'לקט קצת מנהגי ימים נוראים - ג

A collection of various points related to the ימי הרחמים והרצון הבאים עלינו לטובה:

1

Today we will discuss a peculiar but sensible מנהג of ישיבה תורה ודעת [1] that the בעל תפלה sits for היה עם פיפיות שלוחי עמך ישראל (following עלינו in the חזרת השץ of מוסף) and a member of the congregation rises and says (or sings) the פיוט (until ואתה תשמע מן השמים) following which the בעל תפלה takes back over.

I have not seen this practiced elsewhere; however, considering the very content of this פיוט, namely a תפלה on behalf of שלוחי ציבור worldwide (and also considering that the בעל תפלה could use a well-deserved break), this indeed makes much sense and would seem to be very appropriate.

2

We mentioned last year that the תקיעות before מוסף are referred to in the halachic literature as תקיעות דמיושב (sitting תקיעות) while the תקיעות during מוסף are referred to as דמעומד (standing תקיעות). Perhaps readers will enlighten me, but I am not aware of any community that actually sits during תקיעות דמיושב. If so, why are they referred to as מיושב in the first place?

חיי אדם [2] explains that the main תקיעות are the ones that take place during מוסף. Once חזל instituted תקיעות before מוסף - which are referred to as מיושב because the congregation is still sitting as they have not yet stood up for מוסף - in order to confuse the שטן [3], so then they also instituted that these תקיעות should be done properly, with ברכות etc. - as a result of which we end up technically fulfilling our obligation with those תקיעות, so therefore we stand for those as well.

2.2

Mendy Meyer shared with me that during the תקיעות דמעומד in Breuer's the מקריא announces שברים and תרועה separately, thereby giving the תוקע a short breath. Zachary Edinger (shamash at Shearith Israel) noted that this is the Spanish-Portuguese מנהג as well. This is another interesting crossover between Western אשכנזים and Western ספרדים (a topic that I hope to explore in greater depth in the future).

[1] מנהגי ישיבה תורה ודעת, ראש השנה אות לח, וראה גם שם יום כפור אות כ. The same arrangement is practiced for ויאתיו; it is not clear to me what the specific connection is between the two פיוטים that would cause such a מנהג to be established.

[2] שבת ומועדים כלל קמב אות יז

[3] This is accomplished as follows: we do not want the שטן to prosecute us while we blow שופר during מוסף. Evidently, he thinks that this is the only time we blow; so, where he suddenly hears us blowing before מוסף - he thinks משיח must have arrived - after all, why else would we blow שופר before מוסף?! - at which point his job is finished and הקב"ה will eliminate him. (How and why the שטן hasn't caught on to our trick after so many years is beyond me - but, if חזל say the trick works, then so be it.)

The תקיעות before מוסף are still referred to as מיושב because, theoretically, one can decide to fulfill their obligation with תקיעות דמעומד exclusively, in which case they have the (theoretical) option to sit for תקיעות דמיושב. (See מ"ב תקפה:ב)

גדר מנהג מבטל הלכה

We have shown previously in this series that even though there is no fully legitimate reason not to do ברכת כהנים daily in חו"ל (or anywhere for that matter) - still, those who attempted to do so were stopped from Heaven. The question begs itself to be asked: why would great people be stopped by Heaven from doing what הלכה demands of them?

Some have suggested that perhaps this was not the right thing to do in the first place: after all, there is a principle that מנהג מבטל הלכה. -?-

In this article we will address where the aforementioned principle applies or doesn't apply, and, in the process, we will see whether it applies here or not.

1

To begin with, a Sefaria search indicates that the overwhelming majority of halachic sources that apply this principle - do so in relation to monetary matters, which are beyond the purview of this forum. This would indicate, however, that monetary matters are the primary area in which מנהג is מבטל הלכה to begin with. There are only a handful of instances where מנהג מבטל הלכה comes up in the halachic literature relating to איסור והתר. We will delineate each of them here, one by one.

2

One of the earliest sources to mention מנהג מבטל הלכה is מסכת סופרים [1], where this principle is immediately qualified by saying that "a מנהג which can be מבטל הלכה is only such a מנהג that was established by ותיקים; but a מנהג that has no proof from the תורה is not a מנהג but rather a mistake in judgment". This qualification is also codified as פסק הלכה by the מהריק (see here).

