Introduction
Some claim that the reason why those who tried to reinstate daily ברכת כהנים were stopped משמים from doing so was because they tried to change a מנהג, which is inherently wrong, as מנהגים are never supposed to be changed, period.
We countered that there are numerous places throughout halachic literature where פוסקים say to change or stop a given מנהג. The response to that was that it is one thing to write in a ספר that a מנהג should be changed or stopped; it is quite another to actually go about proactively changing it. Meaning, to write in a ספר to change a מנהג is fine; whereas to actually heed the ספר's words is wrong.
There are two problems with this response: one, that this relegates the דברי הפוסקים to being להלכה ולא למעשה, a bold assertion that doesn't make sense at its face, as this is not what they say; second, it suggests that פוסקים are not to be considered the guides and determinants of our religious behavior, but rather that they are to be ignored where they decide that what people do is wrong - in other words, פוסקים are very nice and all, but if they actually tell me to do something different than what I have always been doing until now (after all, I can't be - gasp - wrong) then we are religiously duty-bound to disregard them. [1]
However, with all that being said, we still attempted to provide instances, throughout halachic history, of where מנהגים were changed, using the מנהגים of ישיבה תורה ודעת as an excellent sample case of a set of מנהגים undergoing multiple changes throughout its century-long history. We did so just in the interest of thoroughness.
But apparently this was not enough, as some countered that perhaps ישיבה תורה ודעת is an exception in this regard being that their מנהגים, as a category, were fluid to begin with; and that, normally, changing a מנהג would never be tolerated.
To this end, we present of a number of other instances, throughout halachic history, of where מנהגים were changed. We focus particularly (though not exclusively) on communities whose מנהגים are, generally speaking, fixed and unchanging.
1
There was, at one point, a מנהג to stand trees in shul on שבועות, in honor of the fact that שבועות is the יום הדין for tree fruits. (This is in contradistinction to the מנהג of decorating shuls with flowers and grasses which I hope to discuss at another opportunity.) The גרא stopped this מנהג because it resembled how gentiles celebrate some of their festivals. [2]
2
The אריזל made many changes to the text of תפלה (whether directly or through the influence of his teachings and students; many of these changes are absent in the Spanish-Portuguese rite: see here). Being that he was ספרדי, the text with which he was working was the basic ספרדי text. To this end, the early Chassidic Masters, who were working with נוסח אשכנז as a base text, created נוסח ספרד/נוסח ארי to move נוסח אשכנז closer in line to the אריזל's Kabbalistic teachings. [3]
3
The old מנהג אשכנז did not include יזכור. R Samson Raphael Hirsch introduced its recitation on יו"כ. Following the Holocaust, Rav Joseph Breuer instituted the saying of יזכור on יו"ט as well. [4]
4
It used to be common for Western European clergy to wear clerical robes. (These are still universally worn by Spanish-Portuguese clergy.) This was done in Frankfurt by R Hirsch as well. In America, however, clerical garb is largely unknown. As such, no clergy in the Kehilloh have worn them since its transplantation to these shores. [4]
5
Originally, אנעים זמירות was sung at Congregation Shomrei Torah at the end of the שבת and יו"ט davening, followed by שיר של יום. This was changed to follow חזרת השץ of שחרית, because, as a result of its being positioned at the conclusion of the davening, people would not be taking that section of davening seriously; rather, they were already folding up their טליתים and one foot out the door to the קידוש. Once that section of the service was repositioned to an earlier point in the order of services, it could then be performed decorously, as it should be.
6
There is an old Spanish-Portuguese מנהג to say an abridged form of סליחות immediately following מעריב during the High Holyday season, in addition to those that are said in the morning. This מנהג has recently been discontinued in London, as part of an effort to bring the community more in line with קבלה-observant communities, who object to saying סליחות before midnight, before which is not considered to be an עת רצון [5].
