Order of Taking the Four Minim and Minhag: Difference between pages

From Halachipedia
(Difference between pages)
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Image:Lulav.png|300px|right]]
[[Image:minhag.png|200px|right]]
Based on the pasuk ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון פרי עץ הדר כפות תמרים וענף עץ עבות וערבי נחל "And you shall take on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm-trees, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook," we learn that we need to take one [[lulav]], one [[etrog]], three [[hadasim]] and two [[aravot]].<ref> sukka 34b based on Vayikra 23:40, Sefer Hachinuch Mitzva 324, Shulchan Aruch 651:1 </ref>  
A minhag is a local or communal practice of halacha. Minhagim are of such significance that we even find that the angels<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 86b, Yismach Moshe Beresheet 1:11</ref> and even Hashem himself follow the local practice, minhag.<ref>Sanhedrin 46b, Maharam Mintz (teshuva 54)</ref> Hashem likes a variation of minhagim just as he wanted different tribes each encamped around the Mishkan with a different role.<Ref>Shlah Torah Shebichtav Naso quoting the Arizal</ref>
==What are minhagim based on?==
<p class="indent">Why are minhagim binding? In what capacity do we have to observe them? To answer these questions we are going to explore the halachic foundations upon which minhagim are based. There are two primary approaches to explain the obligation for minhagim. The first is based on a Gemara Nedarim 81b which states that one who violates a minhag is in a violation of a neder. The Ran (ibid.) explains that if a person practices a good practice with intention of continuing to keep that practice, rabbinically it is considered as though he took a vow and he is forbidden from breaking that vow. In order for the vow to be effective biblically he would have to enunciate it, however, rabbinically it is sufficient to have acted upon the intent to keep the practice.<ref>Tur and Shulchan Aruch 214:1 cite the approach of the Ran. Birkei Yosef YD 214 also points out that it is only treated like a neder and is binding rabbinically. Thus, if there is a doubt if something is prohibited based on a minhag, one may be lenient.</ref></p>
<p class="indent">The second approach to explain minhagim is based on a Gemara Pesachim 50b. The gemara relates a story in which the people of Bayshan took upon themselves a practice to refrain from traveling on Friday so as not to come to desecrate Shabbat. The next generation, however, found this practice too cumbersome and inhibited their ability to make a livelihood. Yet, when they asked Rabbi Yochanan if they could abolish this practice they were told that they should not disregard the practices of their parents citing a pasuk from Mishlei 1:8. The gemara implies that there is an inherent issue with breaking from communal practices and particularly apply to later generations. From the fact that the Gemara doesn't cite the violation of breaking a vow as the Gemara Nedarim does it seems that the Gemara Pesachim believes that there is another binding force of minhagim.<ref>The Ramban (Mishpat HaCherem, cited by the Bet Yosef YD 214:2) describes minhagim as communal acceptances and doesn't use the language of vows.</ref> Rav Hershel Schachter<ref>Nefesh HaRav (p. 235)</ref> cites Rav Moshe Soloveitchik as having explained that the Rambam's opinion was that minhagim are binding because the act of breaking the minhag is an issue of separating from the community, which in it of itself is a problem.<ref>Pirkei Avot 2:4. See Nefesh HaRav where he explains that separating from the community is a way of breaking from the tradition in which the Torah was meant to be kept. The Torah was given to Bnei Yisrael as a unit (see Rashi Shemot 19:2) and should be kept that way. A person who deviates from communal practices is in essence causing the Torah to be perverted.</ref></p>
<p class="indent"> Before offering practical applications, let us inquire whether each approach can accomodate the idea of personal as well as communal practices. If we suppose that minhagim are based on not abrogating communal customs, then seemingly personal practices would not be binding. However, if minhagim are based on vows, they certainly would apply to individuals; but would it also apply to a congregation? Rav Hershel Schachter in an [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735162/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%A2_%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A2 article on yutorah.org] explains that there is the concept of a communal vow and applies to everyone in the community. Furthermore, the communal vow is binding not only to the original community who accepted the practice but also to future generations. A proof for this concept is the Gemara Ketubot 111a, which states that the Jews took upon themselves three vows and theoretically they are binding upon Jews to this day.<ref>For further discussion of this topic, see a letter of the Rogachover (Safnat Paneach 143:2) regarding the vow that Yosef made his brothers take. Other proofs are the oath bnei yisrael took against the tribe of Binyamin by Pilegesh B'givah and the acceptance of the Torah, which is sometimes described as an oath. </ref> The concept could be explained by a similar concept we find regarding Korbanot. The Jewish community is considered a single unit that doesn't die because each successive generation fills the shoes of the previous one. Therefore, the Gemara Temurah 15b establishes that even though usually a person can not have a korban chatat brought on his behalf after he passes away, a congregation can do so because in reality the congregation lives on through their descendants. </p>
<p class="indent">Now that we have examined two approaches to minhagim, let us explore a few potential applications and see how each approach relates to that case. First, do minhagim apply to halachic scenarios? That is, what happens when minhag and halacha clashes? For example, there is a major discussion in the rishonim and achronim whether there is an obligation to wear Tefillin on Chol HaMoed. Let's suppose that I usually follow a certain Rabbi or sefer for my halachic questions and he says that I should wear Tefillin on Chol HaMoed, but my father's minhag is not to wear Tefillin, what should I do? According to the first approach, it is reasonable to assume that a community can only take upon themselves vows in gray areas of halacha. For example, the Gemara points out that a person may not vow to abrogate a mitzvah because that simply isn't up to his discretion. Similarly, the halachic question of wearing Tefillin on Chol HaMoed shouldn't be one decided upon by a community and its vow shouldn't be binding.<ref>This position is endorsed by the Sdei Chemed (v. 4, n. 38) and Yabia Omer O.C. 2:23. Both express the idea that the institutors of the minhag may not have the ability to be a decider of halacha to arbitrate between the rishonim. In such a case, the minhag is not binding. According to this opinion, as opposed to issues of minhag, on issues of halacha a person should follow his personal Rebbe Muvhak like the [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14334&pgnum=367 Chazon Ish YD 150:1] writes.</ref>However, according to the second approach it is possible that a community's practice is binding even in areas of halacha because however the practice was established, the individual should be restricted from breaking from the communal practices.<ref>In fact, the Ohr Letzion (v. 2, p. 17-8 and v. 1, 5:7) advocates this approach with reservation. He explains that the community of Rabbi Yose HaGlali ate cheese and chicken together because the opinion of Rabbi Yose was that it was permitted even though the other Rabbis forbad it. Even after Rabbi Yose died, they followed his opinion, says the Or Letzion, because once they practice in accordance with his opinion before it was known to be a dispute, for that community it remains a permitted activity and do not need to consider the other opinion. One of his proofs is the Rambam (Shmitta VeYovel 10:6) who writes although he believes that the halacha does not follow the geonim in their count of the Shmitta cycle, because the practice is like the geonim, the practice should continue.</ref></p>
<p class="indent">Does a person who moves communities need to continue his old practices or should he follow the customs of the place he entered? If one were to suppose that minhagim are like vows, it is logical that the vows should follow a person wherever he may be. However, if minhagim are a way of observing local customs, then upon moving one should adopt the local practices. In reality, everyone agrees that upon moving one should change his customs to follow the place where he plans on staying.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 214:2</ref> It could be explained by supposing that the way communal vows work is that they only apply to a person while he is still part of that community.</p>
<p class="indent">Are minhagim binding if they were instituted in error? The Gemara Chullin 6b tells of a story in which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi came to Beyt Shan and permitted the people not to take Trumot and Maaserot from their crops being that it was not part of Israel. However, the gemara asks how could Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi abrogate their minhag? To this the gemara answers that sometimes a later rabbi is given the opportunity to say something that no one before has said. Tosfot Pesachim 51a s.v. Iy though is bothered because this gemara seems to disregard the entire principle behind minhagim. Tosfot explains that minhagim are only binding when formulated with the correct knowledge of halacha and the minhag is just an added restriction or practice. However, if the community mistakenly thought something is forbidden when it is in reality permitted, that isn't a minhag at all. Seemingly, this idea fits nicely with the approach of communal vows because vows aren't binding when taken in error.<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 232:10. See Mishna Nedarim 25b.</ref></p>
<p class="indent">Lastly, is it possible to have a temporary minhag? If we assume that minhagim are based on vows, then certainly yes, because it is possible to stipulate that a certain vow should only apply for a certain amount of time.<ref>It is clear from chazal that one may stipulate a vow to apply to a certain time period. A simple proof is the Mishna Nedarim 57a. Additionally, Shulchan Aruch YD 214:1 implies that if one has a practice that one only plans on doing a couple of times and not forever, it isn't binding as an oath, yet to any question, one should stipulate so explicitly. </ref> However, if we suppose that minhagim are based on not breaking from the practices of the everlasting Jewish community, then perhaps it is impossible for minhagim to be temporary just as biblical and rabbinic laws are permanent in nature. Yet, it seems that everyone can agree that minhagim could be instituted temporarily because minhagim are very much based on intent and if the community never accepted the practice with intent that it should last forever, reasonably it should be limited.<ref>The concept that minhagim can have a limited time-frame is shown in Shulchan Aruch YD 228:27.</ref></p>