3

A full treatment of the issue is beyond the scope of this article, but אבודרהם [2] has a discussion whether or not to say ברוך ה לעולם between שומר עמו ישראל לעד and חצי קדיש in a weeknight מעריב, due to a concern of needing to juxtapose גאולה to תפלה, and ברוך ה לעולם being an interruption thereto. He concludes that "our ancestors have already accustomed themselves to saying it - and their מנהג is תורה - as we say that מנהג is מבטל הלכה".

One must observe, however, that halachic justification is offered there to do so, in that ברוך ה לעולם is תפלה, by virtue of its containing many theoretical components of שמונה עשרה. Indeed, this reasoning seems to have been adopted universally among אשכנזים (with the notable exception of the גרא and - ironically - the בעל התניא who deleted it from their respective סדורים).

4

The מאירי [3] says that מנהג is only מבטל הלכה where הלכה is מקיל and מנהג is מחמיר, or where מנהג is מקיל where there is no איסור; but if a מנהג is מקיל where there is an איסור - we don't listen to the מנהג.

Conclusion

מנהג מבטל הלכה is a halachic principle that, like many halachic principles, is not a blanket statement - that מנהג is ALWAYS מבטל הלכה - but rather, applies in some places and not in others - as in מנהג is sometimes מבטל הלכה.

Where, indeed, מנהג is מבטל הלכה is 1) in (some) monetary matters  - the details of where it does or not in this regard being beyond the scope of this forum, 2) for איסור והתר - where established by ותיקים and - where there is a מחלוקת as to what the הלכה should be, or the מנהג is more מחמיר than the strict הלכה, or where מנהג is מקיל שלא במקום איסור [4].

In addition to all that has been said so far, none of the classical פוסקים, in discussing this סוגיא, invoke מנהג מבטל הלכה at all. I would be hesitant to apply a halachic principle to a particular situation where none of the earlier פוסקים have done so.

[1] יד:יח

[2] סדר התפלות לחול - ערבית

[3] .ראש השנה טז

[4] Not to do ברכת כהנים every day is not a קולא but rather a חומרא: the פוסקים who offer reasons why not to - for example, the כהנים cannot טובל, or they are not מיוחס, or we are not happy enough, or it is a טורח הציבור that causes people to lose work etc., - all offer reasons for an איסור rather than a פטור.

Instances, throughout halachic history, of where מנהגים were changed

Introduction

We have shown at length that there is no fully legitimate reason not to perform ברכת כהנים daily. Yet, those who have tried to so so have (largely) been met with Heavenly opposition.

This begs an explanation: why would Heaven be opposed to the proper performance of a מצוה?

Some have suggested that the reason for this is that it is אסור and wrong to change a מנהג, no matter what the reasoning or the circumstances.

We have already shown that, at least in theory, this is not the case at all. Rather, there are numerous places throughout halachic literature where פוסקים write יש לבטל המנהג or refer to a given מנהג as wrong, bad, mistaken or the like.

Still, there are those who have responded that writing יש לבטל המנהג is not the same as actually being מבטל a מנהג in practice.

This argument makes very little sense at its face: what is the point of writing a דין in a הלכה ספר that is purely theoretical?

Even so, in the interest of thoroughness, we will present here a number of instances throughout halachic history where a מנהג was להדיא proactively changed.

We will use the מנהגים of ישיבה תורה ודעת (published by the ישיבה as מנהגי ישיבה תורה ודעת in תשעח) as a case in point.

1

To begin with, in spite of the (מהריל (שחרית יו"כ אות יא who warns against changing מנהגים without good reason, [1] the way of the ישיבה was always to change and add things. The explanation for this is as follows:

Most of the ישיבה's founders were of Galician extraction, particularly שינאווער חסידים. Most of the ראשי הישיבה, on the other hand, were of Litvishe extraction, and they were מקפיד to change certain things, and, in deference to their stature, ר שרגא פייוועל Mendlowitz allowed to change certain things. For example, where ר שלמה Heiman joined the ישיבה, he was מקפיד to say שמע with its ברכות before סוף זמן קריאת שמע on שבת, whereas ר שרגא פייוועל was not willing to give up a heartfelt, excited פסוקי דזמרה, so he agreed to begin שבת morning davening at 6:45(!).

2

ר שרגא פייוועל instituted that תחנון should not be said on יט כסלו, in recognition of the מעזריטשער מגיד's יאהרצייט.

