חומר הענין של הוצאת לעז על הראשונים

1

In our previous article, we suggested (based on significant evidence) that those who tried to reinstate daily ברכת כהנים were stopped from שמים because they were מוציא לעז על הראשונים in the process. This means that by means of instituting ברכת כהנים on a daily basis, one thereby implies that their predecessors were willfully neglectful of their halachic obligation to do so themselves.

We will offer a more precise definition of הוצאת לעת על הראשונים in a future article אי"ה. What remains to be explained here, however, is why, indeed, is being מוציא לעז על הראשונים so severe as to warrant our continued neglect of (what would otherwise be) absolute halachic obligations. -?-

2

In the entry for חשד (suspicion), פלא יועץ exhorts its readers to, ideally, not eat anywhere outside their own homes, for fear of ending up eating something not kosher, or something that was warmed improperly on שבת or the like.

פלא יועץ warns, however, that not everyone is ראוי לכך to take on such a חומרא, as doing so would entail, among other problems, being מוציא לעז על הראשונים, in that taking on such a practice would seem to be insulting the previous generations who, by implication, were ח"ו not so punctilious about שמירת כשרות.

Now, one must keep in mind that פלא יועץ here is discussing a חומרא, meaning that, strictly speaking, there is a principle of עד אחד נאמן באיסורים, namely that one witness (even oneself) is qualified to testify with regards to matters of איסור והתר such as כשרות. This is the halachic mechanism which allows us to eat each other's food. To this end, we derive from here that, so long as there is what to rely on, it is better to keep to the strict הלכה without הידורים if said הידורים were to imply that the previous generations were neglectful of halachic strictures.

3

With regards to daily ברכת כהנים, there are many פוסקים to rely on to the effect that ברכת כהנים does and/or should not be performed daily, to which end it is better to continue relying on them (even where their halachic reasoning contains many logical and/or halachic difficulties) rather than to imply that the previous generations were neglectful of their religious obligations.

Similarly, there are opinions to rely on with regards to ruining a kosher טלית before burial, saying פיוטים where interrupting the תפלה would otherwise be problematic, and certainly for not inserting an extra פיוט into the liturgy against the established local custom [1]. To that end, it is better to continue relying on those opinions, even if their halachic reasoning is problematic, rather than to imply that the previous generations were neglecting what they were supposed to do.

Appendix

פלא יועץ does not, in fact, discourage people from not eating each other's food, rather only cautioning that doing so could potentially be מוציא לעז על הראשונים in the process. In fact, this entire הנהגה is referred to as a מדת חסידות that is not for everyone. The clear implication of that is that one for whom מדת חסידות, as a function of their overall religious piety, is appropriate, then not eating anyone else's food out of concern for lack of כשרות would then not be out of place.

With this we can explain how ר נתן Adler, who performed ברכת כהנים daily in his private בית מדרש, was not quite punished from Heaven but rather down here on Earth, in that he was placed into a חרם by the Frankfurt Kehilloh. This would perhaps be a result of the fact that he did not specifically intend to institute daily ברכת כהנים in the entire world but rather just in his own רשות היחיד. In fact, there could easily have been dozens of כהנים in Frankfurt at the time, yet we have no specific record (to my knowledge) of them being invited to his בית מדרש for the opportunity to perform ברכת כהנים on a regular day.

[1] for details see previous article and references there

פרחים לבית הכנסת בשבועות

There is a מנהג to carpet grasses in shuls and homes on שבועות [1], in remembrance of the joy of מתן תורה. The reason for this is because 'ה instructed משה to make sure that flock and cattle should not graze on הר סיני. Evidently, there was grass on הר סיני for animals to graze on in the first place. [2]

In some places there is a מנהג to distribute fragrant grasses in shul after חזרת השץ so that a ברכה on spices could be made. [3]

I am not aware of any community that still keeps either of these מנהגים. Rather, there is a much more widespread מנהג to decorate shuls with elaborate flower arrangements. The פוסקים do not mention flowers directly; their function is ornamental, as opposed to grasses, whose function is a pleasant fragrance. However, a suggestive explanation could be that תלמידי חכמים are soft and beautiful like roses, and they bubble over with מעשים טובים like roses "bubble over" with fragrance. [5]

Additionally, כלל ישראל is a like a rose among thistles; a garden full of thistles is hardly useful to its owner. But if there are roses in the garden as well, then keeping the garden is worthwhile, if only for the roses. So too, because of כלל ישראל's continued observance of the מצות, it is thereby 'worthwhile' for 'ה to continue maintaining the world's existence. To symbolize this concept, we decorate our shuls (and, in some communities, even the ספרי תורה) with flowers. [6]

http://breuers2gether.com/nostalgia/echoes/ *you may need to download this video in order to see it*

