so here.

We can derive from the above that so long as one has a reasonable explanation for how it is that the original מנהג did indeed follow הלכה and that there was simply a broken telephone somewhere along the way, then that is no longer considered הוצאת לעז על הראשונים.

With this we end our lengthy series on why it is that most אשכנזים (and even some ספרדים) don't perform ברכת כהנים daily. We hope that our research was informative and compelling. We now hope to turn our attention to other matters בעז"ה.

[1] This was in memory of 12 lay leaders of the Worms community who died על קידוש השם on ר"ח סיון during גזירת תתנו. See ר יודא לייב Kirchheim's מנהגי וורמס (in the entry for ר"ח סיון) for extensive historical and liturgical details.

[2] חלק ב או"ח שאלה ו

חומר הענין של הוצאת לעז על הראשונים

1

In our previous article, we suggested (based on significant evidence) that those who tried to reinstate daily ברכת כהנים were stopped from שמים because they were מוציא לעז על הראשונים in the process. This means that by means of instituting ברכת כהנים on a daily basis, one thereby implies that their predecessors were willfully neglectful of their halachic obligation to do so themselves.

We will offer a more precise definition of הוצאת לעת על הראשונים in a future article אי"ה. What remains to be explained here, however, is why, indeed, is being מוציא לעז על הראשונים so severe as to warrant our continued neglect of (what would otherwise be) absolute halachic obligations. -?-

2

In the entry for חשד (suspicion), פלא יועץ exhorts its readers to, ideally, not eat anywhere outside their own homes, for fear of ending up eating something not kosher, or something that was warmed improperly on שבת or the like.

פלא יועץ warns, however, that not everyone is ראוי לכך to take on such a חומרא, as doing so would entail, among other problems, being מוציא לעז על הראשונים, in that taking on such a practice would seem to be insulting the previous generations who, by implication, were ח"ו not so punctilious about שמירת כשרות.

Now, one must keep in mind that פלא יועץ here is discussing a חומרא, meaning that, strictly speaking, there is a principle of עד אחד נאמן באיסורים, namely that one witness (even oneself) is qualified to testify with regards to matters of איסור והתר such as כשרות. This is the halachic mechanism which allows us to eat each other's food. To this end, we derive from here that, so long as there is what to rely on, it is better to keep to the strict הלכה without הידורים if said הידורים were to imply that the previous generations were neglectful of halachic strictures.

3

With regards to daily ברכת כהנים, there are many פוסקים to rely on to the effect that ברכת כהנים does and/or should not be performed daily, to which end it is better to continue relying on them (even where their halachic reasoning contains many logical and/or halachic difficulties) rather than to imply that the previous generations were neglectful of their religious obligations.

Similarly, there are opinions to rely on with regards to ruining a kosher טלית before burial, saying פיוטים where interrupting the תפלה would otherwise be problematic, and certainly for not inserting an extra פיוט into the liturgy against the established local custom [1]. To that end, it is better to continue relying on those opinions, even if their halachic reasoning is problematic, rather than to imply that the previous generations were neglecting what they were supposed to do.

Appendix

פלא יועץ does not, in fact, discourage people from not eating each other's food, rather only cautioning that doing so could potentially be מוציא לעז על הראשונים in the process. In fact, this entire הנהגה is referred to as a מדת חסידות that is not for everyone. The clear implication of that is that one for whom מדת חסידות, as a function of their overall religious piety, is appropriate, then not eating anyone else's food out of concern for lack of כשרות would then not be out of place.

With this we can explain how ר נתן Adler, who performed ברכת כהנים daily in his private בית מדרש, was not quite punished from Heaven but rather down here on Earth, in that he was placed into a חרם by the Frankfurt Kehilloh. This would perhaps be a result of the fact that he did not specifically intend to institute daily ברכת כהנים in the entire world but rather just in his own רשות היחיד. In fact, there could easily have been dozens of כהנים in Frankfurt at the time, yet we have no specific record (to my knowledge) of them being invited to his בית מדרש for the opportunity to perform ברכת כהנים on a regular day.

[1] for details see previous article and references there

פרחים לבית הכנסת בשבועות

There is a מנהג to carpet grasses in shuls and homes on שבועות [1], in remembrance of the joy of מתן תורה. The reason for this is because 'ה instructed משה to make sure that flock and cattle should not graze on הר סיני. Evidently, there was grass on הר סיני for animals to graze on in the first place. [2]

In some places there is a מנהג to distribute fragrant grasses in shul after חזרת השץ so that a ברכה on spices could be made. [3]

I am not aware of any community that still keeps either of these מנהגים. Rather, there is a much more widespread מנהג to decorate shuls with elaborate flower arrangements. The פוסקים do not mention flowers directly; their function is ornamental, as opposed to grasses, whose function is a pleasant fragrance. However, a suggestive explanation could be that תלמידי חכמים are soft and beautiful like roses, and they bubble over with מעשים טובים like roses "bubble over" with fragrance. [5]

