עיכוב משמים נגד עשיית מצוה כראוי

1

In previous posts (see here, here, here, here, and here) we established that there is no legitimate reason why אשכנזים do not perform ברכת כהנים daily.

It is unclear exactly at what point the practice changed from how it was originally, although מחזור ויטרי, a primary source for מנהג אשכנז, contains a detailed section on the דינים of ברכת כהנים, positioned at the end of חזרת השץ of weekday שחרית, making no mention of what is today the common אשכנזי practice in חו"ל, namely to only perform ברכת כהנים by מוסף on יו"ט.

Here we will discuss a few instances where there were those who tried to restore the original practice:

1) ר נתן Adler was a כהן מיוחס. Among other innovative הנהגות, he performed ברכת כהנים daily in his בית מדרש. Eventually, he was placed in a severe חרם ר"ל, for (multiple reasons including) daily ברכת כהנים that took place in his בית מדרש [1].

2) A כהן מיוחס in Vilna was instructed by the גאון that he should perform ברכת כהנים in the גאון's בית מדרש the following day. That night the כהן מיוחס died. [2]

Another time the גאון tried to reinstate daily ברכת כהנים. That night he was thrown into jail (for sending money to ארץ ישראל). He understood this as a sign from Heaven to stop. [2] [3]

3) ר חיים Volozhener once attempted to institute daily ברכת כהנים in Volozhen. That night there was a fire in which half the town, including the shul, burnt down. He also understood this to be a sign from Heaven to stop. [2]

2

ר ישראל Reisman directed me to the following סוגיא (as presented by ערוה"ש יו"ד שנא) which is another example of being prevented by שמים from doing a מצוה properly.

The (:גמ' (מנחות מא says that a man should be buried in his ציצית so as to avoid a problem of לועג לרש, namely, that those who are carrying the body are wearing ציצית, while the dead person is not; this would result in "rubbing it in", so to say, that the מת can no longer perform מצות.

'תוס there addresses why (evidently) the prevailing custom at the time was not to bury someone with ציצית. -?- 

'תוס suggests that in the times of the 'גמ everyone wore ציצית so there would indeed be a problem of לועג לרש; today (in 'תוס's time), however, where ציצית is uncommon [4], there is no problem of לועג לרש.

Today ב"ה the practice of wearing ציצית was restored to its former glory, so we should, in principle, revert to the practice of the 'גמ to bury with ציצית, however, the מנהג הפשוט in all תפוצות ישראל [5] is that we prepare the מת with ציצית and before we put him in the grave, we take off one of the four ציציות.

This is based on ה"ר יצחק בן מלכי צדק who suggested a solution as a compromise between the 'גמ and our מנהג: as the body is prepared for burial, we put ציצית onto the body so the נושאי המטה shouldn't be wearing ציצית and the מת not; as we bury him, we take the ציצית off.

3

The ערוה"ש testifies regarding the גרא that he instructed one of his תלמידים of his wishes to be buried with his ציצית fully intact. Where it was time for the חברה קדישא to clothe the גרא's body, that תלמיד had to step out, and the חברה קדישא was unaware of the גרא's instructions, so they pulled out one of the ציציות. Once the תלמיד returned, he began to cry out in distress over the fact that the מנהג was followed against his rebbi's instructions and an explicit 'גמ. The גדולים who were present saw this episode as a sign from שמים not to change the מנהג.

ר אלכסנדר זיסקינד of Horodna was lowered into his grave with all his ציציות intact (perhaps he learned from the גרא's mistake and gave instructions to the entire חברה קדישא, rather than only instructing one person). One of the ציציות got stuck on a peg and was ripped out, so it was understood that this was decreed from שמים.

עד כאן תוכן דברי הערוה"ש

4

Some may say this is proof of an איסור to change any מנהג whatsoever, even if it is against a 'גמ. A counterargument to this is that indeed, to change a מנהג is no simple matter [6], however, not all מנהגים are created equal; not everything that anyone does is necessarily considered an authentic מנהג.

For example: a מנהג is considered authentic if it was established by ותיקים; if, on the other hand, a custom has no real source, that is simply a mistake in judgment. In addition, to restore a practice to how it used to be is allowed. [7]

Conclusion

We have demonstrated extensively throughout this series that there is weak legitimate halachic basis for the אשכנזי practice in חו"ל to only perform the מצוה of ברכת כהנים by מוסף on יו"ט. Yet, those who have attempted to be מחזיר עטרה ליושנה have not only failed, but were even punished from שמים for doing so.

This raises a profound theological problem: why would an attempt to perform a מצוה properly arouse Heavenly disapproval? Why would someone be punished for trying to do a מצוה properly?