==Who is Obligated==
==When minhagim clash with halacha==
#This mitzva of [[arba minim]] is an obligation on every individual. <ref> sukka 41b. Tosafot there says that since the pasuk says ולקחתם in the plural and not in the singular we know that it is on everyone. </ref>  
===Minhagim that Contradict the Halacha===
#Women are exempt from taking the [[arba minim]] because it is a [[mitzvah aseh shehazman grama]]. They are permitted and even encouraged to but while Ashkenaz women can say the beracha if they choose to do the mitzva, Sephardic women shouldn't say the beracha. <ref> Mishna [[Sukkah]] 28, Shulchan Aruch 640:1. Like the other mitzvot aseh shehazman grama, if she wants to do the mitzva, she is permitted to. Ashkenazim based on Rabbeinu Tam quoted in Kiddushin 31b and [[Rosh Hashana]] 33a hold that women are permitted to say the beracha if they do the mitzva. Sephardim however, hold that they cannot say the beracha based on the Rambam in Hilchot [[Tzitzit]] 3:10 and Shulchan Aruch 17:2 </ref>
# A minhag to recite a certain bracha even if it is questionable according to the halacha can be left and not protested.<ref>Gemara Tanait 28b tells the story of Rav who went to Bavel and didn't say anything when he heard the congregation reciting [[Hallel]] on [[Rosh Chodesh]] even though presumably they recited it with a bracha. Pri Chadash 496:2:10 quotes the Maharik (Shoresh 9) who cites this as a proof that one can follow a minhag even against the halacha. The Pri Chadash disagrees and answers that reciting a bracha is different. Since a [[Bracha Levatala| bracha sheino tzaricha]] is only rabbinic and if there's a minhag the rabbis can say that it is permitted to recite a bracha for the sake of a minhag as we find in Beitzah 4b for [[Yom Tov Sheni]].</ref>
#Women do not have to shake the [[lulav]] in all six directions as men do. <ref> Shu"t Rav Pealim 1:12 </ref>
# Generally when a minhag is in violation of the halacha, whether it be Biblical or rabbinic, it should be abolished.<ref>Pri Chadash 496:2:10 based on several gemara's as well as a Rivash. Other proofs include: Ritva Pesachim 51a s.v. vkatav citing the Raah, Radvaz 1:359. However, Lev Avot Lebhar p. 14 tries to prove that we don't follow the Pri Chadash's approach. He quotes that he personally heard from Rav Elyashiv this as well. He also cites Rav Elyashiv in Kovetz Teshuvot 1:60 with a similar idea. He supports his approach with the Petach Dvir OC 2:233 that any practice which can be justified with some opinion should be left alone. Other proofs include: Sdei Chemed 40:37 s.v. hamuram quoting the Zera Yakov, Maharam Paduah 78, and Maharashdam YD 193.</ref> Some, however, hold that if it is an established minhag and it is only in violation of a rabbinic prohibition can be left alone.<ref>Pri Chadash 496:2:10 cites the Masa Hamelech and Bear Sheva who thought that if a minhag is only in vioaltion of a rabbinic prohibition it can be upheld. Rabbi Akiva Eiger in his comments to Pri Chadash there questions the proof of the Pri Chadash from Rosh Hashana 15b against the Masa Hamelech and in fact claims that it is a proof against the Pri Chadash.</ref>
#The obligation for children begins at the age when they can shake the [[lulav]] on their own. <ref> sukka 42a, Rambam Hilchot sukka 7:19. The Mishna Brurah 657:1 adds even if a child is six years old, the usual age of [[chinuch]], if he cannot shake the [[lulav]] properly, one is not obligated to train him in this mitzva. </ref> When the reach that age, the father has an obligation to buy him a kosher set of [[arba minim]] that will be his own. <ref> Shulchan Aruch 657:1. Beiur Halacha there "kidei lichancho" adds that it must be kosher, and Iggerot Moshe OC 3:95 adds that it should be his own if possible. </ref>
# A minhag established by local rabbis even if others hold that it is against the halacha, many hold that it shouldn't be abrogated.<ref>Mordechai b"m 7:366, Radvaz 3:532 based on Maharik 9</ref>
==Beracha==
# For example, see the discussions of piyutim during [[Birchot Kriyat Shema]] in OC 68 between the Tur, Bach, and Bet Shaarim whether it is right to upkeep the minhag even though it seems to be problematic in terms of [[hefsek]].
# On the first day of [[Sukkot]] prior to shaking the [[lulav]], we recite the beracha of ברוך אתה ה' אלוקינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על נטילת לולב and add [[shehecheyanu]]. On the remaining days, including the second day of Yom Tov<ref>Hagahot Maimoniyot Brachot 11:3 writes there's no bracha on lulav the second day since we already did it yesterday but then he concludes that the minhag Ashkenaz was to recite it and the Rabbenu Peretz agreed.</ref>, we don't say [[shehecheyanu]] unless the first day was [[shabbat]], in which case we would say it on the second day. <ref> Shulchan Aruch 662:1-2. </ref>
# If one didn't take the [[four minim]] on the first day, then he says [[shehecheyanu]] the first time that he does. <ref> Mishna Brurah 662:3 </ref>
#The beracha and taking of the [[arba minim]] should be done while standing, but if you sat, you are yotzei bidieved. <ref> Chazon Ovadia 416 quoting the Shibbolei Haleket 366, and the Sefer Yereim 114 that its based on a gezeira shava learned from [[sefirat haomer]]. The halacha regarding [[sefirat haomer]] is in Rambam Hilchot Temidim Umusafim 7:23 </ref>


==When to make the Bracha==
===Minhagim that Choose a Side in a Halachic Dispute===
# Since we are supposed to make the beracha before doing the mitzva (over liasiyatan) <ref> Pesachim 7b, Rambam Hilchot [[Lulav]] 7:6 </ref> and since we fulfill the mitzva of [[arba minim]] by simply lifting them together <ref> Sukka 42a </ref>  it’s preferable to follow one of the following so that you say the beracha and then do the mitzva. Either
# If a certain halacha isn't clear and there is justifiable basis on either side of the dispute or question at hand, one can view the minhag in order to decide the dispute.<ref>Yerushalmi Peah 7:5, Gemara Brachot 45a. Rambam Shemitta Vyovel 10:6 writes that in calculating the calendaric years of Shemitta he differs from the Geonim in his calculations. Nonetheless, he concludes that since the Geonim have an old tradition for their calculations and the practice is like them, great is the significant of tradition to follow them. Rav Hai Goan in Tamim Deyim 119 seems also to subscribe to this approach in that he first defends the minhag and says that generally you first have to accept minhagim even under question and then answer the questions. He then goes on to justify the particular minhag in question. Tosfot Brachot 21b disagrees with Rashi's practice and yet concludes that the minhag follows Rashi and great is the minhag that we can follow it. Halichot Shlomo ch. 19 fnt. 27 cited by Magen Avot p. 15 cites the the Shoel Umeishiv responded to the Shem Aryeh that although his responses were reasonable he sometimes disagreed because he knew that the practice was otherwise and he tried to explain the basis for the minhag. Rav Shlomo Zalman agreed with such an approach.</ref>
## take the [[Lulav]], [[Hadasim]], and [[Aravot]] in one’s right hand, leave the [[Etrog]] on the Table (out of the box) <ref> As the rambam says in Hilchot sukka 7:5 the taking of the daled minim are all one mitzva and are miakev each other (meaning taking 3 without the 4th doesn't fulfill anything.) Therefore, until you take the [[etrog]] you haven't fulfilled your obligation, then you say the beracha, and then fulfill your obligation. The Bach 651 says that this option only works according to Rabbeinu Tam cited in Tosafot [[Sukkah]] 34b "Shetehei" who holds that one must take all four species simultaneously to fulfill his obligation. The Rosh [[Sukkah]] 3:14 disagrees and says there is no need to take all four together. Therefore, the Bach says this suggestion wouldn't work according to the Rosh. However, the Shaar Hatziyun 651:28 disagrees with the Bach and says even according to the Rosh this suggestion would work because even though you don't need to lift them simultaneously, you haven't fulfilled your obligation until you lift all four at least at some point. </ref>
#A minhag is binding if it involves a stringency above the actual strict law. However, generally speaking, a minhag to follow one opinion on a matter that is a dispute in the Rishonim isn't a binding minhag.<ref>[http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14145&st=&pgnum=78&hilite= Sdei Chemed (v. 4, Maarechet Mem, Klal 37)]</ref> Therefore, if one local rabbi ruled in one way and the minhag followed his opinion and later that rabbi moved or died and another rabbi was appointed and had another opinion the minhag can be changed.<ref>Pri Chadash 496:2:2 (Dinei Minhagei Issur #2) based on Maharashdam YD 40</ref>
## or take the [[Lulav]] in one’s right hand, and [[Etrog]] in one’s left hand while the [[Etrog]] is upside down <ref> Holding the [[etrog]] upside down allows you not to fulfill your obligation until you flip it over because the gemara sukka 42a that in order to fulfill the mitzva of taking the daled minim all four have to be held kiderech gideilatan"-the way in which they grow. Mishna Brurah 652:16 says you aren't even yotze bidieved. Bach 651 (mentioned in the previous suggestion) says based on the aforementioned Rosh this suggestion would also not work unless you held all 4 minim upside down. </ref>
## or take the [[Lulav]] and [[Etrog]] in their upright positions and have in mind not to fulfill the mitzvah until you make the Bracha. <ref> This works because even if we say mitzvot don't need kavana (argument in [[Rosh Hashana]] 28b see http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Having_Kavana_for_Mitzvot ) to be yotze, most poskim agree that kavana not to be yotze doesn't fulfill your obligation. (Bet Yosef 589 and S”A 6:4). Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik in Reshimot [[Shiurim]] [[Sukkah]] 39a notes that this suggestion is only valid if over li'asiyatan requires one to recite the beracha prior to the fulfillment of the mitzvah but not if the beracha needs to be recited before the performance of the mitzva. Taz OC 651:5, writes that this suggestion is difficult as one may forget to have specific intent not to fulfill the mitzvah when he lifts them. However, this is the preferred method of the Biur Hagra 651:5. </ref>and then make the Bracha. <ref>  All three suggestions are made by tosafot in sukka 39a "over". S”A 651:5 suggests the first two suggestions, while the Mishna Brurah 651:25 quotes the Bet Yosef who brings the third option and quotes the Gra as saying that the third option is the most preferable. The Mishna Brurah makes no mention of which option is preferable. Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 651:14) also brings all three opinions and doesn’t decide on which is most preferable. </ref>
# After the fact if one took all four species (before making the Bracha), one may still make the Bracha as long as one didn’t shake it yet. <Ref> Rosh sukka 3:33, Chayei Adam 148:11 Mishna Brurah 651:27 and Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 651:14). The Rabbeinu Nissim Sukka 20b "U'Midefarchinan" says that this is permitted even lechatchilah. The Bikkurei Yaakov 651:20 extends it to the entire [[hallel]] and the Aruch Hashulchan 651:14 says that as long as your still holding your [[lulav]] you can still say the beracha. Shaar Hatziyun 651:32 however rejects this opinion. </ref>