[1] רמא או"ח תלד:ב

[2] שמות לד:ג (ציווי זה נצטווה רק גבי לוחות שניות ולא במתן תורה אולם במ"ב שם ס"ק ט הובא פסוק זה כסמך למנהגנו. וצ"ע שהרי מנהגנו הוא זכר לשמחת מתן תורה אבל באמת לא היה ציווי כזה גבי מתן תורה כי הרי לאו דוקא שהיו עשבים למרעה הבהמות בהר סיני בשעת מתן תורה כ"א רק בשעת נתינת לוחות שניות היה זה הציווי וממילא רק בשעת נתינת לוחות שניות ידעינן שהיו שם עשבים. -?-)

[3] מ"ב שם ס"ק י

[4] see, for example, the following:

Above: flowers in KAJ on שבועות (top); flowers in Shearith Israel on שבועות (bottom)

Also see here.

[5] רשי תהלים מה:א

[6] שה"ש ב:ב, ויקרא רבה כג:ג, בני יששכר סיון מאמר ד אות ז

הוצאת לעז על הראשונים

We have spent a long time and much written space objecting to various approaches with regards to the reason why those who tried reinstating daily ברכת כהנים were met with Heavenly opposition. We discussed and analyzed various possibilities, including that they were punished for changing a מנהג, for leaving a trace of an evildoer's memory, as well as why it is that we have a right to ponder these questions to begin with.

We also proposed a solution as to why these Heavenly signs were regarded to begin with.

Now that all of the aforementioned has been moved out of the way, we can finally get to the solution that seems to fit all the pieces best, namely (drumroll please): that they were מוציא לעז על הראשונים, meaning, that the implication of reinstating daily ברכת כהנים is that all the wise and righteous people of the previous generations were willfully neglectful of an absolute חיוב גמור. Such an accusation is a terrible one indeed, such that, apparently, it is better to continue willfully neglecting a חיוב גמור ourselves rather than to accuse our forebears of such an iniquity.

This approach was told to me first by my uncle (who wishes to otherwise remain anonymous), author of שנות חיים (a systematic presentation of תורת בריסק on מועדים), and later by R Yitzchak Breitowitz.

With this we can also explain why the תלמידי הגרא, who instituted daily ברכת כהנים in their יישוב in ארץ ישראל, were not shown any signs from Heaven to stop, namely because the ראשונים there indeed did perform ברכת כהנים daily (even meriting commendation to that effect from the בית יוסף [1]).

We can also explain why daily ברכת כהנים was successfully instituted in Dubai [2], namely because the entire community didn't exist more than perhaps a decade ago, such that there are really no ראשונים there in the first place to be מוציא לעז on.

We can also understand why similarly frightening stories occurred to those who wanted to be buried (see here section 2) with kosher ציצית, namely that by doing so they were implying that their forebears were willfully neglectful of the obligation to indeed do so.

The same can be said of the (anonymous) individual who skipped a פיוט due to a concern of הפסק and didn't live out the year: by so doing he implied that his predecessors willfully ignored the halachic concern of הפסק [3].

The one story that remains to be explained is that of the מהריל [4] whose daughter died because he inserted an extra פיוט into the liturgy to honor its author who was buried in that city, against the express wishes of the גבאים: there is no absolute חיוב to honor the author of a פיוט who happens to be buried in that city. However, although, objectively speaking, there may be no such חיוב, even so, the מהריל seems to have felt there was, enough to do so even against the express instructions of the community officials!

In a future post we will אי"ה explain why indeed it is that הוצאת לעז על הראשונים is so severe as to warrant even neglect of (what would otherwise be) absolute חיובים.

Appendix

Although there may be ways to separately answer each of these individual questions, still, there is a יסוד said over in ישיבות (which, to a certain degree, is actually common sense) from ר חיים בריסקער, which I will first write in the original Yiddish as I have heard it said over, and then translate and explain:

אן אמת'ע פשט איז וואו איין תרץ ענפערט דריי קשיות.

A true explanation is one where one answer resolves three questions. To that end, although there may be other ways to answer each of these questions independently of each other, nonetheless, I have still chosen the above approach as the one which is most נראה לענ"ד because it answers the largest amount of questions at a time all in one shot.

[1] או"ח סוף סימן קכח

[2] originally accessed here on June 18 2023

[3] https://otzarminhagim.blogspot.com/2023/06/blog-post_18.html note 6. It is possible that the individual referred is actually the מהריל, only that some of the details were confused. This is pure speculation, however, and there is no direct evidence מכריח such an interpretation.

[4] https://otzarminhagim.blogspot.com/2023/08/instances-throughout-halachic-history.html note 1