In Orach Chaim Siman 581, the Shulchan Aruch discusses who should serve as the Shaliach Tzibbur or Baal Tokea during the Yomim Noraim. It also discusses what qualities one should look for in a Chazzan or Baal Tokea.
Chazakos
One of the Halachic discussions raised on this Siman is the issue of Chazakos – precedent and entitlements to the position. This is a serious issue and it can unfortunately be the source of Machlokes and even Dinei Torah.
The Magen Avraham writes that it is the Minhag that if a person served as the Shaliach Tzibbur or Baal Tokea for the Yomim Noraim, we do not give the Mitzvah to any other person. This applies to the Shaliach Tzibbur for any of the Tefillos.
In addition, Sefer Chassidim writes that any Mitzvah that a person is accustomed to performing, if he does not perform it, he is liable for punishment.
Chazaka only applies when the person was appointed, not when they took the Mitzvah by themselves. If the Chazzan served for many years and no one protested, there is a presumptive Chazaka.
Pri Megadim writes that this Chazaka only applies if they have served in that capacity and fulfilled the Mitzvah 3 times. However, other Poskim rule that in regards to Mitzvos, even 1 time is sufficient to establish a Chazaka.
Some Poskim make the following distinction; If the person was appointed by the community, the Chazaka is established from even 1 occasion. If they took the position themselves or without Reshus, if they served 3 times, it will create a Chazaka.
To illustrate how seriously the issue of Chazaka is treated, Ketzeh Hamateh records a Machlokes that arose in a particular community. The Baal Tokea who had a Chazaka did not follow the custom of the Mahari”l, as brought by the Ram”o, to position the mouth of the Shofar upwards. Even though the proposed replacement was a Talmid Chochom who was medakdek beMitzvos, it is questionable whether one could remove the first Baal Tokea.
A Chazaka is not inherited unless it is the express custom of the community. It is the right of the community to select the replacement, although, if the son of the deceased is qualified, preference should be given to them.
Some Poskim write that Chazaka only applies if the Baal Tokea or Shaliach Tzibbur is not paid. If they receive payment, there is no Chazaka. The rationale is that the Mitzvah belongs to the one who is paying for it, not the one who fulfils it. However other Poskim disagree and apply Chazaka even when they are paid positions.
If a person sees that the community do not want them to serve in the position and insisting on the Chazaka would lead to Machlokes, it is advisable for the Shlaiach Tzibbur to stand aside.
These are some of the main points discussed by the Poskim. They also discuss what happens if the Shaliach Tzibbur becomes an Avel, or if they are unable to serve one year due to illness or other circumstances.
When Rosh Hashona falls on Shabbos
In a community where there is a different Baal Tokea for each of the days of Rosh Hashana, what happens when Rosh Hashana falls on Shabbos and there are no Tekiyos on the first day?
Are the Tekiyos of the second day blown by the ‘first day’ Baal Tokea or by the usual ‘second day’ Baal Tokea?
The Pnei Mordechai connects this Shaalah and its resolution to that of a similar question; Many Ashkenazi Kehillos insert Maaravis (piyyutim) in Maariv of the Yomim Tovim. There is a different Maaravis for each of the 2 nights of Yomtov. When the first night of Sukkos falls on Shabbos and Maaravis is not recited, the Magen Avraham rules that the Maaravis of the first night is recited on the second night. He brings a proof from the Gemara that it is always the ‘second’ that is deferred.
Even though other Poskim disagree and rule that the Maaravis is recited on its usual night, since the Minhag follows the Magen Avraham, the same applies here.
Shaarei Teshuvah writes that these 2 cases are not comparable. When the Maaravis of the first night was instituted, the takana may have been that when the first night would fall on Shabbos, this Maaravis would be read on the second night instead.
In our case however, we are discussing 2 individuals and a claim of Chazaka in Mitzvos, with each having a claim to their specific day. Unless we say that the community appointed the Baal Tokea to blow on the second day only if the Baal Tokea of the first day fulfils his Mitzvah (on the first day).
But we cannot assume that the community prefer the first Baal Tokea and do not want him to lose their Tekiyos. One could argue with the reverse logic as well; perhaps it is because they prefer the second Baal Tokea that they appointed him for the second day of Rosh Hashana so that he will blow every year as the second day cannot fall out on Shabbos.
Teshuvos Or Neelam writes that the Baal Tokea of the first day blows the Shofar on the second day. This is because the Baal Tokea of the first day has the Chazaka on the Shehecheyanu.
Parshas Mordechai rules that in this case, both Baalei Tokea have equal claim of precedence. This is because each day has a unique advantage. The advantage of the Tekiyos of the first day is that they are Biblical. But the second day has an advantage that it never falls on Shabbos. Therefore, each of the Baal Tokea have a claim to be given the second day and we cannot defer one in place of the other.
Therefore, the community should choose the more fitting Baal Tokea. If they are both of equal standing or if this will result in Machlokes, it is advisable to share the Tekiyos, having one blow the Tekiyos before Musaf and the other blow the Tekiyos during Musaf.
In all matters concerning Chazakos, the two most important points of consideration are; 1. The pre-existing Minhag of the community trumps everything. 2. The importance of preserving Shalom and the avoidance of Machlokes.
