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.