שינוי מנהגים

Introduction

In a previous post, we discussed attempts to reinstate daily ברכת כהנים among אשכנזים in חו"ל, which all ended in terrible tragedy. [1] We left off with a צ"ע as to why this was, indeed, the case.

In my discussions of this point, some suggested that there is an איסור to change מנהגים whatsoever, anywhere, in any context, under any circumstances; this איסור being so severe, that catastrophes occur to those who try.

However, some of the halachic literature indicates that not all מנהגים are created equal: some are instituted by חכמי הדור as methods of preserving מסורת ההלכה; some, on the other hand, would seem to be a form of popular practice that may have taken too strong of a hold in the popular mind for חכמי הדור to successfully protest against - perhaps to the point where later חכמים will attempt to justify the popular practice after the fact, at times using weak halachic reasoning to do so.

From our research it appears that the אשכנזי practice of performing ברכת כהנים only on יו"ט fits into the latter category: as we have shown throughout this series, the origins of this practice are murky, and the halachic basis and support for maintaining it is problematic (see here, here, here, here, and here). Such being the case, there should, logically, be little (halachic) barrier for reinstating the performance of a מצות עשה.

Yet, with all that being said, those who tried to, indeed, do so failed terribly. Our goal here is to show that transgression of an איסור against changing מנהגים is not the reason, because there are numerous places in הלכה where פוסקים say to change or cancel a מנהג that they believe is wrong or needs improvement. (Some will say that it is one thing to write in a ספר "I don't agree with this" while actually going about proactively changing the status quo, בקום ועשה, is a step too far. If so, what is the point of writing such a language as יש לבטל המנהג or the like, if, indeed, actually being מבטל said מנהג is wrong; -?- essentially this would mean that one should only be מבטל the מנהג in theory, but not in practice, in which case, why bother making such a statement to begin with? Such a line of reasoning would relegate the דברי הפוסקים to the realm of להלכה ולא למעשה, which is not entirely logical.)

We will bring, here, a few examples of where פוסקים are critical of, decide to change, or stop a particular מנהג.

1

There were some places that inserted קרובץ [2] liturgical poems into ברכות קריאת שמע on שבת and other such special occasions. The טור,[3] רמה, [4] the ראש [3] the מחבר [5] and the שו"ע הרב [3] all say better to not say קרובץ as such would constitute a הפסק [6].

2

Before the widespread use of electric lights, a shul would often darken in the evenings. This presented a problem on יו"כ, where the congregation would be davening נעילה and they would not be able to read the פיוטים in the מחזור (which would only be said once a year, so memorizing them would be difficult, and, at the same time, it is too dark to read from inside the מחזור), a problem that presents itself uniquely on יו"כ. To this end, many shuls would have a gentile light the candles that would have gone out. קש"ע [7] and מ"ב [8] both say to stop this practice, suggesting that instead the gentile should strategically scatter the remaining lit candles throughout the shul, which would only involve שבות דשבות [9].

3

Some communities used to have a custom that the entire congregation reads the הפטורה out loud. ביאור הלכה [10] says this practice is wrong and should be changed, as it stems from lack of knowledge. Rather (and this is what I've seen in nearly every shul I have ever encountered), the בעל קריאה reads the הפטורה out loud and the congregation reads it with him, in a whisper.

4

This is not the place to provide a detailed introduction to הלכות טריפות, but briefly, animals that have lesions on their lungs which would cause said animals not to be able to live out the year are considered treif. To this end, there is an obligation to check the lung of an animal for said lesions. This is generally done today by trained בודקים working in kosher slaughterhouses.

Now, there are cases where בודקים are מחמיר, even against the strict הלכה; in many instances this would have been instituted by the חכמים of a particular locale, and should be maintained. However, where it is proven that those חכמים were mistaken, the מנהג should be stopped.

[11]

5

There were places where Jews were not allowed to shecht without saying Allah hu Akbar (G-d is all-powerful - Arabic) immediately preceding the  כף החיים .[12] שחיטה says to try stopping the מנהג because it seems like חוקות הגוים; similarly, to shecht facing a ציילעם or other idolatrous symbol is likewise problematic. [13]

6

There is a דין to perform ברכת כהנים at נעילה, assuming that the חזן reaches ברכת כהנים while there is still daylight. Some communities were not careful to ascertain that the sun did not yet set, rather they performed ברכת כהנים regardless. באר היטב [14] says to stop this מנהג.

7

In general (and I hope to discuss this point further in a full treatment בעז"ה of the definition of מנהג שטות and/or מנהג טעות and/or מנהג גרוע) a מנהג is only considered a מנהג if it has a source on which to rely; otherwise, a popular practice does not necessarily have the status of a full-fledged [15] מנהג. 

Additionally, if a מנהג has a trace of איסור, without having what to rely on to violate said איסור, such a מנהג should certainly be stopped forcefully, disregarding those unsophisticated claims that we must always do exactly as our ancestors did, in every context. [16]

As we have shown, only performing ברכת כהנים by מוסף on יו"ט has no fully legitimately backed up source (meaning, every source brought in support of this practice has significant halachic difficulties), so, to this end, there should seemingly be nothing wrong with restoring the מצוה to its former glory.