==Set up of the Arba Minim==
==Non-Binding Minhagim==
[[File:Sephardi Minim.jpg|thumb|Sephardic setup|right|100px]]
#A minhag that isn't concerned for any opinion or any prohibition isn't a binding minhag.<ref>Igrot Moshe OC 3:64 writes that someone whose father had the practice not to eat gibroks all year isn't binding since it has no reason and gibroks can't be more strict than real chametz which is permitted all year besides [[Pesach]]. Furthermore, Igrot Moshe writes that it is permitted to wear clothing according to his time and place and it isn't a binding minhag to have to wear the clothing of previously generations. This is assuming that the clothing is modest. Bet Yosef 670:1 writes that the practice not to work all of [[Chanuka]] isn't binding since it isn't concerned for all halachic issue.</ref>
[[File:Four Species.jpg|thumb|Ashkenazic setup|left|200px]]
# It is important that a minhag be established by rabbis.<ref>Lev Avot p. 2 based on Chazon Ish OC 39:8 and Kaf Hachaim 14:14 writes that not everything anyone calls a tradition because it was observed in a community is deemed a minhag, it needs to be established and recorded by rabbis to be considered a valid minhag. Siach Yitzchak 294 sources the practice of chasidim to eat shirayim from the rebbe in the Yerushalmi Moed Katan 2:3 and Brachot 55. He concludes that this should be a precedent for all good minhagim that they are well sourced and based on sound principles.</ref>
# The Sephardic custom is to put one [[Hadas]] and one [[Aravah]] on the left of the [[lulav]], one [[Hadas]] in the middle but slightly to the right , and one [[Hadas]] and one [[Aravah]] on the right side. <Ref> Magen Avraham 651:4 quoting the Arizal writes that one should put one [[Hadas]] and one [[Aravah]] on the left of the [[lulav]], one [[Hadas]] in the middle together with the [[Lulav]], and one [[Hadas]] and one [[Aravah]] on the right side. The Shaar HaTziyun 651:11 quotes the Pri Megadim who says that one shouldn’t follow that practice unless one is known for his piety. However, Yalkut Yosef (Moadim pg 160, [[Sukkot]] p. 75) writes that the Sephardic custom is to follow the Arizal. The Chazon Ovadyah ([[Sukkot]] pg 343) also quotes the Magen Avraham. </ref> However, the Ashkenazic custom is to set up the [[Hadasim]] to the right of the [[Lulav]] and the [[Aravot]] to the left. <ref>Mishna Brurah 651:12, Nitei Gavriel (Arba Minim 40:4). Mishna Brurah there adds that this is true for a lefty as well. </ref>
#It is a mitzva to tie the [[lulav]] together, but if you don't it is still kosher. <ref> Shulchan Aruch 651:1. Mishna Brurah 651:8 explains although we don't hold like the shita of Rabbi Yehuda on sukka 11b who says that you need to tie it together, there is still the mitzva of hiddur mitzva from the pasuk of  זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ. Yalkut Yosef Moadim 159, Chazon Ovadia [[sukkot]] 340 </ref>
#Sephardim should tie the three together with [[lulav]] leaves in three places using double knots, <ref> Shulchan Aruch 651:1, Chazon Ovadia [[sukkot]] 342 quotes the Sefer Yiraim 124 also and says that is the custom. He also quotes the Chatam Sofer sukka 36b as saying that since the mitzva of hiddur is objective based on what the torah told us, we should only use the double knots made of [[lulav]] leaves and not use the handles that they have nowadays.  Mishna Brurah 651:14 quotes the Mordechai explaining that these three ties are representative of the three patriarchs </ref> while Ashkenazim generally use the woven holder made of [[lulav]] leaves that has holes for the three minim, in addition to the three ties. <ref> Mishna Brurah 651:8 quoting the Shu"t Agura Biohalecha (12:273). Tzitz Eliezer 13:43 agrees to this as well. </ref>
#The minimum length for the [[lulav]] is four [[Tefachim]], and the minimum length for [[hadasim]] and [[aravot]] is three [[Tefachim]]. There is no maximum length, however, if your [[hadasim]] or [[aravot]] are longer than 3 than your [[lulav]] has to remain at least a [[tefach]] taller so that at least part of it will shake recognizably. <ref> sukka 32b with Ritva, Ran, and Meiri there. Rambam Hilchot sukka 7:8 agrees too. </ref>
# One should make sure to tie it up so that the [[Hadasim]] are above the [[Aravot]]. <Ref>Rama 651:1, Mishna Brurah 651:12, Nitei Gavriel 40:8, Chazon Ovadyah ([[Sukkot]] pg 343-4) </ref>
#It is preferable not to have a non-jew tie them together for you, but if he does it is still kosher. <ref> Yalkut Yosef Moadim page 159 </ref>


