'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

גדר מנהג רע/מנהג טעות/מנהג שטות

Introduction

Some people suggested that the reason why those who tried to reinstate daily ברכת כהנים were stopped or punished from Heaven is because they dared to change a מנהג, meaning, they tried to upend the status quo; the assumption being that whatever people do has the status of a מנהג that is wrong to change.

We will present, here, a number of place in the halachic and מוסר literature where פוסקים and בעלי מוסר refer to a given practice as a bad מנהג, the purpose of which is to show that not always is what people do necessarily proper, and sometimes what people do needs to change, according to the opinion of הלכה and מוסר.

1

There were people who would soak a cloth in water and use that cloth to wash their hands with on יו"כ - this is a mistake, because נטילת ידים is a מצוה and can done in the ordinary way (almost - one washes until the knuckles). [1]

2

There were people who would not mourn for the passing of their oldest son ר"ל. This is a mistake. [2]

3

There was a community where ניקור was, for whatever reason, not ordinarily done on the thigh of a wild animal. The רדבז was asked [3] if this מנהג has anything to rely on. His answer was a categorical no. Rather, he declared this מנהג to be a מנהג טעות which was against הלכה.

4

The נודע ביהודה [4] prohibits a certain kind of butter for a particular community that had a חומרא not to eat it and was considering doing away with said חומרא. In the שקלא וטריא he reckons with the possibility of this חומרא constituting a מנהג טעות (which he ultimately decides it is not, but in the meantime he feels the need to address the possibility. If there was no possibility of such a concept as מנהג טעות, there would be nothing to address).

5

In France it was common that where people had disagreements they would put each other in חרם. The ראש  [5] refers to this practice as a מנהג גרוע.

6

There is a practice in many congregations to make a מי שברך on behalf of each person who received (or purchased) an עליה. The יעבץ [6] refers to this practice as a מנהג גרוע that should be stopped if possible, both because מי שברך constitutes making a personal request on שבת (a topic that is beyond the scope of this discussion but this is what he held), as well as טורח הציבור [7].

7

There was a community in Bohemia where there was a מנהג to ask the כהנים to leave the shul at the beginning of קריאת התורה, so that the first עליה could be auctioned off for a large sum. תשובה מאהבה [8] criticizes this מנהג as a ביטול of all תורת כהונה, and says it should be stopped.

8

Some people play ball on יו"ט. The מהרשל [9] says for children this is fine, (though not necessarily commendable,) because playing ball is an age-appropriate יו"ט activity for children; for adults, however, playing ball on יו"ט is a bad, childish מנהג.

9

There are some who say סליחות at night before חצות. This is a bad מנהג because יג מדות should be said during an עת רצון [10].

10

Some רע-בנים used to charge for giving קבלה-certification to שוחטים. This is a bad מנהג that leads to corruption and dishonesty, in that unscrupulous rabbis can be tempted to offer קבלה even to the unqualified [11].

11

There was a place in which people would betroth a woman and then live together in the same home without first conducting a חופה. The ראש writes in a תשובה [12] that this a is a bad מנהג that must be stopped by the religious authorities, who are themselves at fault if they don't.

12

Some individuals seem to have difficulty appreciating the sanctity of שבת such that they don't feel שבת to be deserving of special clothing more than a regular weekday. This is a bad מנהג [13].

13

It used to be common for women to swear by their husband's life, even on petty foolishnesses. שבט מוסר [14] calls this a bad מנהג.

14

There was a certain rabbi who allowed children to carry on שבת in a place that did not have an ערוב. The חת"ס [15] refers to this as a bad מנהג.

15

There were some communities where כהנים and בכורים were buried in an ארון, without their body directly touching the ground, as is supposed to be done. חוכמת אדם [16] refers to this as a bad מנהג.

16

There was a place where wine sellers would write how much wine specific individuals ordered before שבת and then on שבת the wine seller would examine the paper on which that order was written, measure the precise amount that was ordered, and fill the order.

The ראש [17] refers to this as a bad מנהג for two reasons: firstly, examining business documents is not allowed on שבת; secondly, making precise measurements is also not allowed on שבת.

Conclusion

We have many instances where our religious authorities refer to a given מנהג as bad, wrong, mistaken or the like. This goes to show that there is indeed such a concept in the world of הלכה and הנהגה ישרה, and that a פוסק or מנהיג has a right to decide whether a given מנהג is good or bad.

While a specific definition is difficult to pinpoint, the general sense is that some מנהגים do more harm than good or run against established halachic principles, such that they should be stopped or changed.

That being the case, there is nothing wrong with deciding that ברכת כהנים daily is the way it is supposed to be, and to indeed institute such practice where possible. The fact that the מנהג is different is of limited consequence, as the מנהג is incorrect.

[1] ספר המנוחה על הרמבם שביתת עשור ג:ה ד"ה ולמחר

[2] שו"ע יו"ד שעד:יא. וע"ע שו"ת הריבש צה

[3] תשובות הרדבז חלק ב ב'קיח

[4] תניינא יו"ד סה

[5] שו"ת, מג:ח:ד

[6] שאילת יעבץ חלק א סד:ה. This is indeed the מנהג that I recall from my youth visiting Yeshivah of Paterson (presumably Beth Hatalmud has the same מנהג as well, as the מנהגים of Yeshivah of Paterson are based on the מנהגים of Beth Hatalmud).

