Tosafos points out from our gemara that we would not allow the continuation of a minhag if there were an issur involved (therefore, if we pasken like the rabbonon, we would not allow people to rely on r' nechemiah, even if that was their minhag). The Pri Chadosh (O.C. 496) elaborates about minhag. In category #10 he points out that our gemara contradicts the Maharik, who allows a minhag to continue even if it against a halacha. In the course of the discussion the Pri Chadosh quotes that perhaps by an issur d'rabonon we can rely on the Maharik, and to that the P.C. responds that we see from our gemara that there is no distinction bec. ma'aser on charuvin is only derabonon and we still do not allow the minhag to override halacha.
The Pri Chadosh quotes a teshuva from the Rosh who explains the gemara in Ta'anis that when Rav visited bavel and found that they were reading hallel on rosh chodesh, once he realized they were only reading chatzi hallel, he allowed them to continue making a brachah on the hallel bec. minhag avoseihem biyadeihem. From this the Rosh concludes that you can allow minhag to override an issur of bracha she'eina tzricha. The Pri Chadosh argues that the peshat in the gemara is not that we allow bracha she'eina tzricha bec. of minhag, but rather since there is a minhag to read hallel, it is not a bracha she'eina tzricha - meaning we can make brachos on minhag.
Now, although the Pri Chadosh argues on the premise of the maharik regarding minhag overriding halacha, he seems to concur to the maharik in that even a minhag b'mdinah achas may have the status of minhag. Therefore, if a group has a minhag for example to light menorah in "public places", would that qualify as a minhag to allow brachos to be made even according to the Pri Chodosh?
7 comments:
Would the title of your post be any indication as to how you would pasken on your shaila?
my chavrusa just pointed out to me that the Shevus Yakov 2:6 writes that minhag mevatel halacha only applies to minhagim quoted in shas.
why would that be? would you be assuming that minhag is simply another word for a takanah d'rabonon, and therefore if it is mentioned in shas it is actually a takana derabonon? if that is the case, then that is really the Pri Chadosh, that there is no such concept as true minhag being mevatel halachah. also, what is the example?
his example is in yevamos (102b) if Eliyahu tells you not to do chalitza with a sandal we don't listen to him since the Minhag is already to use a sandal. there, he explains the minhag came before the halacha. he then quotes the P.C 496 and agrees with him.
still, reb avi, a minhag of this sort that enables a bracha is only a minhag from the gemara because it is almost a takana. surely we cannot begin to say a bracha on a hallel just because we feel like one day is a special day.... and even if we can, taht will only be by hallel where the point is a praise not in chanuka which is a Mitzva drobonon, thaty surely we don't have the power...
i sense in your tone some anti-zionist sentiment!
the right to make a bracha on minhag can't be limited to minhagim in the gemara, as there is no mention in the gemara for lighting in shul (although acc. to the mechaber, you may have to rationalize the lighting in shul some other way, since the minhag argument won't help for him).
practically speaking, i would argue that hallel with a bracha (i don't mean on chanuka or even rosh chodesh) is more of a problem than public menorah lightings. By hallel, aside from the bracha problem, there is also the issue of establishing a yom tov which borderlines a b'al tosif issue. But, one could stretch the public menorah lighting as an extension of the minhag to light in shul.
also, regarding minhagim mentioned in the gemara, it is not so easy to figure out whether it is a minhag or takana. for example, the bnos yisroel hichmiru al atzman for a drop of blood, sounds like a minhag (that wasn't even developed by klal yisroel, rather by some "frum" women) but i beleive that the ramban understands it to be a takana (i think he is quoted in chochmas adam).
Post a Comment