==How to Bind the 4 Minim (Eged)==
==Abrogating Minhagim==
# The halacha follows the opinion that it is not necessary to have the Lulav, Hadasim, and Aravot bound up together, however, it is a mitzvah and proper to do so to make the 4 minim look nicer.<ref>Gemara Sukkah 33a cites a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda who holds that there is an obligation to bind the 3 minim together and the Rabbis who hold that it is only preferable in order to make the mitzvah nicer. Rambam (Lulav 7:4) and Shulchan Aruch 651:1 hold like the Rabbis.</ref>
===Minhag in Error===
# The Etrog is not tied up with the other 3 minim. It is held in the left hand while the others are held in the right hand.<ref>Rambam (Lulav 7:4), Shulchan Aruch 651:2, Yalkut Yosef 651:2</ref>
#If a person has a practice in error, some say that it isn't binding and one doesn't require [[hatarat nedarim]]. However, others say that it is binding and in order for it to become permitted one would require [[hatarat nedarim]]. The halacha follows the first opinion. <ref>Tosfot Pesachim 51a s.v. Iy and the Rosh (Pesachim 4:3) hold that a minhag that is based on an error isn't binding at all and may be abrogated without any [[hatarat nedarim]]. Their proof is the gemara Chullin 6b. The Ran (Pesachim 17a) and Rashba (responsa 3:236) hold that a minhag made in error is binding and can only be broken with [[hatarat nedarim]]. Each opinion differs in how they understand the Yerushalmi Pesachim 4:1 which states that a minhag made in error can be abrogated. The Rosh would understand it to mean that it can be abrogated without any formal process. The Ran, however, would explain the Yerushalmi as saying that it could only be broken with [[hatarat nedarim]]. Shulchan Aruch YD 214:1 quotes the Rosh as the primary opinion but also cites the Ran. The Rama follows the Rosh. Also, the Pri Chadash (Dinei Minhagei Issur #1) writes that the halacha is like the Rosh and brings proofs to that effect.</ref>
# It is proper to bind the Lulav, Hadasim, and Aravot with a double knot.<Ref>Shulchan Aruch 651:1</ref> The Ashkenazic minhag is to allow using the kashekel's (woven lulav leaf holders) and consider them to be a binding of the 3 minim.<ref>Mishna Brurah 651:8 citing the Agurah BeOhalecha. Bikkurei Yacov 651:8 writes that lulav rings as a binding is the equivalent of using a lulav kashekel. </ref>For Sephardim, it is advised to tie the Lulav, Hadasim, and Aravot and not just use a holder.<ref>Yalkut Yosef 651:3</ref>
===Using Hatarat Nedarim===
# If one forgot and didn't tie them before the holiday, one shouldn't tie them with a knot on Yom Tov.<Ref>Shulchan Aruch 651:1 writes that one may not tie a knot for the purposes of binding the 3 minim. See, the Chida ([http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33684&st=&pgnum=37 Moreh BeEtzbah n. 291]) seems to say that there's no issue of making knots with lulav leaves. Kaf HaChaim 651:19 rejects this opinion. Yalkut Yosef 651:6 writes that if one didn't tie it before Yom Tov there's what to rely on to tie it with a double knot on Yom Tov.</ref> Rather one should take a string, wrap them up, and tuck in the end of the string.<ref>Tur and Rama 651:1, Yalkut Yosef 651:6</ref>
#A person who has a meritorious minhag, some say that it can never be broken, while others say that it can break that minhag with [[hatarat nedarim]]. The halacha follows the second opinion. <ref>Tosfot Pesachim 51a s.v. Iy and the Rosh (Pesachim 4:3) hold that a meritorious minhag is binding like a neder but can be broken with [[hatarat nedarim]]. However, the Ran (Pesachim 17a) and Rashba (responsa 3:236, cited by Bet Yosef YD 214:1) hold that minhagim can't be broken if they are meritorious. The two opinions differ in how they understand the Yerushalmi Pesachim 4:1 which says that a good minhag can't be abrogated. The Rosh understands it to mean that without [[hatarat nedarim]] it can't be broken. The Ran, however, understands the Yerushalmi more absolutely; a good minhag can not be broken. Another proof for the Ran is the Yerushalmi Nedarim 5:4 which forbids permitting a neder against gambling, even though theoretically some say there is no prohibition with gambling (see Sanhedrin 24b). Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 214:1 rules like the Rosh. The Pri Chadash 496:2:1 (Dinei Minhagei Issur #1) also rules like the Rosh but wonders why Shulchan Aruch YD 228:15 rules like the Rivash, who follows the Ran.</ref>  
## If one didn't do so before Yom Tov, it is permitted to peel off a leaf of the Lulav to hold the minim together with a slip knot or winding them together and tucking in the end.<ref>Kaf HaChaim 651:20</ref> The Ashkenazic minhag is to refrain from doing this except in private and in an abnormal fashion.<ref>Shaarei Teshuva 651:3, Piskei Teshuvot 651:3</ref>
#The above dispute is relevant to a minhag that is intended to protect an existing halacha, however, everyone agrees that a minhag out of piety or abstinence can be broken with [[hatarat nedarim]].<ref>Pri Chadash (Dinei Minhagei Issur #1) proves this from the language of the rishonim who forbid abrogating a minhag as well as the fact that the Ran Nedarim 81b writes that a minhag can be broken with a hatarat nedarim although he generally holds (Pesachim 17a) that it is forbidden.</ref>
## If one forgot to tie the 3 minim before Yom Tov it is permitted to bind them with a pre-made lulav ring.<ref>Bikkurei Yacov 651:8</ref> However, it is forbidden to tie a lulav ring on Yom Tov. <ref>Piskei Teshuvot 651:3</ref>
#It is possible to abrogate a minhag with [[hatarat nedarim]] even if it is established by rabbis.<ref>Pri Chadash 496:2:4 (Dinei Minhagei Issur #4)</ref>


==How to hold them==
===Communal Minhagim===
#We need to hold the [[arba minim]] right side up, "biderech gedeilatan"-the way which they grow. <ref> sukka 45b. Mishna Brurah 652:16 and Chazon Ovadia Hilchot sukka page 340 say you aren't even yotze bidieved. </ref>
#A communal minhag that is meritorious can only be broken if majority of the community does [[hatarat nedarim]]. An individual can't abrogated the minhag if he does a personal [[hatarat nedarim]].<ref>Pri Chadash (Dinei Minhagei Issur #5)</ref>
#The minhag is that the spine of the [[lulav]] should be facing towards the person shaking it. <ref> Chazon Ovadia [[Sukkot]] 358, Ben Ish Chai Haazinu 13 against the Eliyah Rabba 650 and the Orchot Chaim 23 quoting the Raavad who say that the spine should be facing away from him </ref>
#If a community has a practice, there is a dispute to what extent it applies to the next generation. One opinion holds that the minhag is not binding upon the next generation unless they have observed it one time.<ref>Zichron Yosef YD 14 cited by Pitchei Teshuva YD 214:5</ref> On the opposite end, some say the minhag is binding upon the children and it is impossible for them to do [[hatarat nedarim]] on that minhag because they weren't the ones who instituted it.<ref>Maharshdam YD 40, Maharik 144</ref> In the middle are those who say that the minhag is binding upon the next generation but they can do [[hatarat nedarim]] just like the previous generation could.<ref>Pri Chadash (Dinei Minhagei Issur #8)</ref>
# One should hold the [[lulav]] ([[aravot]] and [[hadasim]] included) in the right hand and the [[etrog]] in his left hand. <ref> Shulchan Aruch 651:2. Mishna Brurah 15 explains that this is because the [[lulav]], [[aravot]], and [[hadasim]] have three parts of the mitzva while the [[etrog]] is only one. </ref>
# For people whose left hand is the stronger one,
## Sephardim should hold it as if they were right handed and hold the [[lulav]] in the right and [[etrog]] in the left. <ref> Tur 651, Shulchan Aruch 651:3. See Kaf Hachaim 651:38. </ref>
## Ashkenazim should switch it, and hold the [[lulav]] in the left hand and [[etrog]] in the right hand. <ref> Rama (quoting the Rosh 3:25 and Rabbeinu Yerucham) 651:3. Rama adds that if a lefty held it as if he were a righty, he is still yotzei.  see however, Orchos Rabbeinu 2:pg. 288 that the Steipler who was a lefty and Ashkenazi, followed the Shulchan Aruch and not the Rama's ruling. </ref>
#One should hold the [[arba minim]] against each other both for the holding and for the shaking. <ref> Shulchan Aruch 651:11 </ref>
#It is prohibited to have something [[separating]] between your hands and the [[arba minim]]. <ref> Beit Yosef 651 says for those who wear [[tefillin]] during [[chol hamoed]] remove it for the [[arba minim]], although technically they don't have to because it doesn't cover the whole hand. Rama 651:7 paskins like this as well. The bach and the biurei hagra there however, both say that you must remove it because its considered a chatzitza as long as its not for the hiddur mitzva.</ref> It is permitted to leave your ring on though or if you get hurt and need to wear a cast or a bandage that you can't remove it you can be lenient. <ref> Halichot Shlomo 224, Chazon Ovadia 417-419 </ref>
==Naanuim (Shaking of the Lulav)==
#Sephardim shake the [[lulav]] before [[hallel]] when they first say the beracha and take the [[arba minim]], then in [[hallel]] at the first hodu once, at anna hashem twice, and the second hodu once. <ref> Even though the mishnah in sukka 37b doesn't mention any before [[hallel]], Tosefot there "bihodu" adds that we should shake before also. Shulchan Aruch 651:8 and Chazon Ovadia [[sukkot]] 356 both agree to this.</ref>
#In addition to the times that sephardim shake, Ashkenazim have the custom that the chazzan shakes in yomru na also, and the congregation shake for all four hodu's that they say after the chazzan says his part, and the two hodus at the end of [[hallel]]. <ref> Rama 651:8 and Mishna Brurah 41. </ref>
#Sephardim shake towards the south, north, east, up, down, west. (If the shul faces east then to your right, left, forward, up, down, backward.) <ref> Chazon Ovadia 352-353 paskins like the Arizal against Shulchan Aruch 651:10 who says to start at east and turn clockwise. </ref> One should turn his body and face the direction to which he is shaking. <ref> Bikkurei Yaakov 651:36 quoting the Ari as well as the Kaf Hachayim 651:96 </ref>
#Ashkenazim shake east, south, west, north, up, down. Face forward and shake clockwise <ref> Mishna Brurah 651:47 </ref> You don't have to turn your body to face that direction, you can just shake the [[lulav]] towards that direction while facing forward. <ref> Mishna Brurah 651:37 quoting the Magen Avraham and the Maamar Mordechai. </ref>
#One should refrain from shaking while mentioning the name of Hashem lest he become distracted while saying His name. <ref> Mishna Brurah 651:37, Kaf Hachayim 651:84, Chazon Ovadia 655 </ref>
# Some have the minhag to shake the lulav after reciting the bracha in the Sukkah.<Ref>[https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=67781 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Haazinu 5779 min. 6)] explains that his father never took the lulav to shake it in the Sukkah.</ref>


==After [[Sukkot]]==
===Universal Minhagim===
#The [[arba minim]] don't retain their holiness after [[sukkot]], but it still should not be treated disrespectfully like being thrown into the garbage. It is permissible though to leave them somewhere even if you know somebody else will throw them in the garbage.<ref> Mishna Brurah 21:6-7. Although the shulchan aruch siman 21, is referring to old [[tzitzit]], Mishna Brurah 21:1 extends it to all items used for a mitzva. </ref> One who shows extra care by burying articles used for mitzvot, will receive beracha. <ref> Rama 21:1 </ref>
#A minhag that was accepted by all Jews can't be broken by a [[hatarat nedarim]].<ref>Pri Chadash (Dinei Minhagei Issur #6) citing Sh"t Maharshal 7</ref>
#There are several other customs that people have to do with their [[arba minim]]. <ref> Most of these are based on [[Shabbat]] 117b which says that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi would make a meal out of the bread used for the eruv, because it was already used for a mitzva. </ref>
===Parent's Minhag===
*Burn the [[lulav]] in the oven baking the matzas. <ref> Rama 664:9 </ref>
#If one's parent had a meritorious practice, it is not binding upon the children unless they observe the practice one time, either in the life of their parent or after their death. <ref>Pri Chadash (Dinei Minhagei Issur #7) based on the Gemara Chullin 105a</ref>
*Burn the [[lulav]] on erev [[pesach]] with the chametz.  
 