7
There was an oral tradition in the London ספרדי community that the High Holyday קדיש is sung only on the first night (and both days) of ראש השנה, but not the second night. This is probably due to some important Minister (rabbi/Hazzan) having forgotten to sing it on the second night one year, as there is no inherent logical reason for the מנהג to be such. (Indeed in other Spanish-Portuguese communities the High Holyday קדיש is sung on both nights.) During R Jonathan Cohen's time as Visiting Rabbi of Bevis Marks, he was particular to sing the High Holyday קדיש on the second night as well, thereby changing the then-current מנהג (which didn't make sense) to reinstate (what was presumably) the old מנהג (which made sense). [6]
8
Many ספרדי congregations had a מנהג to sing פיוטים between ישתבח and the חצי קדיש before ברכו on ר"ה. In many Eastern as well as ירושלמי congregations these have been moved, based on the פסק of חכם עובדיה יוסף, to follow חזרת השץ of שחרית, so as not to interrupt the halachic flow of the תפלה [6].
9
About 10 years ago, ר אהרן Schechter instituted in Chaim Berlin that the גבאי should wear a טלית during קריאת התורה (if he wasn't wearing one already) [7].
10
The old מנהג in Chaim Berlin was that מוסף on שמחת תורה took place immediately following שחרית. Everyone would then go home for their סעודת יו"ט, only to return for מנחה גדולה followed by הקפות. R Shloima Halioua changed the procedure to be that a קידוש is offered immediately following שחרית, which would then be followed by הקפות and מוסף.
מנחה would then take place later in the afternoon, closer to שקיעה, followed by נעילת החג and מעריב [8].
11
שחרית on שבת in Chaim Berlin used to take place at 8:30. ר אהרן Schechter, in consultation with a few VIPs, changed it to 8:00, thereby (nearly always) making the earlier סוף זמן קריאת שמע [9].
12
There is a חצי קדיש before מוסף. This חצי קדיש 'belongs' to the אשרי preceding it. With the exception of the texts that are said/sung as the ספר תורה is being returned to the ארון, all else would be deemed a הפסק. To this end, where R Joseph Hirsch Dunner became a rabbi in Koenigsberg he changed the מנהג to be that wherever he spoke (which was not every week but rather only on special occasions) the ספר תורה would be returned to the ארון, he would speak, followed by אשרי and חצי קדיש, as opposed to speaking between the ספר תורה being returned to the ארון and חצי קדיש, which would seem to have been the practice of the previous rabbis. [10]
13
There was one year where R Hirsch, as a rabbi in Oldenburg, canceled כל נדרי (!). The reason for this was because he felt that, as a result of a very superficial understanding of כל נדרי on the part of the populace, people were taking their promises very lightly. To this end, he canceled its recitation one year, to emphasize the point that one's word is not to be taken lightly and that all the כל נדרי in the world cannot undo a solemn promise. [11]
14
R Hirsch, upon taking the helm of Khal Adath Jeshurun (which was a reincarnation of the old Frankfurt Kehilloh that had been usurped by Reform), made a number of changes from the מנהגים of the old Kehilloh, such as the introduction of a choir, and the recitation of קבלת שבת by the entire congregation instead of by only a small group known as the חברה מקבלי שבת [11].
15
Congregation Shearith Israel used to hang their מנורה (or חנוכיה in its proper title) in a box on the wall, which is the way it was done in ספרדי homes and synagogues for centuries. In 2005, renovations were done to their building, and it was decided that the חנוכיה should thereon be set up on a table, so as to avoid a fire hazard, as well as a potentiality of the walls being dirtied. [12]
16
I do not consider myself to be the dust of the feet of our great Rabbinical Leaders, but, in my own shul, I used to sing יציב פתגם in middle of the הפטורה on the second day of שבועות. Last year I became aware that this is a הפסק, to which end I changed the מנהג to be that יציב פתגם is sung after the עולה is called for מפטיר.
Conclusion
We have brought a number of examples above of where מנהגים were proactively changed, from top-down, by halachic authorities (or as a result of their halachic rulings). This goes to show changing a מנהג is not, as a concept, foreign to the halachic process.
Additionally, in none of these instances (as far as I am aware) did any tragedy occur as a result of the מנהג being changed. This being the case, it does not make sense to say that those who attempted to reinstate daily ברכת כהנים were stopped because they changed a מנהג. This cannot be what it is תלוי on, if not all who change מנהגים are stopped from doing so. Rather, there must be some other factor involved.
We will discuss other approaches to this problem in future articles בעז"ה.
