Old Shul/New Shul

Be Careful in Questioning The Minhagim of the Past

Last week we spoke about interesting minhagim regarding lecha dodi, and how they possibly developed.

This week, I wish to take this same topic into a wholly different direction.

In his later years Rav Meir Shapiro declared that it was always his dream in life to serve the klal in all ways; that is as both a rosh yeshiva and a city rav. In 1930 that dream came true. Immediately following finishing his commencement shiur at Yeshivas Chachmei Lublin he was given his appointment contract as the new rav of the Maharshal shul in Lublin.

The city was ecstatic at the new hire. The anticipation in town for his first drasha to the city, to be given on Shabbos in just a few days, was palpable. By that time, already, Rav Shapiro has a well-earned reputation as a fiery baal darshen.

As recorded in Rav Yeshua Baumel’s (hy’d) biography, Shabbos morning began in a somber mood, as the city leaders lead the new rav through town, into the shul and up the podium to the chair of the Maharshal. The Maharshal, Rav Shlomo Luria (d. 1573), was not only a past rav of this shul, but was also among the gedolei hador of his time who served as a bridge between the era of rishonim and achronim.

Now hundreds of years since his passing, sitting in his chair was no small matter, and was something only the new rav would be allowed to do.

It was to this trepidation to which Rav Shapiro wished to address head-on. Rav Shapiro opened his address by reciting a pasuk from Mishlei (25:6) u’bemakom gedolim al taamod-in the place if the great do not stand, intimating that the concern of taking over such a position is not the sitting in the seat of those who came before, but the risk of being idle, of standing and not building even further.

I related greatly to these words when I first read them. I have personally had the zechus of taking over two shuls, both of which had many rabbanim before me. Comparisons to the past are inevitable, and the only task at hand is to move, to not stand idle, and look ahead.

However, as Rav Shapiro knew well, there are limits to looking ahead. A new rav also must contend with the shul’s history. It is always a challenge to do things in a new way when one is unsure or uninformed why it was done the old way. It is dangerous, and often destructive, to think you know better than those that preceded you.

I have encountered minhgaim within shuls in which I have served that, at first blush and if I had my druthers, I would discard, only to soon discover the real reason and the wisdom behind why they were instituted.

Rav Winter, the founding rav of Young Israel of Buffalo, spent hours on the phone with Rav Moshe Feinstien designing the lay-out of that shul, as well its minhagim. In one humorous anecdote, he asked Rav Moshe, “Should we wear teffilin on chol homead?” After a series of back and forths, Rav Moshe ruled that the minhag should be to wear teffilin.

“But my minhag is not to wear teffilin…” countered the new rav. Rav Moshe responded, “Well it is now!”, meaning the rav would have to change his minhag for the shul!

This all poses a unique challenge to a rav taking over a shul. On the one hand a shul wishes for their rav to create policy, but on the other hand, the new rav understands that what was already put into place has its own reasoning, some of which based on decades of serving the klal and often hard to articulate to balla battim.

I have struggled mightily with this issue.

Several years ago I wished to change a minhag in my shul and contacted all the former rabbanim I could reach. While some were unsure why the minhag was the way it was-and therefore had no concern with my changing it-one of them did recall its reasoning.

In some shuls –especially those that are out-of-town –they have from time to time what is called a ‘Scholar in Residence’. This is when a guest speaker comes for a Shabbos and gives a series of shiurim from Shabbos through Sunday.

Generally, as part of his paid duties, he also gives the drasha that week as well.

But here the minhag was that only the rav speaks from the pulpit. I was a little embarrassed, as the person coming was a known speaker and talmud chacham who often goes away on such speaking shabbosim. He would likely think it was odd that he was not asked to give the drasha.

But there was a story behind this. Once while the rav was on vacation the shul booked a Scholar in Residence thinking that it was an innocent and uncontroversial choice.

Before this ‘rav’ came a few months later, the rav of the shul asked him what topics he would be discussing. He said that his drasha will be on the halachos of chatzitza (questions regarding intermediaries that separate, like rings by negel vasser, etc.) . The rav thought this was a poor choice for a drasha, but did not give it much more thought.

The Shabbos of his arrival came, and indeed he spoke by the drasha about chatzitza…for about thirty seconds. He was just using this topic as a springboard to show how we have the ability to argue with rishonim! (A great line that I once heard –Arguing with a rishon may not make one one a kofer, it just makes them wrong!)

From that point on the rav of the shul at the time suggested that the pulpit should be reserved for the rav only.

One never knows where minhagim come from. For this reason, the Shulchan Aruch rules (siman 228) that a minhag of city rabbanim may never be abolished if it was put in place for the purpose of protecting the klal.

Years ago Henry Kissinger wrote about the contradiction of leadership. A wise leader puts into action rules, regulation and decrees that come only to prevent bad outcomes from ever happening. However –and here’s the rub-should he be successful in preventing it he can’t point to it to show the wisdom of his rule –it never happened! All the remains is the rule, to which many may still question, failing to imagine what would have been without it.

A few years ago on Sukkos the eruv was down and I wanted to cancel the annual Sukkah hop (for halachic concerns, although far-fetched that I will not go into here). “Let’s just have the kids come to shul instead” I suggested. A balla buss pulled me aside and told me the following (I have never been able to verify this, but it makes sense). “You should know that that concept of a sukkah-hop is no small matter. Rav Shraga Feivel instatutued it in the early days of America to help bolster Jewish education, and have the kids bring home from the new chedarim that he was starting around the country. Minhag America is to have a sukka-hop!”

No minhag is too small when founded by gedolim. Indeed, they often had us in mind in their creation, and we must be reticent of seeing what would happen in a world without them.