*Make [[etrog]] jelly and eat it on Tu B'shvat.
==Changing Minhagim==
*Give the pitom of the [[etrog]] to a pregnant women as a [[prayer]] for an easy childbirth. <ref> Kaf Hachayim 664:60 mentions the last 3 </ref>
 
*Use the [[hadasim]] as [[besamim]] for [[Havdalah]]. <ref> Tur 297 and Bach there. </ref>
#If a person moved from one community to another and plans on staying there, he should follow the minhagim of the place he is planning on staying. <ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 214:2</ref>
#If a person changes from one community to another, he should follow their minhagim but must be honest and follow all of their minhagim. Commonly when a man from one community marries a woman from another community, the woman takes upon herself the new minhagim of the community she is moving into. If the husband is a baal [[teshuva]] or a ger and doesn't have minhagim, he may accept the minhagim of his wife.<ref>Tashbetz 3:179 explains that if a man marries a woman from another community with different minhagim certainly they should follow the man's minhagim. It couldn't be that a couple sitting at one table would have certain foods that are permitted to one and forbidden to another. Rav Hershel Schachter in a [http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/812018/Rabbi_Hershel_Schachter/Hilchos_Pesach shiur on yutorah.org (Hilchos Pesach min 8-11)] said that generally when a couple gets married and they each have different minhagim they should follow the man's minhagim. It is permitted to change one's old minhagim since one is permanently moving into a new community. However, if he doesn't have minhagim such as if he's a baal teshuva or ger they should follow the wife's minhagim. [The Sephardic Halachah Newsletter v. 7 p. 3] cites Igrot Moshe OC 1:158, Minchat Yitzchak 4:83, Halichot Shlomo 1:7, Rav Elyashiv in Ashrei Haish 3:59:2 who agree.</ref>
#If a woman changed her minhagim when she got married to adopt her husband's minhagim and now she is a widow or divorcee if she has children from her husband she should continue to follow the minhagim of her husband. However, if she doesn't have any children she should return to the minhagim of her father's house.<ref>Tashbetz 3:179 learns from the concept of the daughter of a Cohen who is considered to be a Yisrael for purposes of Trumah as long as she is married to a Cohen. Even after the husband dies or divorces her she is still considered a Yisrael as long as she has children. However, if she doesn't have children "she returns to her father's house" and is considered a daughter of a Cohen. The Tashbetz applies this system to a couple married where the man and woman come from different communities.</ref>
#Some say that a Sephardi who learns by Rabbis who are Ashkenazic doesn’t have to follow the minhagim of his Rabbis and can continue to follow the minhag of his parents. <ref>Sh"t Or Letzion (vol 2 pg 17-18) writes that one should follow the minhag of one’s parents and not that of one’s rabbis. </ref>
 
==Davening in a Minyan that Has a Different Minhag==
See [[Davening_with_a_Minyan_That_Uses_a_Different_Nusach]]
 
==Changing One’s Nusach HaTefillah (Ashkenaz, Edot HaMizrach, Nusach Sefard)==
 
#Barring any extenuating circumstances (as determined by a Rabbi/Posek), one should not change his or her Nusach Hatefillah (rite of prayer) from that of his or her ancestors.<ref>Magen Avraham on S”A O”C 68:1. Aside from his own position, the Magen Avraham quotes that of the Arizal as saying that there are 12 gates that reach heaven, parallel to the 12 shevatim. Each shevet had its own way of davening that passed through its own gate. One should not change his Nusach, lest his tefilot enter the wrong gate and become incapable of ascending to heaven.
The Chatam Sofer (Shu”t Chatam Sofer O”C 16) was of this opinion as well since all of the Nusachot contain deep allusions to divine secrets and praises to Hashem. He argues that since all of them accomplish the task of praising and beseeching Hashem with these Kavanot, there would be no reason for anyone to switch from his own Nusach. With this said, there were a number of poskim who disagreed with this reasoning, as will be explained in the footnote below. See Divrei Chaim (vol. 2 OC 8), Maharam Shick (OC 43), and Minchat Elazar 1:11 at length.</ref>
#Nonetheless, if a person momentarily finds himself in a shul of a different Nusach and cannot find the siddur for his proper Nusach, he can still fulfill his obligation to daven on a level of bedieved by davening per the shul’s Nusach.<ref>Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg based on Mishna Berurah Siman 68:1, as referenced in a [https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/894734/rabbi-moshe-sokoloff/can-one-change-their-nusach-hatefillah/ shiur] by Rabbi Moshe Sokoloff</ref>
#Examples of mitigating circumstances favoring a switch in Nusach include when the Nusach being changed to is the person’s ancestral Nusach, if the person’s father would not be upset by the change and if the person was previously educated in that Nusach. These factors together may warrant a change in Nusach.<ref>Shu”t Minchat Asher 2:8</ref> Others include such circumstances as if one was previously educated in a Nusach and it would be too difficult to revert back to the ancestral Nusach, if one is a ba’al teshuva or a convert and is close to the Rabbi who educated him, or if a child in yeshiva is concerned that davening differently may lead to estrangement from his peers and subsequent struggles in his learning.<ref>Halichot Shlomo, Hilchot Tefilah 5:22</ref>
#In the event it is determined by a Rabbi that a change in Nusach is necessary, there are a variety of opinions, depending on the person's original Nusach, as to which is the best Nusach to switch to. Ultimately, there is at least one Posek that advocates for each of the major Nuscha'ot.<ref>Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggrot Moshe O”C 2:24) maintains that switching from Nusach Sefard to Nusach Ashkenaz would be correct as Nusach Ashkenaz has a more substantial mesorah. Rav Ovadiah Yosef (Yalkut Yosef O”C 101:7), based on the Chida, maintains that one can switch from Ashkenaz to Nusach Sefard/Edot HaMizrach as it is more correct according to Kabbalah, (though potentially not in the opposite direction (see Shu"t Yachveh Da'at 3:6)). The Divrei Chaim, Sha’ar HaKollel and others maintain one can switch from Ashkenaz to Nusach Sefard/Ar”i as it is the Nusach that unlocks all 12 gates or a separate 13th gate to heaven for tefillot to be heard.) The Lubavitcher Rebbe's view was that one can switch up from Ashkenaz to Sephard and from Sephard to Ari, but not the other ways, because each one is greater than the previous, Ari the greatest of them all. He emphasizes the need for Darchei Noam in these proceedings. See [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=15787&st=&pgnum=110 Shaarei Halacha uMinhag (Orach Chaim I Siman 46 page 113)],Iggros HaKodesh [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=15895&st=&pgnum=82 vol. 11 page 65], vol. 12 page 201, [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=15892&st=&pgnum=22 vol. 19 page 4], and Sefer HaMinhagim page 2</ref>
#In the event that two shuls of different Nuscha’ot need to combine due to a lack of congregants, the shuls may choose the Nusach of one of them and daven according to that Nusach going forward.<ref>Shu”t Chatam Sofer C”M 188, Shu”t Yabia Omer O”C Vol. 6:10</ref>
 
==Pronunciations==
 
#Each sect should pronounce words according to their own minhag.<ref>Tefillah Khilchata 4:19 p. 94 writes that some poskim hold that a Sephardi shouldn’t pronounce the name of Hashem the way they usually do and instead they should pronounce it as Ashkenazim, distinguishing the kamatz from a patach. In the footnote he cites the Har Tzvi OC 1:4 and statement of Chazon Ish to teachers. The Har Tzvi writes that it is important to distinguish between the kamatz and patach and it is based on the Rabbenu Bechay. He certainly writes that an Ashkenazi should not accept the Sephardic minhag in this matter.
 