Postscript
Aside from all the aforementioned precedents, it only makes sense that there should be some mechanism to alter what is viewed by rabbinic (and other) authorities as a practice that is incorrect, obsolete, or needing of improvement. It is unconscionable to the rational mind that people should be assumed to have perfect halachic behavior being, as they are, imperfect. This being the case, there must be some device to be able to change normative halachic practice, else we may end up mistakenly doing everything that is objectively wrong without any way to know so.
Some may posit a live-and-let-live, laissez-faire approach of letting people just keep doing whatever they were doing until now for fear of upsetting the status quo by introducing change. If we take this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, then כל תורת משה כולה בטלה - the entire Torah ends up being irrelevant as there becomes no objectively correct or incorrect way of doing things according to the Will of the Almighty. The Torah mind considers that possibility to be unfathomable. [13]
[1] The only exception that may possibly be made is for Western European (both אשכנזי and ספרדי) Jews who have set tradition systems that were meticulously preserved for many generations, such that (some of) those traditions long predate the acceptance of the שולחן ערוך. As such, they may be entitled to contravene halachic principles where they have a specific tradition indicating otherwise, this being included in the מחבר's clause (see the הקדמה to בית יוסף) that his פסקים (and, by extension, those of the רמא and נושאי כלים) are not intended to be binding upon those who have a preexisting tradition. (Truth to be told, however, even in those communities there are instances of מנהגים being changed, some of which are documented here.)
For all the rest of us mere mortals, however, who do not necessarily have iron-strong traditions in matters of religious behavior - we are religiously duty-bound to follow הלכה as expressed by those who possess the most expertise in הלכה - even if we are told by those experts that our halachic behavior needs to be improved.
[2] מ"ב תצד:י
The גרא seems to assume that a practice can become אסור if adopted by gentiles for idolatrous purposes, even where we had it first. This שיטה is deserving of a fuller discussion which is beyond the scope of this article.
[3] See שו"ת חתם סופר או"ח סי כד-כה
[4] heard from Breuer's מתפללים
Normally the instituting of a new מנהג where no such מנהג existed previously would not fall under the category of changing a מנהג; in fact, the creation of a new מנהג would be lauded by those who are disinclined towards changing מנהגים. In Breuer's, however, the lack of a מנהג to say יזכור is actually a definite מנהג not to say יזכור, so, in effect, Rav Breuer was indeed changing the מנהג.
[5] https://sites.google.com/site/londonsephardiminhag/kabbalah-not
[6] https://sites.google.com/site/londonsephardimusic/rosh-hashanna; see שו"ת יחוה דעת חלק ב סי' יז
[7] While the institution of a new מנהג would not typically be included in this list - in Chaim Berlin, however (as in Breuer's - to which they have cultural similarities that I may, perhaps, discuss at a different point), the lack of a מנהג to do something is indication of a מנהג not to do something. For example, if, until that point, there was no מנהג that the גבאי should wear a טלית - this means that the מנהג was for the גבאי to not wear a טלית.
[8] This author was learning in the yeshiva at the time this change was made.
[9] As heard by this author from ר חיים Kitevits, a מגיד שיעור in the yeshiva
[10] מנהגי מהריץ הלוי - שבת פרק יז אות ב ועיי' בדינרי זהב שם. This example is especially valuable in that R Dunner was overturning the practice of the rabbis who came before him. Ordinarily, the הנהגה of learned individuals has significant value in determining correct halachic behavior; here, however, it seems that said הנהגה contravenes an explicit, clear halachic principle, in which case precedent seems to have had limited halachic bearing.
[11] Klugmann, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (ArtScroll, 1996) pg. 303-307
[12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-6URsi2T1Q, especially about 34:00
[13] This point is eloquently expressed by R Hirsch in his Collected Writings VI pgs. 35-36: "The Torah is a Law, a fiery Law, intended to permeate, inspire, enlighten, warm and shape every aspect of our existence, to penetrate every facet of our lives. No aspect of life, not even a moment of our activities, can do without it...We must let the Torah place its imprint on all our actions, shine as the diadem upon our heads, and we must adopt it as the motto of every aspect of our lives, private and public." See there at length.