Additionally, כלל ישראל is a like a rose among thistles; a garden full of thistles is hardly useful to its owner. But if there are roses in the garden as well, then keeping the garden is worthwhile, if only for the roses. So too, because of כלל ישראל's continued observance of the מצות, it is thereby 'worthwhile' for 'ה to continue maintaining the world's existence. To symbolize this concept, we decorate our shuls (and, in some communities, even the ספרי תורה) with flowers. [6]

http://breuers2gether.com/nostalgia/echoes/ *you may need to download this video in order to see it*

[1] רמא או"ח תלד:ב

[2] שמות לד:ג (ציווי זה נצטווה רק גבי לוחות שניות ולא במתן תורה אולם במ"ב שם ס"ק ט הובא פסוק זה כסמך למנהגנו. וצ"ע שהרי מנהגנו הוא זכר לשמחת מתן תורה אבל באמת לא היה ציווי כזה גבי מתן תורה כי הרי לאו דוקא שהיו עשבים למרעה הבהמות בהר סיני בשעת מתן תורה כ"א רק בשעת נתינת לוחות שניות היה זה הציווי וממילא רק בשעת נתינת לוחות שניות ידעינן שהיו שם עשבים. -?-)

[3] מ"ב שם ס"ק י

[4] see, for example, the following:

Above: flowers in KAJ on שבועות (top); flowers in Shearith Israel on שבועות (bottom)

Also see here.

[5] רשי תהלים מה:א

[6] שה"ש ב:ב, ויקרא רבה כג:ג, בני יששכר סיון מאמר ד אות ז

הוצאת לעז על הראשונים

We have spent a long time and much written space objecting to various approaches with regards to the reason why those who tried reinstating daily ברכת כהנים were met with Heavenly opposition. We discussed and analyzed various possibilities, including that they were punished for changing a מנהג, for leaving a trace of an evildoer's memory, as well as why it is that we have a right to ponder these questions to begin with.

We also proposed a solution as to why these Heavenly signs were regarded to begin with.

Now that all of the aforementioned has been moved out of the way, we can finally get to the solution that seems to fit all the pieces best, namely (drumroll please): that they were מוציא לעז על הראשונים, meaning, that the implication of reinstating daily ברכת כהנים is that all the wise and righteous people of the previous generations were willfully neglectful of an absolute חיוב גמור. Such an accusation is a terrible one indeed, such that, apparently, it is better to continue willfully neglecting a חיוב גמור ourselves rather than to accuse our forebears of such an iniquity.

This approach was told to me first by my uncle (who wishes to otherwise remain anonymous), author of שנות חיים (a systematic presentation of תורת בריסק on מועדים), and later by R Yitzchak Breitowitz.

With this we can also explain why the תלמידי הגרא, who instituted daily ברכת כהנים in their יישוב in ארץ ישראל, were not shown any signs from Heaven to stop, namely because the ראשונים there indeed did perform ברכת כהנים daily (even meriting commendation to that effect from the בית יוסף [1]).

We can also explain why daily ברכת כהנים was successfully instituted in Dubai [2], namely because the entire community didn't exist more than perhaps a decade ago, such that there are really no ראשונים there in the first place to be מוציא לעז on.

We can also understand why similarly frightening stories occurred to those who wanted to be buried (see here section 2) with kosher ציצית, namely that by doing so they were implying that their forebears were willfully neglectful of the obligation to indeed do so.

The same can be said of the (anonymous) individual who skipped a פיוט due to a concern of הפסק and didn't live out the year: by so doing he implied that his predecessors willfully ignored the halachic concern of הפסק [3].

The one story that remains to be explained is that of the מהריל [4] whose daughter died because he inserted an extra פיוט into the liturgy to honor its author who was buried in that city, against the express wishes of the גבאים: there is no absolute חיוב to honor the author of a פיוט who happens to be buried in that city. However, although, objectively speaking, there may be no such חיוב, even so, the מהריל seems to have felt there was, enough to do so even against the express instructions of the community officials!

In a future post we will אי"ה explain why indeed it is that הוצאת לעז על הראשונים is so severe as to warrant even neglect of (what would otherwise be) absolute חיובים.

Appendix

Although there may be ways to separately answer each of these individual questions, still, there is a יסוד said over in ישיבות (which, to a certain degree, is actually common sense) from ר חיים בריסקער, which I will first write in the original Yiddish as I have heard it said over, and then translate and explain:

אן אמת'ע פשט איז וואו איין תרץ ענפערט דריי קשיות.

A true explanation is one where one answer resolves three questions. To that end, although there may be other ways to answer each of these questions independently of each other, nonetheless, I have still chosen the above approach as the one which is most נראה לענ"ד because it answers the largest amount of questions at a time all in one shot.

[1] או"ח סוף סימן קכח

[2] originally accessed here on June 18 2023

[3] https://otzarminhagim.blogspot.com/2023/06/blog-post_18.html note 6. It is possible that the individual referred is actually the מהריל, only that some of the details were confused. This is pure speculation, however, and there is no direct evidence מכריח such an interpretation.

[4] https://otzarminhagim.blogspot.com/2023/08/instances-throughout-halachic-history.html note 1