[7] Indeed, I recall a particular מנין at a particular shul in my neighborhood used to make two מי שברךs after each עליה, one for the עולה and one for his (often very extended) family. Many of the congregants there were in their elder years and had ב"ה many descendants, each of whom would have to be listed by name. This would invariably take a very long time. I am aware that, today, the current practice there is to combine both מי שברךs into one, presumably to avoid said טורח הציבור.

[8] חלק א סי' צא. See there for contrast between this case and the case dealt with by the מהריק in שורש ט.

[9] מ"ב תקיח:ט; טז שם ס"ק ב. See also כף החיים או"ח שח:רנט who stresses the importance of utilizing שבת and יו"ט as extra time for learning. אליה רבה או"ח שח ס"ק פז references a מדרש איכה that pins the destruction of טור שמעון on playing ball on שבת.

[10] כף החיים או"ח תקפא:ב. For a dissenting view, however, see here.

[11] This should be common sense, but see שו"ע הרב יו"ד א:יא

[12] לז:א

[13] פלא יועץ ערך לבישה

[14] יז:ד

[15] ליקטי שו"ת יג:ט

[16] קנח:א

[17] שו"ת כב:ז; see there for specific sources for each prohibition

תשובת המהריק בדיני מנהגים

In a previous post we recounted how there were those who wished to reinstate daily ברכת כהנים and were seemingly punished for attempting to do so. This begs the question that, considering that daily ברכת כהנים is a מצות עשה, why would someone be stopped from doing the 'רצון ה?

There were those who suggested to me (often very forcefully) that this is evidence/proof of an איסור to change any מנהג whatsoever.

In a previous post we detailed a number of examples of פוסקים deciding that a given מנהג should be stopped (in some instances using strong language to express their point).

In this article we will present a תשובה of the מהריק in שורש ח that discusses the rules of מנהגים.

Question: ראובן wanted to bequeath his assets to all his sons equally, without giving more to the בכור, claiming that such was the מנהג in his place, and there is a principle that מנהג מבטל הלכה [1].

Answer: in my opinion (says the מהריק) it seems abundantly obvious that this is baseless, because a מנהג is only מבטל הלכה if and where said מנהג is established by the חכמים of a particular locale. Meaning, a מנהג of pious individuals is מבטל הלכה. But a מנהג that has no proof from the תורה is simply a mistake in halachic judgment, and indeed there are many terrible מנהגים that should not be followed. Certainly such a terrible מנהג that uproots a דין תורה [2], and is מבטל the דין of ירושת בכור, should definitely not be followed חלילה.

[1] ירושלמי ב"מ פרק הפועלים הלכה א

[2] One wonders what the מהריק would say on the topic of daily ברכת כהנים (or lack thereof) had he turned his attention to the matter. (I am not aware of any place where the מהריק addresses the topic. Any leads would be much appreciated.)

תשובת הראש בדיני מנהגים

There are those who claim that the reason why certain גדולים were seemingly punished for trying to reinstate daily ברכת כהנים was because it is אסור to change a מנהג.

There is a series of תשובות written by the ראש in כלל נה regarding the תקנות of the Jewish community in Toledo where he lived.

Specifically, one section of the series (אות י) deals with the rules of מנהגים, namely, which are legitimate and which are not as much, from which we see that there is such a phenomenon in הלכה as מנהגים that have a weak halachic basis and should be changed.

The ראש writes as follows:

All the מנהגים about which the חכמים said to follow the מנהג all are all סייגים, for example:

There is an איסור to do מלאכה on ערב פסח after חצות. Additionally, there is a מנהג not to do מלאכה before חצות either (see פסחים נ-נד for a number of other such מנהגים). 

But if a place has a מנהג that involves an עבירה, one should change the מנהג, even if it was established by גדולים, because one בית דין cannot uproot something from the תורה except בשב ואל תעשה. Even a נביא we don't listen to unless he has already been proven a legitimate נביא, like אליהו who brought קורבנות on הר הכרמל (see מלכים א פרק יח) to strengthen and reinforce שמירת המצוות.

Not only a מנהג that involves an עבירה should be changed, but even a מנהג that was originally instituted as a סייג could end up harming more than helping, in which case one should be מבטל the מנהג.

Now, there is a principle that where the הלכה is רופפת בידך follow the מנהג. However, this only means if and where there is ריפיון to begin with. Meaning that if the פסק הלכה is unclear in a given situation, then follow the מנהג, because then the assumption is that גדולים understood the הלכה this way and they therefore instituted the מנהג based on their understanding of הלכה. But where there is no ריפיון in הלכה to begin with, it is wrong to follow a מנהג that is against הלכה.

This is the דין of מנהגים in the realm of איסור והתר.

The ראש then goes on to discuss מנהגים relating to monetary matters. These are beyond the scope of this discussion.

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