*Yalkut Yosef Tefillah Siman 101 at length discusses this topic and proves that it isn’t correct to invalidate the Sephardi minhag of how to pronounce the name of Hashem. They don’t distinguish significantly between kamatz and patach but there is sufficient basis for that minhag in the rishonim. This is also found in Yabia Omer OC 6:11.</ref>
 
See also [[Davening with a Minyan That Uses a Different Nusach#Pronunciation .28Havara.29 .26 Nusach]]
 
==Kibud/Moreh Av V'Em==
[[Kibud Av V'Em]] (and Moreh Av V'Em) are also factors in changing a minhag. Please consider the information on the corresponding page.
 
==Links==
 
#[[Minhagim of Chanuka]]
#[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0yD7VqthpReQUI3SWpRYkxab2c/edit?usp=sharing Source sheet for above essay on Minhagim]
#[http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/08/how-to-undo-a-minhag/ How to undo a Minhag] by Rabbi Gil Student


==Sources==
==Sources==
<references/>
<references />
[[Category:Holidays]]
[[Category:Sukkot]]

Revision as of 22:09, 15 July 2020

Minhag.png

A minhag is a local or communal practice of halacha. Minhagim are of such significance that we even find that the angels[1] and even Hashem himself follow the local practice, minhag.[2] Hashem likes a variation of minhagim just as he wanted different tribes each encamped around the Mishkan with a different role.[3]

What are minhagim based on?

Why are minhagim binding? In what capacity do we have to observe them? To answer these questions we are going to explore the halachic foundations upon which minhagim are based. There are two primary approaches to explain the obligation for minhagim. The first is based on a Gemara Nedarim 81b which states that one who violates a minhag is in a violation of a neder. The Ran (ibid.) explains that if a person practices a good practice with intention of continuing to keep that practice, rabbinically it is considered as though he took a vow and he is forbidden from breaking that vow. In order for the vow to be effective biblically he would have to enunciate it, however, rabbinically it is sufficient to have acted upon the intent to keep the practice.[4]

The second approach to explain minhagim is based on a Gemara Pesachim 50b. The gemara relates a story in which the people of Bayshan took upon themselves a practice to refrain from traveling on Friday so as not to come to desecrate Shabbat. The next generation, however, found this practice too cumbersome and inhibited their ability to make a livelihood. Yet, when they asked Rabbi Yochanan if they could abolish this practice they were told that they should not disregard the practices of their parents citing a pasuk from Mishlei 1:8. The gemara implies that there is an inherent issue with breaking from communal practices and particularly apply to later generations. From the fact that the Gemara doesn't cite the violation of breaking a vow as the Gemara Nedarim does it seems that the Gemara Pesachim believes that there is another binding force of minhagim.[5] Rav Hershel Schachter[6] cites Rav Moshe Soloveitchik as having explained that the Rambam's opinion was that minhagim are binding because the act of breaking the minhag is an issue of separating from the community, which in it of itself is a problem.[7]

Before offering practical applications, let us inquire whether each approach can accomodate the idea of personal as well as communal practices. If we suppose that minhagim are based on not abrogating communal customs, then seemingly personal practices would not be binding. However, if minhagim are based on vows, they certainly would apply to individuals; but would it also apply to a congregation? Rav Hershel Schachter in an article on yutorah.org explains that there is the concept of a communal vow and applies to everyone in the community. Furthermore, the communal vow is binding not only to the original community who accepted the practice but also to future generations. A proof for this concept is the Gemara Ketubot 111a, which states that the Jews took upon themselves three vows and theoretically they are binding upon Jews to this day.[8] The concept could be explained by a similar concept we find regarding Korbanot. The Jewish community is considered a single unit that doesn't die because each successive generation fills the shoes of the previous one. Therefore, the Gemara Temurah 15b establishes that even though usually a person can not have a korban chatat brought on his behalf after he passes away, a congregation can do so because in reality the congregation lives on through their descendants.

Now that we have examined two approaches to minhagim, let us explore a few potential applications and see how each approach relates to that case. First, do minhagim apply to halachic scenarios? That is, what happens when minhag and halacha clashes? For example, there is a major discussion in the rishonim and achronim whether there is an obligation to wear Tefillin on Chol HaMoed. Let's suppose that I usually follow a certain Rabbi or sefer for my halachic questions and he says that I should wear Tefillin on Chol HaMoed, but my father's minhag is not to wear Tefillin, what should I do? According to the first approach, it is reasonable to assume that a community can only take upon themselves vows in gray areas of halacha. For example, the Gemara points out that a person may not vow to abrogate a mitzvah because that simply isn't up to his discretion. Similarly, the halachic question of wearing Tefillin on Chol HaMoed shouldn't be one decided upon by a community and its vow shouldn't be binding.[9]However, according to the second approach it is possible that a community's practice is binding even in areas of halacha because however the practice was established, the individual should be restricted from breaking from the communal practices.[10]

Does a person who moves communities need to continue his old practices or should he follow the customs of the place he entered? If one were to suppose that minhagim are like vows, it is logical that the vows should follow a person wherever he may be. However, if minhagim are a way of observing local customs, then upon moving one should adopt the local practices. In reality, everyone agrees that upon moving one should change his customs to follow the place where he plans on staying.[11] It could be explained by supposing that the way communal vows work is that they only apply to a person while he is still part of that community.

Are minhagim binding if they were instituted in error? The Gemara Chullin 6b tells of a story in which Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi came to Beyt Shan and permitted the people not to take Trumot and Maaserot from their crops being that it was not part of Israel. However, the gemara asks how could Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi abrogate their minhag? To this the gemara answers that sometimes a later rabbi is given the opportunity to say something that no one before has said. Tosfot Pesachim 51a s.v. Iy though is bothered because this gemara seems to disregard the entire principle behind minhagim. Tosfot explains that minhagim are only binding when formulated with the correct knowledge of halacha and the minhag is just an added restriction or practice. However, if the community mistakenly thought something is forbidden when it is in reality permitted, that isn't a minhag at all. Seemingly, this idea fits nicely with the approach of communal vows because vows aren't binding when taken in error.[12]

Lastly, is it possible to have a temporary minhag? If we assume that minhagim are based on vows, then certainly yes, because it is possible to stipulate that a certain vow should only apply for a certain amount of time.[13] However, if we suppose that minhagim are based on not breaking from the practices of the everlasting Jewish community, then perhaps it is impossible for minhagim to be temporary just as biblical and rabbinic laws are permanent in nature. Yet, it seems that everyone can agree that minhagim could be instituted temporarily because minhagim are very much based on intent and if the community never accepted the practice with intent that it should last forever, reasonably it should be limited.[14]

When minhagim clash with halacha

Minhagim that Contradict the Halacha

  1. A minhag to recite a certain bracha even if it is questionable according to the halacha can be left and not protested.[15]
  2. Generally when a minhag is in violation of the halacha, whether it be Biblical or rabbinic, it should be abolished.[16] Some, however, hold that if it is an established minhag and it is only in violation of a rabbinic prohibition can be left alone.[17]
  3. A minhag established by local rabbis even if others hold that it is against the halacha, many hold that it shouldn't be abrogated.[18]
  4. For example, see the discussions of piyutim during Birchot Kriyat Shema in OC 68 between the Tur, Bach, and Bet Shaarim whether it is right to upkeep the minhag even though it seems to be problematic in terms of hefsek.

Minhagim that Choose a Side in a Halachic Dispute

  1. If a certain halacha isn't clear and there is justifiable basis on either side of the dispute or question at hand, one can view the minhag in order to decide the dispute.[19]
  2. A minhag is binding if it involves a stringency above the actual strict law. However, generally speaking, a minhag to follow one opinion on a matter that is a dispute in the Rishonim isn't a binding minhag.[20] Therefore, if one local rabbi ruled in one way and the minhag followed his opinion and later that rabbi moved or died and another rabbi was appointed and had another opinion the minhag can be changed.[21]

Non-Binding Minhagim

  1. A minhag that isn't concerned for any opinion or any prohibition isn't a binding minhag.[22]
  2. It is important that a minhag be established by rabbis.[23]

Abrogating Minhagim

Minhag in Error

  1. If a person has a practice in error, some say that it isn't binding and one doesn't require hatarat nedarim. However, others say that it is binding and in order for it to become permitted one would require hatarat nedarim. The halacha follows the first opinion. [24]

Using Hatarat Nedarim

  1. A person who has a meritorious minhag, some say that it can never be broken, while others say that it can break that minhag with hatarat nedarim. The halacha follows the second opinion. [25]
  2. The above dispute is relevant to a minhag that is intended to protect an existing halacha, however, everyone agrees that a minhag out of piety or abstinence can be broken with hatarat nedarim.[26]
  3. It is possible to abrogate a minhag with hatarat nedarim even if it is established by rabbis.[27]

Communal Minhagim

  1. A communal minhag that is meritorious can only be broken if majority of the community does hatarat nedarim. An individual can't abrogated the minhag if he does a personal hatarat nedarim.[28]
  2. If a community has a practice, there is a dispute to what extent it applies to the next generation. One opinion holds that the minhag is not binding upon the next generation unless they have observed it one time.[29] On the opposite end, some say the minhag is binding upon the children and it is impossible for them to do hatarat nedarim on that minhag because they weren't the ones who instituted it.[30] In the middle are those who say that the minhag is binding upon the next generation but they can do hatarat nedarim just like the previous generation could.[31]

