6

It is known that we remove a sha"tz for omitting Birkat Minim. However, there are multiple texts that I know of, including: Vilmalshinim, Laminim, and Vilam'shumadim. There are also small variants in wording within these major forms (t'oveid, yoveidu, et c.).

Considering this, would/should a sha"tz be removed for using a different nusach for the beracha?

Improve this question
1
  • A careful reading of the linked question essentially answers this one. The Magen Avraham and Mishna B'rura cited there extend the ruling of earlier authorities to say that if someone ended the blessing properly but skipped the beginning part entirely, they are not removed as sha"tz, and certainly if they used a different variant. There is some discussion (discussed in the edit to the other question) among the poskim regarding whether a sha"tz must be removed for using the popular text of V'lamalshinim used by most Ashkenazim nowadays, since it omits mention of heretics.
    – Fred
    Commented Mar 18, 2015 at 23:30

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

The reason the Talmud instructed the removal of the shat"z is because his omission was suggestive of ideological sympathies with the heretics of the time/meshumadim. That would not seem to be at all relevant to someone having a different nusach unless there was significant reason to suspect that indeed a similar ideological issue on the part of the shat"z was the real reason for his deviation from the nusach. (Nonetheless, I believe the normative halacha is that the chazan is expected to follow the nusach of the community.)

Improve this answer
9
  • How do you know this rule falls away when the reason does too? That's not how Jews treat most rules.
    – Double AA ♦
    Commented Mar 17, 2015 at 16:37
  • @DoubleAA Indeed if he refused to say the bracha at all you'd probably be right (and presumably if he composed his own, new nusach). But the OP was asking where he said a traditional nusach, just not the same one as the congregation. That seems unrelated to both the reasoning behind, and the gezeira itself.
    – Loewian
    Commented Mar 17, 2015 at 17:27
  • lowiean: perhaps.
    – Double AA ♦
    Commented Mar 17, 2015 at 17:28
  • @DoubleAA (Also, the baalei tosfot do indeed suggest a rule of batel hataam batel hagezera in cases where the minhag has already shifted, e.g. mayim achronim, mayim megulim, rikud on shabbos and yom tov, etc.)
    – Loewian
    Commented Mar 17, 2015 at 17:31
  • Has the minhag here shifted?
    – Double AA ♦
    Commented Mar 17, 2015 at 17:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .