Of Minhagim And Manhigim

Nowadays, sofrim have come up with creative ways of keeping the last letters uniform. The scribe leaves out a drop of ink in each of the final letters of the Torah, which renders them invalid. When a drop of ink is applied, the letter is rendered kosher, and it is considered as if the person who applied the speck of ink wrote the entire letter.

On the topic of minhagim, there is an interesting minhag brought down in the Likutei Maharil that one should not make a Mi She’beirach for a choleh who was deathly ill unless he knows the person is still alive. The Gemara in Berachos states that if one ascertains that there is a house on fire in his city, he should not pray that the fire not be in his house. Since the fire is already burning, his house either is or is not on fire. The prayer is meaningless. So, too, one shouldn’t pray for a sick person to recover if that person may no longer be alive. He is risking uttering a meaningless prayer.

The Nachalas Shiva took great exception to that minhag. He reasoned that the Gemara in Berachos is inapplicable. In that scenario, the person was uttering a prayer to avert something that definitely already occurred. But regarding the sick person, there is at least a doubt whether or not he is still alive. In cases of pikuach nefesh, we always err on the side of caution. Since the choleh may still be alive, we should certainly keep praying for him, as those very tefillos may save his life. The Nachalas Shiva therefore disregarded the minhag and allowed a Mi She’beirach on Shabbos to be recited for a seriously ill choleh whose status was unknown on Shabbos.

In response, Rav Chanoch Segal, zt’l, of Vienna wrote a vehement discourse regarding the importance of preserving minhagim, especially in Ashkenaz [Germany]. What follows is a loose translation.

“Normally I do not become involved in matters of dispute of issur and heter; in this matter too I would prefer to be silent. However, the Nachalas Shiva ruled against a custom in Ashkenaz, a place where many elderly leaders would give their lives not to transgress a custom even if it has no foundation or support. They are more defensive about a custom than about a clear law in the Torah! We have reached the point where the laws of the Torah are placed in a corner, and no one wishes to teach their children these laws. However, when it comes to fulfill a custom, people will uproot mountains for the sake of a minhag. Since customs are their strongest connection to Yiddishkeit we definitely should not dissuade them from following them, even if they have no basis. Certainly so in regard to the question at hand [of making a Mi She’beirach on Shabbos for a deathly ill person whose status is unknown] when they have a great scholar to rely on, who is the Aishel HaGadol, widely known as the provider of sustenance to the entire country of Ashkenaz—the Maharil. They accepted his rulings upon themselves and do not stray from them one iota. Who would dare challenge the ruling of the king of rabbanim?”

The Nachlas Shiva in response offered a compromise of sorts. A person could make his tefillah conditional. For example, in the situation discussed in Gemara Berachos, a person may pray that, “If the fire has not yet reached my house, please spare my house.” Here as well, a person could pray: “If the sick person is still alive, please send him a speedy recovery.” Similarly, a sick person may already be healed at the time one is praying for him. The Maharam Schick says that in such a situation a person should pray that, “If the person is still sick, please heal him.” In this way one fulfills both opinions. He is not risking uttering a meaningless prayer, because the prayer itself is conditional that it is only a valid prayer if needed. At the same time, he has managed to pray if in fact prayer is needed.

As a practical matter, however, in seems that our minhag is to disregard both opinions above and just pray based on the presumed status quo. ™