Universal Minhagim

  1. A minhag that was accepted by all Jews can't be broken by a hatarat nedarim.[32]

Parent's Minhag

  1. If one's parent had a meritorious practice, it is not binding upon the children unless they observe the practice one time, either in the life of their parent or after their death. [33]

Changing Minhagim

  1. If a person moved from one community to another and plans on staying there, he should follow the minhagim of the place he is planning on staying. [34]
  2. If a person changes from one community to another, he should follow their minhagim but must be honest and follow all of their minhagim. Commonly when a man from one community marries a woman from another community, the woman takes upon herself the new minhagim of the community she is moving into. If the husband is a baal teshuva or a ger and doesn't have minhagim, he may accept the minhagim of his wife.[35]
  3. If a woman changed her minhagim when she got married to adopt her husband's minhagim and now she is a widow or divorcee if she has children from her husband she should continue to follow the minhagim of her husband. However, if she doesn't have any children she should return to the minhagim of her father's house.[36]
  4. Some say that a Sephardi who learns by Rabbis who are Ashkenazic doesn’t have to follow the minhagim of his Rabbis and can continue to follow the minhag of his parents. [37]

Davening in a Minyan that Has a Different Minhag

See Davening_with_a_Minyan_That_Uses_a_Different_Nusach

Changing One’s Nusach HaTefillah (Ashkenaz, Edot HaMizrach, Nusach Sefard)

  1. Barring any extenuating circumstances (as determined by a Rabbi/Posek), one should not change his or her Nusach Hatefillah (rite of prayer) from that of his or her ancestors.[38]
  2. Nonetheless, if a person momentarily finds himself in a shul of a different Nusach and cannot find the siddur for his proper Nusach, he can still fulfill his obligation to daven on a level of bedieved by davening per the shul’s Nusach.[39]
  3. Examples of mitigating circumstances favoring a switch in Nusach include when the Nusach being changed to is the person’s ancestral Nusach, if the person’s father would not be upset by the change and if the person was previously educated in that Nusach. These factors together may warrant a change in Nusach.[40] Others include such circumstances as if one was previously educated in a Nusach and it would be too difficult to revert back to the ancestral Nusach, if one is a ba’al teshuva or a convert and is close to the Rabbi who educated him, or if a child in yeshiva is concerned that davening differently may lead to estrangement from his peers and subsequent struggles in his learning.[41]
  4. In the event it is determined by a Rabbi that a change in Nusach is necessary, there are a variety of opinions, depending on the person's original Nusach, as to which is the best Nusach to switch to. Ultimately, there is at least one Posek that advocates for each of the major Nuscha'ot.[42]
  5. In the event that two shuls of different Nuscha’ot need to combine due to a lack of congregants, the shuls may choose the Nusach of one of them and daven according to that Nusach going forward.[43]

Pronunciations

  1. Each sect should pronounce words according to their own minhag.[44]

See also Davening with a Minyan That Uses a Different Nusach#Pronunciation .28Havara.29 .26 Nusach

Kibud/Moreh Av V'Em

Kibud Av V'Em (and Moreh Av V'Em) are also factors in changing a minhag. Please consider the information on the corresponding page.

