Hello. I found this very interesting! I read the FAQ and have a question. In your opinion, under what circumstances is it permitted to change a minhag like this, a minhag of all of כלל ישראל? What about the minhag of נטילת ערבה, or of saying Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, or saying Pesukei Dezimra, or davening Maariv? What about Taanis Esther? What about בנות ישראל החמירו על עצמן שאפילו רואות טפת דם כחרדל יושבות עליה שבעה נקיים? Is there anything that distinguishes these from changing the minhag of Krias Hatorah?
I think that as with all things (see my essay on the topic), the most important thing is the availability of precedent (something which, for the triennial cycle, is quite abundant - it is the original universal practice, a practice which communities decided to depart *from*); precedent can be a practice or it can be a precedent of something being changed for certain reasons. This is not to say that anything which has ever been done by some community or endorsed by a notable posek is okay; but neither is everything which is done currently, even if done by all rabbinic communities, absolutely binding and unchangeable.
I will admit I am far from בקיא in the topic of minhag specifically. I have not yet learned the chapter of פסחים which I understand to be the main Hazalic source which deals with it directly. But from what I do know, and I'm happy to be corrected, the idea that the practice of a minhag by all Israel has some kind of major halakhic significance (apart from a Sanhedrinal decision enshrining it) is one first advanced by some Rishonim.
To answer your question directly, therefore, I would apply more or less the same standard as in other halakhot, except perhaps with more room for change, as minhagim are certainly not mitzvoth, according to everyone. As always, it's on a case-by-case basis. Is there a precedent for the change itself proposed? How old is the current practice? Are there strong reasons for change? (the strongest reasons are ones which themselves have strong precedents). Are the objections to the change relatively weak? Also, is the current practice based on a mistake? Also worth considering is how the community might react to either a centralized change or the adoption of change by part of the community. Avoiding mahloket is an important objective.
I'm sure there are more criteria of some importance which I happen not to have thought of at the moment. The point is: halakha is complicated, and there is no single formula to resolve every question.
I will note that I answered your question primarily from the point of view of how a posek or community rav ought to think, not from the perspective of what is permitted for an individual to do. This is because halakha is primarily formulated from the point of view of a whole community. It is almost always more appropriate to follow the moreh d'atra (especially in public settings) or one's own rav than make halakhic decisions for one's self. This is perhaps the most significant practical limitation on one's halakhic autonomy. However, a *community* enjoys significant autonomy, and almost nowhere more so than in the area of minhagim. Thus, for a community (at least, through its rabbinic leadership) to make a well-considered halakhic decision to deviate from a common minhag (even a minhag currently practised by all Israel) would seem to me, in principle, quite legitimate.
>But from what I do know, and I'm happy to be corrected, the idea that the practice of a minhag by all Israel has some kind of major halakhic significance (apart from a Sanhedrinal decision enshrining it) is one first advanced by some Rishonim.
This is where I am a but perplexed, because the Rambam in the Hakdama to Mishne Torah implies that the authority of Hazal, at least for גזירות תקנות ומנהגות is based on the fact that these were פשטו בכל ישראל. The open question is whether for psak halacha this is true too. I understood that your thesis is that it is somewhat true. But at least regarding מנהגים would you differentiate between a מנהג sourced in Hazal (i.e. בנות ישראל החמירו על עצמן which arguably has the most drastic ramifications of any Minhag for women with a short cycle- though IVF can help) and a later Minhag which was also פשטה בכל ישראל and why?
I'm not sure I understand your question, and I don't feel like I know enough about how Hazal saw minhag to give a very meaningful answer. It's also important to be clear about what kind of authority we're talking about (formal authority or some kind of informal authority). Where do Hazal say that has authority simply by virtue that it has spread in all Israel has authority simply by virtue? And what kind of authority do they mean?
After thinking about it, I think I agree with you.
Not that I know much about the authority of minhag, but the Rambam seems to put it in the same category as takanos and gezeiros. I guess it's just less formal.
I assume that in all three of these פשטה בכל ישראל is not what grants the authority, but merely a condition (a תנאי).
And I assume that any post-Hazal minhag was never enacted with the intention of being authoritative for all of ישראל.
I also agree that the any post-Hazal authority is limited to a community/city. (בית דין א' בעיר)
I'll go through them in order, but this is just my opinion. Probably Yohanan differs.
1) The minhag of נטילת ערבה is accepted by both talmudim and, according to the Yerushalmi, it even has a bracha. I also can't see a good reason for not doing it.
2) I don't say hallel on Rosh Hodesh.