I do not have an answer to this question. It is a problem that bothers me tremendously. Multiple תלמידי חכמים that I have approached regarding this issue have not been able to give me an answer. I plan to write letters in the mail to גדולים, asking them to address this thorny topic. Anyone who can share any leads will be much appreciated.

אריה לייב Kramer assisted with the preparation of many sources for this סוגיא,

וגדול זכות המזכה את הרבים

[1] Burak, The Hatam Sofer (Beth Jacob, 1967) p. 67 and מפי השמועה

[2] Eliach, "הגאון (מורשת הישיבות, תשסב) פרק ו "ברכת כהנים. Eliach there mentions that ר ישראל Salanter was bothered by why, if this was the right thing to do, did they stop based on a Heavenly sign? There is a principle that הלכה is not determined by Heavenly signs but rather by חכמי ישראל!

פסקי תשובות (או"ח קכח הע' 415) mentions that the בעל התניא tried, unsuccessfully, to reinstate daily ברכת כהנים among בני אשכנז, but he was prevented from doing so, for various reasons. I was not able to find any more information than the vague statement made there.

[3] ארץ ישראל was, at that point, ruled by the Ottoman Empire. Lithuania, at that point, was ruled by the Russian Empire. The two empires were constantly at war against each other. Sending money to an enemy country was illegal, so anyone who wanted an easy claim against anyone could inform the authorities that someone was sending money to ארץ ישראל.

[4] It is beyond the scope of this article to examine this phenomenon in detail but evidently such was the reality, as incredible as that may sound.

[5] This is indeed the מנהג in Amsterdam (מנהגי אמשטרדם פרק ה סימן ב סעיף ג אות ג). I have not been able to find confirmation of this מנהג in other communities but presumably this is a universal practice among אשכנזי חברה קדישא.

[6] רמא (או"ח תרצ:יז)

[7] מ"א וביאור הלכה שם

In a future post, I hope to compile a list of multiple sources in הלכה where פוסקים change various מנהגים. An exhaustive treatment of the issue of changing מנהגים is beyond the scope of this article.

מנהג הכאת שם המן בשעת קריאת המגילה

1

In many communities there is a custom to bang and/or make loud noises at the mention of המן's name while מגילת אסתר is being read on פורים.

According to רמא (או"ח תרצ:יז) the original מנהג was that children used to draw המן's face or write his name on stones or wood and bang the stones or pieces of wood against each other at the mention of המן's name during קריאת המגילה so that המן's name would thereby be erased [1]. From this the custom developed to bang at המן's name during קריאת המגילה not specifically on stones or wood, but rather just in general.

An additional reason was suggested by the חת"ס [2] that we are commanded to erase עמלק's memory; but yet, his very memory is sustained so many times in every place where his name is mentioned just in מגילת אסתר alone; not only that, but even after the Final Redemption, פורים will remain [3], so ultimately עמלק's memory is never fully erased. To this end, we bang and make noise to show that we do not want to hear the name עמלק.

חכמת שלמה (או"ח שם) says that normally we do not curse a king whose name is mentioned in a פסוק if, in that פסוק, the king is still alive. To this end, רב ברכיה [4], upon reading אשר הגלה נבוכדנצר, would say נבוכדנצר שחיק עצמות (pathetic bones), because this is the only place where נבוכדנצר is mentioned as deceased. המן, on the other hand, being a commoner, we can curse at any mention of his name. Now, in practice, to say שם רשעים ירקב (the name of evildoers should rot) in middle of קריאת המגילה would be a הפסק (see שער הציון או"ח שם), so instead we bang.

טעמי המנהגים (תתעו) adds that where we curse המן or we mention his name and bang, הקב"ה makes them feel the bangs so that they receive great pain because every Jew in history following המן has, in a sense, experienced נס פורים themselves. Had המן been successful ר"ל we wouldn't exist in the world, therefore all who are born after המן's downfall must pain him, so הקב"ה makes sure that המן feels the banging that we do at the mention of his name during קריאת המגילה.

2

Some communities have an established custom specifically not to bang at the mention of המן's name.

One reason is because banging can cause confusion of where the בעל קריאה left off, where he is continuing from, etc. [5]

Another reason not to bang is because pausing for more than a breath is a הפסק [6].

An additional reason not to bang is טורח הציבור [7].

Here is a summary of the London ספרדי מנהג (copied from here):

Although it is a time honoured custom in many synagogues, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi, to make a noise during Megillah reading when Haman’s name is mentioned, and in some cases to be rather noisy and frivolous throughout the service, this has never been the case in S&P (ed. - Spanish & Portuguese) communities, where "gravidade" (ed. - gravitas) has always been an overarching value.