Links

  1. Minhagim of Chanuka
  2. Source sheet for above essay on Minhagim
  3. How to undo a Minhag by Rabbi Gil Student

Sources

  1. ↑ Gemara Bava Metsia 86b, Yismach Moshe Beresheet 1:11
  2. ↑ Sanhedrin 46b, Maharam Mintz (teshuva 54)
  3. ↑ Shlah Torah Shebichtav Naso quoting the Arizal
  4. ↑ Tur and Shulchan Aruch 214:1 cite the approach of the Ran. Birkei Yosef YD 214 also points out that it is only treated like a neder and is binding rabbinically. Thus, if there is a doubt if something is prohibited based on a minhag, one may be lenient.
  5. ↑ The Ramban (Mishpat HaCherem, cited by the Bet Yosef YD 214:2) describes minhagim as communal acceptances and doesn't use the language of vows.
  6. ↑ Nefesh HaRav (p. 235)
  7. ↑ Pirkei Avot 2:4. See Nefesh HaRav where he explains that separating from the community is a way of breaking from the tradition in which the Torah was meant to be kept. The Torah was given to Bnei Yisrael as a unit (see Rashi Shemot 19:2) and should be kept that way. A person who deviates from communal practices is in essence causing the Torah to be perverted.
  8. ↑ For further discussion of this topic, see a letter of the Rogachover (Safnat Paneach 143:2) regarding the vow that Yosef made his brothers take. Other proofs are the oath bnei yisrael took against the tribe of Binyamin by Pilegesh B'givah and the acceptance of the Torah, which is sometimes described as an oath.
  9. ↑ This position is endorsed by the Sdei Chemed (v. 4, n. 38) and Yabia Omer O.C. 2:23. Both express the idea that the institutors of the minhag may not have the ability to be a decider of halacha to arbitrate between the rishonim. In such a case, the minhag is not binding. According to this opinion, as opposed to issues of minhag, on issues of halacha a person should follow his personal Rebbe Muvhak like the Chazon Ish YD 150:1 writes.
  10. ↑ In fact, the Ohr Letzion (v. 2, p. 17-8 and v. 1, 5:7) advocates this approach with reservation. He explains that the community of Rabbi Yose HaGlali ate cheese and chicken together because the opinion of Rabbi Yose was that it was permitted even though the other Rabbis forbad it. Even after Rabbi Yose died, they followed his opinion, says the Or Letzion, because once they practice in accordance with his opinion before it was known to be a dispute, for that community it remains a permitted activity and do not need to consider the other opinion. One of his proofs is the Rambam (Shmitta VeYovel 10:6) who writes although he believes that the halacha does not follow the geonim in their count of the Shmitta cycle, because the practice is like the geonim, the practice should continue.
  11. ↑ Shulchan Aruch YD 214:2
  12. ↑ Shulchan Aruch YD 232:10. See Mishna Nedarim 25b.
  13. ↑ It is clear from chazal that one may stipulate a vow to apply to a certain time period. A simple proof is the Mishna Nedarim 57a. Additionally, Shulchan Aruch YD 214:1 implies that if one has a practice that one only plans on doing a couple of times and not forever, it isn't binding as an oath, yet to any question, one should stipulate so explicitly.
  14. ↑ The concept that minhagim can have a limited time-frame is shown in Shulchan Aruch YD 228:27.
  15. ↑ Gemara Tanait 28b tells the story of Rav who went to Bavel and didn't say anything when he heard the congregation reciting Hallel on Rosh Chodesh even though presumably they recited it with a bracha. Pri Chadash 496:2:10 quotes the Maharik (Shoresh 9) who cites this as a proof that one can follow a minhag even against the halacha. The Pri Chadash disagrees and answers that reciting a bracha is different. Since a bracha sheino tzaricha is only rabbinic and if there's a minhag the rabbis can say that it is permitted to recite a bracha for the sake of a minhag as we find in Beitzah 4b for Yom Tov Sheni.
  16. ↑ Pri Chadash 496:2:10 based on several gemara's as well as a Rivash. Other proofs include: Ritva Pesachim 51a s.v. vkatav citing the Raah, Radvaz 1:359. However, Lev Avot Lebhar p. 14 tries to prove that we don't follow the Pri Chadash's approach. He quotes that he personally heard from Rav Elyashiv this as well. He also cites Rav Elyashiv in Kovetz Teshuvot 1:60 with a similar idea. He supports his approach with the Petach Dvir OC 2:233 that any practice which can be justified with some opinion should be left alone. Other proofs include: Sdei Chemed 40:37 s.v. hamuram quoting the Zera Yakov, Maharam Paduah 78, and Maharashdam YD 193.
  17. ↑ Pri Chadash 496:2:10 cites the Masa Hamelech and Bear Sheva who thought that if a minhag is only in vioaltion of a rabbinic prohibition it can be upheld. Rabbi Akiva Eiger in his comments to Pri Chadash there questions the proof of the Pri Chadash from Rosh Hashana 15b against the Masa Hamelech and in fact claims that it is a proof against the Pri Chadash.
  18. ↑ Mordechai b"m 7:366, Radvaz 3:532 based on Maharik 9
  19. ↑ Yerushalmi Peah 7:5, Gemara Brachot 45a. Rambam Shemitta Vyovel 10:6 writes that in calculating the calendaric years of Shemitta he differs from the Geonim in his calculations. Nonetheless, he concludes that since the Geonim have an old tradition for their calculations and the practice is like them, great is the significant of tradition to follow them. Rav Hai Goan in Tamim Deyim 119 seems also to subscribe to this approach in that he first defends the minhag and says that generally you first have to accept minhagim even under question and then answer the questions. He then goes on to justify the particular minhag in question. Tosfot Brachot 21b disagrees with Rashi's practice and yet concludes that the minhag follows Rashi and great is the minhag that we can follow it. Halichot Shlomo ch. 19 fnt. 27 cited by Magen Avot p. 15 cites the the Shoel Umeishiv responded to the Shem Aryeh that although his responses were reasonable he sometimes disagreed because he knew that the practice was otherwise and he tried to explain the basis for the minhag. Rav Shlomo Zalman agreed with such an approach.
  20. ↑ Sdei Chemed (v. 4, Maarechet Mem, Klal 37)
  21. ↑ Pri Chadash 496:2:2 (Dinei Minhagei Issur #2) based on Maharashdam YD 40
  22. ↑ Igrot Moshe OC 3:64 writes that someone whose father had the practice not to eat gibroks all year isn't binding since it has no reason and gibroks can't be more strict than real chametz which is permitted all year besides Pesach. Furthermore, Igrot Moshe writes that it is permitted to wear clothing according to his time and place and it isn't a binding minhag to have to wear the clothing of previously generations. This is assuming that the clothing is modest. Bet Yosef 670:1 writes that the practice not to work all of Chanuka isn't binding since it isn't concerned for all halachic issue.
  23. ↑ Lev Avot p. 2 based on Chazon Ish OC 39:8 and Kaf Hachaim 14:14 writes that not everything anyone calls a tradition because it was observed in a community is deemed a minhag, it needs to be established and recorded by rabbis to be considered a valid minhag. Siach Yitzchak 294 sources the practice of chasidim to eat shirayim from the rebbe in the Yerushalmi Moed Katan 2:3 and Brachot 55. He concludes that this should be a precedent for all good minhagim that they are well sourced and based on sound principles.
  24. ↑ Tosfot Pesachim 51a s.v. Iy and the Rosh (Pesachim 4:3) hold that a minhag that is based on an error isn't binding at all and may be abrogated without any hatarat nedarim. Their proof is the gemara Chullin 6b. The Ran (Pesachim 17a) and Rashba (responsa 3:236) hold that a minhag made in error is binding and can only be broken with hatarat nedarim. Each opinion differs in how they understand the Yerushalmi Pesachim 4:1 which states that a minhag made in error can be abrogated. The Rosh would understand it to mean that it can be abrogated without any formal process. The Ran, however, would explain the Yerushalmi as saying that it could only be broken with hatarat nedarim. Shulchan Aruch YD 214:1 quotes the Rosh as the primary opinion but also cites the Ran. The Rama follows the Rosh. Also, the Pri Chadash (Dinei Minhagei Issur #1) writes that the halacha is like the Rosh and brings proofs to that effect.
  25. ↑ Tosfot Pesachim 51a s.v. Iy and the Rosh (Pesachim 4:3) hold that a meritorious minhag is binding like a neder but can be broken with hatarat nedarim. However, the Ran (Pesachim 17a) and Rashba (responsa 3:236, cited by Bet Yosef YD 214:1) hold that minhagim can't be broken if they are meritorious. The two opinions differ in how they understand the Yerushalmi Pesachim 4:1 which says that a good minhag can't be abrogated. The Rosh understands it to mean that without hatarat nedarim it can't be broken. The Ran, however, understands the Yerushalmi more absolutely; a good minhag can not be broken. Another proof for the Ran is the Yerushalmi Nedarim 5:4 which forbids permitting a neder against gambling, even though theoretically some say there is no prohibition with gambling (see Sanhedrin 24b). Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 214:1 rules like the Rosh. The Pri Chadash 496:2:1 (Dinei Minhagei Issur #1) also rules like the Rosh but wonders why Shulchan Aruch YD 228:15 rules like the Rivash, who follows the Ran.
  26. ↑ Pri Chadash (Dinei Minhagei Issur #1) proves this from the language of the rishonim who forbid abrogating a minhag as well as the fact that the Ran Nedarim 81b writes that a minhag can be broken with a hatarat nedarim although he generally holds (Pesachim 17a) that it is forbidden.
  27. ↑ Pri Chadash 496:2:4 (Dinei Minhagei Issur #4)
  28. ↑ Pri Chadash (Dinei Minhagei Issur #5)
  29. ↑ Zichron Yosef YD 14 cited by Pitchei Teshuva YD 214:5
  30. ↑ Maharshdam YD 40, Maharik 144
  31. ↑ Pri Chadash (Dinei Minhagei Issur #8)
  32. ↑ Pri Chadash (Dinei Minhagei Issur #6) citing Sh"t Maharshal 7
  33. ↑ Pri Chadash (Dinei Minhagei Issur #7) based on the Gemara Chullin 105a
  34. ↑ Shulchan Aruch YD 214:2
  35. ↑ Tashbetz 3:179 explains that if a man marries a woman from another community with different minhagim certainly they should follow the man's minhagim. It couldn't be that a couple sitting at one table would have certain foods that are permitted to one and forbidden to another. Rav Hershel Schachter in a shiur on yutorah.org (Hilchos Pesach min 8-11) said that generally when a couple gets married and they each have different minhagim they should follow the man's minhagim. It is permitted to change one's old minhagim since one is permanently moving into a new community. However, if he doesn't have minhagim such as if he's a baal teshuva or ger they should follow the wife's minhagim. [The Sephardic Halachah Newsletter v. 7 p. 3] cites Igrot Moshe OC 1:158, Minchat Yitzchak 4:83, Halichot Shlomo 1:7, Rav Elyashiv in Ashrei Haish 3:59:2 who agree.
  36. ↑ Tashbetz 3:179 learns from the concept of the daughter of a Cohen who is considered to be a Yisrael for purposes of Trumah as long as she is married to a Cohen. Even after the husband dies or divorces her she is still considered a Yisrael as long as she has children. However, if she doesn't have children "she returns to her father's house" and is considered a daughter of a Cohen. The Tashbetz applies this system to a couple married where the man and woman come from different communities.
  37. ↑ Sh"t Or Letzion (vol 2 pg 17-18) writes that one should follow the minhag of one’s parents and not that of one’s rabbis.
  38. ↑ Magen Avraham on S”A O”C 68:1. Aside from his own position, the Magen Avraham quotes that of the Arizal as saying that there are 12 gates that reach heaven, parallel to the 12 shevatim. Each shevet had its own way of davening that passed through its own gate. One should not change his Nusach, lest his tefilot enter the wrong gate and become incapable of ascending to heaven. The Chatam Sofer (Shu”t Chatam Sofer O”C 16) was of this opinion as well since all of the Nusachot contain deep allusions to divine secrets and praises to Hashem. He argues that since all of them accomplish the task of praising and beseeching Hashem with these Kavanot, there would be no reason for anyone to switch from his own Nusach. With this said, there were a number of poskim who disagreed with this reasoning, as will be explained in the footnote below. See Divrei Chaim (vol. 2 OC 8), Maharam Shick (OC 43), and Minchat Elazar 1:11 at length.
  39. ↑ Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg based on Mishna Berurah Siman 68:1, as referenced in a shiur by Rabbi Moshe Sokoloff
  40. ↑ Shu”t Minchat Asher 2:8
  41. ↑ Halichot Shlomo, Hilchot Tefilah 5:22
  42. ↑ Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggrot Moshe O”C 2:24) maintains that switching from Nusach Sefard to Nusach Ashkenaz would be correct as Nusach Ashkenaz has a more substantial mesorah. Rav Ovadiah Yosef (Yalkut Yosef O”C 101:7), based on the Chida, maintains that one can switch from Ashkenaz to Nusach Sefard/Edot HaMizrach as it is more correct according to Kabbalah, (though potentially not in the opposite direction (see Shu"t Yachveh Da'at 3:6)). The Divrei Chaim, Sha’ar HaKollel and others maintain one can switch from Ashkenaz to Nusach Sefard/Ar”i as it is the Nusach that unlocks all 12 gates or a separate 13th gate to heaven for tefillot to be heard.) The Lubavitcher Rebbe's view was that one can switch up from Ashkenaz to Sephard and from Sephard to Ari, but not the other ways, because each one is greater than the previous, Ari the greatest of them all. He emphasizes the need for Darchei Noam in these proceedings. See Shaarei Halacha uMinhag (Orach Chaim I Siman 46 page 113),Iggros HaKodesh vol. 11 page 65, vol. 12 page 201, vol. 19 page 4, and Sefer HaMinhagim page 2
  43. ↑ Shu”t Chatam Sofer C”M 188, Shu”t Yabia Omer O”C Vol. 6:10
  44. ↑ Tefillah Khilchata 4:19 p. 94 writes that some poskim hold that a Sephardi shouldn’t pronounce the name of Hashem the way they usually do and instead they should pronounce it as Ashkenazim, distinguishing the kamatz from a patach. In the footnote he cites the Har Tzvi OC 1:4 and statement of Chazon Ish to teachers. The Har Tzvi writes that it is important to distinguish between the kamatz and patach and it is based on the Rabbenu Bechay. He certainly writes that an Ashkenazi should not accept the Sephardic minhag in this matter.
    • Yalkut Yosef Tefillah Siman 101 at length discusses this topic and proves that it isn’t correct to invalidate the Sephardi minhag of how to pronounce the name of Hashem. They don’t distinguish significantly between kamatz and patach but there is sufficient basis for that minhag in the rishonim. This is also found in Yabia Omer OC 6:11.
Retrieved from "http://localhost:80/index.php?title=Order_of_Taking_the_Four_Minim&oldid=27250"