3) I personally am only particular to say 145-150, מזמור לתודה and pesukim. I would say more if they said them slower in schul, but they don't. Fundamentally, I believe a community can choose to do whatever.
4) The Bavli rules that ערבית is רשות, but (a) the Yerushalmi seems to say it's a חובה and (b) according the Yerushalmi a רשות still means you have to do it except in extenuating circumstances. I think the alleged נדר רבים that later sources refers to never happened and really global practice follows the Yerushalmi.
5) I don't observe Ta'anis Esther.
6) Not touching this with a fifty-five foot barge pole!
My broad opinion is that changing minhagim requires local rabbinical authorities with דעת תורה. The goal of this website, for me, is to inspire a new generation to train as Rabbonim who have דעת תורה and are also conversant in modern academic scholarship of Judaism. It's very much an aspiration at this point. Now, you may ask how to does that tally with me admitting to not keeping certain minhagim above. The truth is it doesn't, but I was already too radicalised before I came to this conclusion and it's too late to go back now.* I hope my efforts result in something good happening in the future.
*Though, if Brisk kept Ta'anis Esther, I would too.
I am perplexed about #6, especially in light of what I discovered here. https://haggadahberurah.com/blog/ As far as I can tell, it appears you don't accept the authority of the Bavli, or at least you reserve the right to dispute it whenever you don't feel it's reasonable, and you are willing to propose pretty far-reaching reforms to Judaism accordingly (like the reforms you propose to davening, the siddur, shul). So what's the big deal about a minhag mentioned in the Bavli? It's not even a halacha like לא הרגו נהרגין הרגו לא נהרגין, which you have no problem dismissing. It's just a minhag, and is not mentioned in the Yerushalmi or any other sources besides for the Bavli (or am I wrong about that?) So what's the big deal?
It's worse than that. It is a Yerushalmi, but it means something totally different. But I have respect for the yetzer hara, and a degree of awareness about what I am competent to do. I didn't say I endorse the humra; I said I'm not touching it.
As to what it means, that's another thing. On this rare occasion, I take the liberty of disagreeing with Rav Buch. Shai Secunda wrote an essay on it, which I think is basically correct. There are few things I would correct, but, as I say, it's not for me.
Hello. I found this very interesting! I read the FAQ and have a question. In your opinion, under what circumstances is it permitted to change a minhag like this, a minhag of all of כלל ישראל? What about the minhag of נטילת ערבה, or of saying Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, or saying Pesukei Dezimra, or davening Maariv? What about Taanis Esther? What about בנות ישראל החמירו על עצמן שאפילו רואות טפת דם כחרדל יושבות עליה שבעה נקיים? Is there anything that distinguishes these from changing the minhag of Krias Hatorah?
I think that as with all things (see my essay on the topic), the most important thing is the availability of precedent (something which, for the triennial cycle, is quite abundant - it is the original universal practice, a practice which communities decided to depart *from*); precedent can be a practice or it can be a precedent of something being changed for certain reasons. This is not to say that anything which has ever been done by some community or endorsed by a notable posek is okay; but neither is everything which is done currently, even if done by all rabbinic communities, absolutely binding and unchangeable.
I will admit I am far from בקיא in the topic of minhag specifically. I have not yet learned the chapter of פסחים which I understand to be the main Hazalic source which deals with it directly. But from what I do know, and I'm happy to be corrected, the idea that the practice of a minhag by all Israel has some kind of major halakhic significance (apart from a Sanhedrinal decision enshrining it) is one first advanced by some Rishonim.
To answer your question directly, therefore, I would apply more or less the same standard as in other halakhot, except perhaps with more room for change, as minhagim are certainly not mitzvoth, according to everyone. As always, it's on a case-by-case basis. Is there a precedent for the change itself proposed? How old is the current practice? Are there strong reasons for change? (the strongest reasons are ones which themselves have strong precedents). Are the objections to the change relatively weak? Also, is the current practice based on a mistake? Also worth considering is how the community might react to either a centralized change or the adoption of change by part of the community. Avoiding mahloket is an important objective.
I'm sure there are more criteria of some importance which I happen not to have thought of at the moment. The point is: halakha is complicated, and there is no single formula to resolve every question.
I will note that I answered your question primarily from the point of view of how a posek or community rav ought to think, not from the perspective of what is permitted for an individual to do. This is because halakha is primarily formulated from the point of view of a whole community. It is almost always more appropriate to follow the moreh d'atra (especially in public settings) or one's own rav than make halakhic decisions for one's self. This is perhaps the most significant practical limitation on one's halakhic autonomy. However, a *community* enjoys significant autonomy, and almost nowhere more so than in the area of minhagim. Thus, for a community (at least, through its rabbinic leadership) to make a well-considered halakhic decision to deviate from a common minhag (even a minhag currently practised by all Israel) would seem to me, in principle, quite legitimate.
