Are There Controls and Limits to the Creativity of Minhagim?

If we (theoretically) removed all innovations to the modern siddur which were added in the past 500 years, we’d probably spend considerably less time in shul. And from a halachic perspective, that’s a problem. So let’s talk about the prohibition of delaying a congregation (טרחא דציבורא).

We’ll begin with the Gemara (Berachos 12b):

בקשו לקבוע פרשת בלק בקריאת שמע ומפני מה לא קבעוה מפני טורח ציבור

The rabbis sought to include Parashas Balak in the recital of the Shema. Why did they not include it? Because it would delay congregations

It seems there was a compelling reason to add (at least) one more paragraph to the Shema, but it was ruled inappropriate solely due to the fact that countless Jews through countless centuries would be forced to spend more time davening. (Although we see from the subsequent Gemara that, had it been possible to add just the words “כרע שכב כארי וכלביא מי יקימנו" the minimal time delay would not have been a problem.)

The halachic sensitivity to such delays didn’t stop with the Gemara. Rambam (שופר ג:יב), for instance, invokes טרחא דציבורא to forbid blowing more than 40 shofar קולות on Rosh Hashana - and the Mishna Berura (תקצב:ג-ד) concurs.

All of which raises an important question: what halachic justification was there for the dozens of time-consuming additions to the siddur fed by the kabbalistic explosion of innovation of the 17th and 18th Centuries?

This isn’t just about the widespread insistence on hearing 100 shofar blasts on Rosh Hashana (attributed to the של”ה) and the entirely new קבלת שבת service. The recent changes actually extend far deeper into our practices. Even something as mundane as the order for the פתיחת הארון has been utterly transformed. Besides reciting בריך שמיה all year, other kabbalisic innovations include repeating the י”ג מדות on the festivals¹ and that very strange² רבונו של עולם prayer.

Why were such time-consuming innovations tolerated in the face of the טרחא דציבורא restriction? The most likely explanation is probably based on the Magen Avraham’s observation (144:7) that a community has the right to defer (מוחל) their טרחא דציבורא-related rights. While Chazal’s preferred addition to קריאת שמע presumably never achieved the necessary public acceptance, it’s reasonable to assume that more recent kabbalistic innovations were genuinely popular.

But are such deferrals permanent? I can think of no reason why a four-century old מחילה should somehow still be binding in 2025. If a modern community decides that they prefer to reassert their rights to shorter davening, what legal or moral force could stop them?

Practically, getting this right would involve periodic secret voting within shul membership. Why periodic? Because preferences evolve. Why secret? Because the halachic goal is accurately understanding members’ genuine preferences (which are not necessarily the same as the things they say in public).

And posing neutral questions would also be critical. After all, dishonestly weighted wording like:

“Do you prefer to maintain the existing traditions of our parents and grandparents or, instead, throw away centuries of Jewish heritage in exchange for a sterile siddur?”

Or:

“Do you prefer for our siddur to follow the revolutionary and often destructive innovations of a small cadre of extreme kabbalists or instead to embrace the time-tested practice of Chazal and the rishonim?”

…would be plainly ridiculous and unfair.

But I believe that it’s a basic right of every member of a Jewish community to be regularly heard on this issue.

1. Which originated with ספר שערי ציון which was published right around the time of the peak of Shabbatai Tzvi’s influence

2. Consider, for example, how the prayer’s author butchered the meaning of ישעיה יא:ב.