Conclusion

We have demonstrated throughout this series that there is no fully halachically workable reason not to perform ברכת כהנים daily. Yet, this is not the practice of אשכנזים in (most of [1]) חו"ל. Those who have attempted to remedy this situation have gotten into significant trouble as a result. We have shown in this article that the reason for this puzzling phenomenon cannot be that changing מנהגים is a capital sin, because, by halachic criteria of a valid [17] מנהג, this (only performing ברכת כהנים on יו"ט) should not count.

There are some other avenues we can pursue to find an answer. I hope to address those in future post(s) בעז"ה.

There is also a תשובה of the ראש [18], as well as a תשובה of the מהריק (שרש יח) that discusses the "rules" of מנהגים, namely which should be maintained versus which should be stopped, which we will אי"ה discuss in a future post of this series.

Appendix

1

In the interest of thoroughness, I plan to write a post in the future, collecting instances throughout halachic history where מנהגים were indeed changed (not organically, on their own, but rather purposely, by design).

2

This point is not directly relevant to our discussion, but a מנהג is also allowed to be changed for the sake of peace [19]; another example of an instance where there is such a concept as changing a מנהג. (As an aside, if a מנהג can be changed for the sake of peace, how much more so should a מנהג be changed if said מנהג involves ביטול עשה! -?-)

3

Anyone who has access to senior תלמידי חכמים that may have a valid response to my query, namely, why those who tried to reinstate daily ברכת כהנים seem to have been punished, should please let me know. I will be happy to provide any מראי מקומות etc. needed.

[1] I have since discovered that there is an אשכנזי shul in Dubai (see here) which performs ברכת כהנים daily. I am not aware that any catastrophe befell them as a result. בעז"ה I hope to get in touch with the rabbinic authorities there and discuss this matter with them. Any leads as to the identity and contact of the aforementioned will be appreciated.

[2] an acronym for קול רנה וישועה באהלי צדיקים (ב"י שם); see also מקור חסד (footnotes to מוסד הרב קוק edition of ספר חסידים) סי' קיד הע' ג for alternate explanations

[3] או"ח סח:א

[4] מובא שם

[5] שם

[6] The בח there asks how the 'טור וכו can stop a מנהג that רבי אלעזר הקליר, the ראבד and רבינו תם instituted. -?- The בח answers that רבי אלעזר הקליר didn't establish that קרובץ should be said except by those who were able to appreciate the content of קרובץ; but once the generations worsened and people interrupt davening just to engage in idle chatter about nothing particularly appropriate or important - therefore even רבי אלעזר הקליר would agree to stop them.

The בח, however, continues to say that this is only to answer for the טור; but חלילה to actually listen to the טור! There was even someone in our generation (says the בח) that began stopping קרובץ and didn't finish out the year.

This may be, at first glance, a proof that there is an איסור חמור against changing מנהגים; however, קרובץ was instituted by חכמי המסורה, and there is, at the very least, significant halachic grounds to maintain saying them, as the בח continues to explain there (see also לבוש there), whereas only performing ברכת כהנים on יו"ט was not clearly established by anyone, and the halachic grounds for maintaining the practice are very difficult to understand. This is also apparent from the ערוה"ש (שם סעיף ד) who says that someone who stops a פיוט gets punished, not that someone who changes a מנהג gets punished. We will בעז"ה further delineate the difference between stopping a פיוט (in particular) and changing a מנהג (in general) in a future post.

(Some may make a קל וחומר that if changing a פיוט is a capital offense בדיני שמים, surely reinstating daily ברכת כהנים, a much more significant change to the liturgy, would certainly be a capital offense בדיני שמים! However, significance in change to liturgy or not should, logically speaking, be irrelevant: if anything, אדרבה, what should, logically, determine the desirability of an action is not whether or not said action involves a change of the status quo, but rather, its inherent value or lack thereof. To this end, excising portions of liturgy that were placed there by חכמים קדמונים may have negative value; whereas reinstating the proper performance of a מצות עשה should, logically, have positive value.)

[7] קלג:כה

[8] תרכג:ג וכ"כ בכף החיים או"ח שם יג:א

[9] This is not the place for a full explanation, but briefly, שבות is a term for an איסור-מלאכה דרבנן. Instructing the gentile to light candles is a שבות of אמירה לעכום; whereas instructing a gentile to move candles that are already lit is a שבות דשבות, because for a Jew to move already-lit candles is a שבות of moving מוקצה. Telling a gentile to move already-lit candles is a שבות of אמירה לעכום to do another שבות of moving מוקצה. This is referred to in הלכה as a שבות דשבות, which, for a מצוה, is allowed.

[10] רפד:ה:א וע"ע קש"ע עט:ה

[11] כף החיים יו"ד לט:יט:א

[12] שם יט:לח

[13] שם ד:נה:א

[14] או"ח תרכג:ג

[15] This should be common sense, but for those who desire a footnoted reference see חוט שני שם ס"ק י 

[16] פלא יועץ - ערך מנהג

[17] To clarify, by valid I do not mean after the fact: in practice, the many communities that only perform ברכת כהנים on יו"ט have on whom to rely, in terms of the fact that many פוסקים (try to) offer justification therefor, and we cannot say it is אסור to rely on them. What I mean here is that, in the abstract, were there not to be such a מנהג in the first place, there would be little halachic justification to establish it to begin with.

[18] נה:י

[19] בנין ציון קכב:ב