Part of the copious writings of R. Yitzchak Safrin (1806–1874) of Zhidachov-Komarno referred to here as the "Great Eagle, the living Ari, and the G-dly Tanna." |
INTRODUCTION:
I have
tried to show, in a previous article Displacing Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah that whoever controls Halacha
controls the future of Judaism. This is why we have a surprising number of
versions of what is essentially a singular code of law and often the authors of
such works were from very mystical backgrounds (see A Mystical Side to R. Yosef Karo). It seems possible that the mystics
were attempting to reclaim control of the law from the early codifier, Rambam
the rationalist.
In more
recent times, there emerged the Shulchan Aruch haRav, by R. Shneur
Zalman of Liady (1745-1812)
the first rebbe of Chabad. Interestingly, this work generally steers clear of
mystical references.
Around the
same time another work surfaced, Likkutei Halachot by R. Natan
Sternhartz of Nemirov (1780–1845), a student of R. Nachman of Breslov, although
this is more of an explanation of the ideas of his teacher than a code of law
per se.
This
article, based extensively on the research of Professor Ariel Evan Mayse[1],
deals with a most unusual and little-known Halachic work, the Shulchan
haTahor by R. Yitzchak Ayzik Yehudah Yechiel Safrin of Komarno[2]
(1806–1874). The Shulchan haTahor is presented as a new code of law
specifically for Chassidim. It not only alludes to, and includes Chassidic
practices and ideology but it draws primarily and in the first instance from
the mysticism of Chassidut and Kabbalah.
BACKGROUND TO SHULCHAN HATAHOR:
Mayse describes this fascinatingly bold and overtly Chassidic
Shulchan Aruch as follows:
The book is, at heart, a
systematic reformulation of Jewish law in light of Kabbalah, Hasidism, and the
quest for personal mystical experience. Shulchan haTahor offers a rare case
study for the interface of mystical experience, Hasidic devotional values, and
kabbalistic doctrine as they explicitly shape the codified forms—and norms—of
halakhah.
R. Safrin of Komarno was a prolific writer. He wrote
commentaries on the Torah, Talmud and Zohar, kept a dream
journal, authored a mystical autobiography and of course his new Shulchan
Aruch for Chassidim. He was born into the Zhidachov Chassidic
community which was known for its emphasis on strict observance of Halacha.
Yet, his Shulchan haTahor was not just a mystical commentary on the Shulchan
Aruch but a complete reworking of it.
Initially, his Shulchan haTahor was distributed
amongst the Zhidachov-Komarno Chassidic community and remained in manuscript
form. It was only published as late as 1963 almost a century after R. Safrin’s
passing.
STRUCTURE:
The Shulchan haTahor follows a similar format to that
of the Shulchan Aruch. It is also divided into the common simanim
and se’ifim, but although presented in a seriously legalistic format,
the content is very unusual.
The work contains a second section, entitled, Zer Zahav,
which acts as a commentary on the first section.[3]
MIXING KABBALAH WITH HALACHA:
While R. Yosef Karo, in his Shulchan Aruch, does
sometimes venture into sources from the Zohar, the general consensus is
that Kabbalah must not inform Halacha. Thus, for example, R.
Moshe Sofer known as the Chatam Sofer (1736–1839) writes:
“I say that one who mixes
Kabbalah with legal rulings (halakhot pesuqot) is culpable as one who sows a
forbidden mixture (kilayim).”[4]
Ironically, although R. Safrin showed great respect for the Chatam
Sofer, he certainly did not follow this sentiment about not mixing Kabbalah
and Halacha when he came to writing his Shulchan haTahor.
Mayse shows how, from a tender age, R. Safrin was drawn to
the mystical teachings, particularly of the Ari Zal (1534-1572). These Lurianic
Kabbalistic teachings “burned” within him “like a torch”.
Setting the tone for his Shulchan haTahor, R. Safrin
nails his colours to the mast by writing:
In any case where it is
impossible to reconcile the words of the Talmud with the Zohar, even though the
authorities (posqim) did not say so [explicitly], the [opinions conflict]
because they did not see the brilliant light of the Zohar. Had they glimpsed
it, there is no doubt that they would have bowed their heads in fear and awe to
its words, for they are holy! [5]
IGNORING ZOHAR IS “AN ELEMENT OF HERESY”:
According to R. Safrin, one who ignores the customs of the Zohar
reveals that there must be “an element of heresy (tzad minut) hidden in
such a person.”