>But from what I do know, and I'm happy to be corrected, the idea that the practice of a minhag by all Israel has some kind of major halakhic significance (apart from a Sanhedrinal decision enshrining it) is one first advanced by some Rishonim.
This is where I am a but perplexed, because the Rambam in the Hakdama to Mishne Torah implies that the authority of Hazal, at least for גזירות תקנות ומנהגות is based on the fact that these were פשטו בכל ישראל. The open question is whether for psak halacha this is true too. I understood that your thesis is that it is somewhat true. But at least regarding מנהגים would you differentiate between a מנהג sourced in Hazal (i.e. בנות ישראל החמירו על עצמן which arguably has the most drastic ramifications of any Minhag for women with a short cycle- though IVF can help) and a later Minhag which was also פשטה בכל ישראל and why?
I'm not sure I understand your question, and I don't feel like I know enough about how Hazal saw minhag to give a very meaningful answer. It's also important to be clear about what kind of authority we're talking about (formal authority or some kind of informal authority). Where do Hazal say that has authority simply by virtue that it has spread in all Israel has authority simply by virtue? And what kind of authority do they mean?
After thinking about it, I think I agree with you.
Not that I know much about the authority of minhag, but the Rambam seems to put it in the same category as takanos and gezeiros. I guess it's just less formal.
I assume that in all three of these פשטה בכל ישראל is not what grants the authority, but merely a condition (a תנאי).
And I assume that any post-Hazal minhag was never enacted with the intention of being authoritative for all of ישראל.
I also agree that the any post-Hazal authority is limited to a community/city. (בית דין א' בעיר)
I'll go through them in order, but this is just my opinion. Probably Yohanan differs.
1) The minhag of נטילת ערבה is accepted by both talmudim and, according to the Yerushalmi, it even has a bracha. I also can't see a good reason for not doing it.
2) I don't say hallel on Rosh Hodesh.
3) I personally am only particular to say 145-150, מזמור לתודה and pesukim. I would say more if they said them slower in schul, but they don't. Fundamentally, I believe a community can choose to do whatever.
4) The Bavli rules that ערבית is רשות, but (a) the Yerushalmi seems to say it's a חובה and (b) according the Yerushalmi a רשות still means you have to do it except in extenuating circumstances. I think the alleged נדר רבים that later sources refers to never happened and really global practice follows the Yerushalmi.
5) I don't observe Ta'anis Esther.
6) Not touching this with a fifty-five foot barge pole!
My broad opinion is that changing minhagim requires local rabbinical authorities with דעת תורה. The goal of this website, for me, is to inspire a new generation to train as Rabbonim who have דעת תורה and are also conversant in modern academic scholarship of Judaism. It's very much an aspiration at this point. Now, you may ask how to does that tally with me admitting to not keeping certain minhagim above. The truth is it doesn't, but I was already too radicalised before I came to this conclusion and it's too late to go back now.* I hope my efforts result in something good happening in the future.
*Though, if Brisk kept Ta'anis Esther, I would too.
I am perplexed about #6, especially in light of what I discovered here. https://haggadahberurah.com/blog/ As far as I can tell, it appears you don't accept the authority of the Bavli, or at least you reserve the right to dispute it whenever you don't feel it's reasonable, and you are willing to propose pretty far-reaching reforms to Judaism accordingly (like the reforms you propose to davening, the siddur, shul). So what's the big deal about a minhag mentioned in the Bavli? It's not even a halacha like לא הרגו נהרגין הרגו לא נהרגין, which you have no problem dismissing. It's just a minhag, and is not mentioned in the Yerushalmi or any other sources besides for the Bavli (or am I wrong about that?) So what's the big deal?
It's worse than that. It is a Yerushalmi, but it means something totally different. But I have respect for the yetzer hara, and a degree of awareness about what I am competent to do. I didn't say I endorse the humra; I said I'm not touching it.
Where is the Yerushalmi?
https://www.sefaria.org.il/Jerusalem_Talmud_Berakhot.5.1.4?vhe=The_Jerusalem_Talmud,_edition_by_Heinrich_W._Guggenheimer._Berlin,_De_Gruyter,_1999-2015&lang=he&with=all&lang2=he
As to what it means, that's another thing. On this rare occasion, I take the liberty of disagreeing with Rav Buch. Shai Secunda wrote an essay on it, which I think is basically correct. There are few things I would correct, but, as I say, it's not for me.