ר יעקב Kamenetsky instituted that it should be said. Rav Quinn reinstated the old מנהג not to. [2]

3

The original מנהג was to start אשרי and קריאת התורה by מנחה on a תענית even before the earliest time to daven מנחה - the only קפידא being not to start שמונה עשרה too early - until Rav Savitsky, with the agreement of Rav Pam, instituted to wait until the earliest time to daven מנחה even [3] for אשרי.

4

The original מנהג was that whoever opens the ארון to take out the ספר תורה also closes the ארון. Rav Quinn instituted that the גבאי should close the ארון, to [4] avoid טורח הציבור.

Where two ספרי תורה are taken out, two individuals are honored: one opens the ארון and gives the ספר תורה to the חזן, and one takes out the second ספר תורה, and the גבאי closes the ארון, for the same reason, namely, to avoid טורח הציבור.

Similarly, at the end of קריאת התורה the גבאי makes a מי שברך for sick people, while the other גבאי makes a מי שברך for whoever received an עליה [5], both finishing around the same time.

5

Rav Quinn instituted that the שליח ציבור says המלך on the ימים נוראים next to the עמוד and not at the עמוד itself. [6]

6

The old מנהג was that there was a קידוש provided by the ישיבה before תקיעת שופר. Rav Schorr stopped this מנהג where the ישיבה moved to its present location.

7

Rav Pam instituted to warn the ציבור not to sing מכלכל חיים out loud, not because of הפסק, but rather so that the entire ציבור should hear every word from the שץ [8].

8

There is a phrase in אבינו מלכנו asking Hashem to stop plague, sword, hunger, captivity, sin, destruction and persecution from affecting כלל ישראל. Where ר מאניס Mandel first led the davening in the ישיבה, he stretched this phrase. ר שרגא פייוועל signaled to finish it quickly, and from then on he always finished it quickly, so as not to emphasize these tragedies. [9]

Conclusion

We have shown a few examples of מנהגים being proactively changed throughout the history of ישיבה תורה ודעת. (There are more examples of where מנהגים changed organically or new מנהגים being instituted where there was no such מנהג previously, but these are not directly relevant to our point.)

As such, we have an example of a community that didn't mind having its מנהגים changed (at times more that once), without considering very strongly that changing מנהגים is improper.

At this point, some will respond that ישיבה תורה ודעת is an exception in this regard: in other communities, such would, rightfully, not be tolerated.

The first response is that we have already shown many instances of פוסקים saying that given מנהגים are incorrect, and to say that they all intended להלכה ולא למעשה is a significant stretch.

But, in the interest of perfect thoroughness, we will אי"ה present other instances throughout halachic history where מנהגים were proactively changed, just to show that there is no such איסור.

[1] הקדמה. Specifically, the מהריל was once a שליח ציבור on יו"כ in Regensburg, where רבינו אפרים of Bonn is buried. In רבינו אפרים's honor, the מהריל wanted to say אני אני המדבר, a סליחה written by רבינו אפרים for חזרת השץ of מוסף. The leaders of the community warned him that this was not the מנהג of their community, but the מהריל persisted anyway. His daughter soon died, and he pinned her death on his having changed the מנהג of the community.

Some will jump at this point over having hit paydirt, but there is no paydirt here: we cannot derive from this story that it is wrong to institute daily ברכת כהנים, as there are multiple significant differences between the two cases.

First, there was no halachic imperative to say אני אני המדבר, rather, the מהריל wanted to do so out of a sentiment of honoring its author who was buried in that city; perhaps a beautiful sentiment indeed, but it was not the community's מנהג, and he was told as much but yet persisted anyway.

ברכת כהנים, on the other hand, is a מצות עשה that is meant to be performed daily, and the reasons not to do so are highly problematic.

Besides, it is clear from all the פוסקים we have brought earlier in this series that this is not taken as a blanket rule that always applies everywhere, without exception: there are plenty of instances where פוסקים decided to change מנהגים, seemingly without being being bothered by any supposed איסור against doing so, which would seem to indicate that, like any halachic principle, there are places where it applies and places where it does not apply, and it is up to פוסקים to decide which principle to apply where. (In fact, the מהריל himself didn't seem to intend this to be a blanket rule, as he was not concerned to bang by המן.)

[2] פרק א אות יז

[3] ב:ח

[4] ג:יא

[5] ב:יב

[6] ז:יד

[7] ז:כז

[8] ז:ל

[9] ט:טז