Q&A: On Changing Customs
On Changing Customs
Question
Why are there cases in which changing a custom arouses fierce opposition from the halakhic decisors [or some of them], and they loudly proclaim, “The custom of Israel is Torah,” while in other cases—such as the “custom of the Land of Israel” among Ashkenazim, which is based on the customs of the students of the Vilna Gaon, who changed a good number of deeply rooted customs, or in the present case of tefillin on Hol HaMoed, where they changed the practice—this is treated almost as though it were an ancient custom, and nobody says a word about these changes? They are considered so self-evident that someone who in the Land of Israel would follow the customs of the Diaspora [which, as noted, are very ancient, at least some of them], rather than Rabbi Tikochinsky’s calendar, would be regarded as something quite strange?
Answer
It is hard for me to answer that. I am not at all convinced that there is consistency and a method in all this. In general, customs and the laws governing customs are more a matter of feelings than of clear lines.
In any case, the difference in attitude is probably connected to the context (to what extent the change expresses rebellion, or raises concern about more far-reaching changes, Reform, and the like).
——————————————————————————————
Amir:
Thank you for the answer
It really is probably true that the level of opposition to changing a custom is connected more to the context than to clear rules about when “the custom of Israel is Torah” and “it must not be changed,” and when it is not such a big deal if the custom changes
The fact is that when the Hasidim stopped praying according to the Ashkenaz rite and created their own rite [Nusach Sefard], there were “explosions” over the matter and cries of outrage; but when their opponents, the students of the Vilna Gaon who went up to the Land of Israel, continued to pray according to the Ashkenaz rite but made a good number of changes in it, not only was this not seen as a problem, it became the “custom of the Land of Israel”
The Hasidim, who were perceived as subversive and as breaking boundaries—the change of rite they made aroused the anger of the opponents*; but when the opponents themselves did this, people relied on them and of course on their rabbi, the Vilna Gaon, and their changes were perceived as legitimate [and nowadays too, after the dispute between the Hasidim and the opponents has faded, praying according to their rite has already become legitimate, and even if there is some discomfort about it among Lithuanian yeshiva rabbis, it is not expressed in the same cries as in the period of the controversy; see Igrot Moshe, Orach Chayim, part 2, sec. 24]
*An interesting anecdote is that in the Hasidic minyan of the Alter Rebbe in Vilna they recited Hallel in the evening service on Passover night, following the Sephardic custom that the Hasidim had adopted, and the leaders of the community in Vilna were furious and angrily quoted the words of the Rema: “And we do not practice any of this, for we do not recite Hallel at night in the synagogue at all.” The Alter Rebbe answered what he answered; and what is interesting for our issue here is that the students of the Vilna Gaon themselves, when they went up to the Land of Israel, also adopted the Sephardic custom of reciting Hallel on Passover night at the evening service, which by now has become the accepted custom among all Ashkenazim in the Land of Israel, not only the Hasidim and those who pray according to their rite.