(ed. - ironically, one of the first innovations of the Hamburg Reform Temple שר"י was doing away with banging by המן, as they considered doing so to be un-decorous. They may have borrowed this idea from the Spanish-Portuguese custom, albeit for the wrong reasons. Indeed, perhaps in part as a response to Reform innovations ר"ל, KAJ is מקפיד to bang, and not only by המן but by זרש as well [8])

[1] based on שם רשעים ירקב (משלי י:ז) and מחה אמחה את זכר עמלק (שמות יז:יד). See also לבוש (או"ח שם) and מטה משה (סי' תתרו) where other reasons are suggested על דרך הרמז

[2] שו"ת מילי דאבות חלק ג סי' יג

[3] The status of ימים טובים בזמן הגאולה is beyond the scope of this discussion, but all seem to agree that פורים will still be observed.

[4] ירושלמי סוף פ"ק דמגילה

[5] פרי מגדים או"ח שם ס"ק כא

[6] שם ע"פ מ"א שם ס"ק יז

[7] In Telz there is a הקפדה to finish banging quickly for this reason. (מנהגי ישיבת טלז, ליל פורים)

[8] entire paragraph based on conversations with Mendy Meyer and ישראל Strauss. Perhaps the decision to bang for המן and זרש specifically is due to their specific mention by name in אשר הניא (the פיוט that many congregations say/sing following קריאת המגילה). Banging by המן and זרש would seem to predate Reform as the custom is already discussed by early אחרונים; the specific הקפדה and insistence on adhering to this מנהג may be, in part, a response to Reform.

שלחן הטהור על אודות מקור המנהג של ברכת כהנים רק ביו"ט

1

שלחן הטהור (או"ח קכז:ג) says that the מנהג is פשוט by all אשכנזים, our ancestors and their ancestors, that there is no ברכת כהנים except on יו"ט.

This מנהג (says שלחן הטהור) was established by נביאים (his language) namely

רבינו שמואל הנביא, ר שמעון הגדול, ר יהודה החסיד and רבינו אלעזר הרוקח, the smallest among whom could revive the dead.

Since this מנהג was instituted by שרפים וחיות הקודש, how can anyone of a later generation be able to stop the מנהג?! This is nothing but insanity! And particularly since the בעל שם טוב didn't change this מנהג and whoever changes the status quo has the lower hand and we will go 'בשם ה!

2

The first problem with the שלחן הטהור is that it reports a historical phenomenon which involved people that lived centuries prior, without bringing any source for this claim. If this מנהג indeed originates where שלחן הטהור says it did, why is he the first one to say so?

Even were this to be true, that the אשכנזי מנהג was established by 'ר יהודה החסיד וכו, from whence do they derive the authority to uproot a מצות עשה?

3

Additionally, the בעל שם טוב is not known for changing מנהגים to be more in line with the strict הלכה, so the fact that he did not change this מנהג should not, seemingly, significantly change anything.

4

All the above being said, to change a practice of questionable origin and legitimacy would not seem to be insane at all, as the שלחן הטהור says doing so would be, but rather, indeed, a praiseworthy and legitimate effort. [1]

[1] We have mentioned previously that גדולים of previous generations attempted to reinstate daily ברכת כהנים were seemingly punished for doing so. This phenomenon indeed raises a thorny theological problem, namely, why would one be punished for attempting to perform a מצוה properly. This point will בעז"ה be addressed in a future post.

הנהגה מעניינת לגבי אכילת פירות בטו בשבט

ר יוסף צבי Dunner, רב of the התאחדות קהילות החרדים in England, used to eat 15 types of fruit on טו בשבט.

After each fruit he would say one of the 15 שיר המעלות, because דוד המלך wrote them (:סוכה נג and see רשי there) to raise the waters of the underground תהום by 15,000 אמות.

דוד המלך's intention was that as those waters would ascend to be closer to the ground, the world would moisten and the earth would give forth its fruit.

The 15 שיר המעלות had the unique ability to raise the underground waters of the תהום to hydrate the earth, through which fruits grow. This is why there was a מנהג to say these 15 מזמורים on טו בשבט, which is the ראש השנה for trees.

Adapted from מנהגי מהריץ הלוי (מועדים, חודש שבט, אות ו הע' י), written by his grandson זאב Dunner (מכון להוצאת ספרי מסורת אשכנז, בני ברק תשעו)

מנהג האכלת עופות - שבת שירה

Here is a link to a שיעור on the topic of feeding the birds on שבת שירה given by ר נחום Scheiner at his כולל בוקר in בית מדרש אור חיים:

https://www.18forshay.com/sermons/putting-out-crumbs-for-the-birds-on-shabbos-shira/