He also claims that if one disagrees with a custom of the Zohar
it is as if one disagreed with a Talmudic sage. This is probably
because although the Zohar was only published around 1290, the traditional view is that the Zohar
was authored by the second-century Tanna, R. Shimon bar Yochai.
R. Safrin certainly held the mystics in the highest esteem
because he continues that “one who disagrees with the ARI, disagrees with
shekhinah.”[6]
THE “OBLIGATION” TO IMMERSE IN A MIKVA ON EREV
SHABBAT:
On the subject of immersing in a mikva, R. Safrin
writes:
It is a commandment, an
obligation from the teachings of our master the ARI and from the holy Zohar, to
immerse oneself in the river or miqveh every Sabbath eve. One is also required
to immerse in the morning before prayers on the Sabbath day, according to our
master the ARI. One who transgresses his words without being compelled to do so
is called a sinner, for all of his words [i.e., those of the ARI], even the
most minor, were received—not from an angel or Seraph—but from the blessed Holy
One Himself.[7]
DAILY MIKVE:
The Shulchan haTahor encourages one to “take care
and immerse oneself each day for it purifies the life-force, spirit, and soul
(nafsho, ve-ruḥo ve-nishmato).”[8]
OBLIGATORY RASHI AND RABBEINU TAM TEFILLIN:
All men are obliged to follow the Ari’s “injunction”
to wear two pairs of tefillin:
“[E]ach Israelite, who has some
Jewishness within, is obligated by the Torah to put on two pairs of
tefillin—those of RaSHI and Rabbenu Tam. One who does not wear those of Rabbenu
Tam is a fool and coarse of spirit.” [9]
OPTIONAL SHIMUSHA RABBA AND RA’AVAD TEFILLIN:
In addition to Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam tefillin, there
are also Shimusha Rabba and Ra’avad tefillin[10],
which according to R. Safrin are not obligatory but optional for those who
feel they are on a ‘higher level’:
“One whose heart has been
touched by awe before God should put on the tefillin of Shimusha Rabba and the
RaBad…. Only one who has maintained piety from the days of his youth (maḥazik
nafsho mi-ne‘urav ba-ḥasidut) and fear of sin should do so. Thus shall he feel
a wondrous light in them as well.”[11]
TEFILLIN AT MINCHA:
R. Safrin encourages “one who has attained the holy
lights and vitality of the tefillin” to “wear them also at minḥah.”[12]
A ‘PUNTERNIK’:
Mayse explains that in R. Safrin’s commentary on the Book of
Esther, he permits tefillin strengthened with a small piece of leather
called a “punternik”. The reason why it is permissible is that he saw
them on the tefillin of R. Shneur Zalman of
Liady, “a holy man who was punctilious and careful in all commandments.”[13]
Interestingly, Israel Berger cites an oral tradition where R.
Safrin tells a student that he saw the tefillin in a dream because tradition
has it that the tefillin of R. Shneur Zalman were lost. However, R.
Safrin then claims that “And yet, before all the people, I did not want to
write this down, and therefore I simply wrote that I saw them,”[14]
- even thought he only ‘saw’ them in a dream.
TEFILLIN ON CHOL HAMOED:
Regarding the strict ‘prohibition’ of wearing tefillin
on the intermediate days of a festival, R. Safrin rules:
“It is forbidden to put on
tefillin during the intermediate days of a festival, and one who does so is
liable for two heavenly deaths.” [15]
READING FROM A DEFECTIVE TORAH:
Because the Shulchan haTahor is based on mystical
practices, it often rules more stringently than normative Halacha.
According to most authorities, if one reads from a Sefer Torah that was
found to have a mistake, one may continue from another Sefer Torah from
where one left off in the first. However, Shulchan haTahor rules that
even for a minor mistake where the meaning of the word is not changed, one must
start from the beginning of the weekly portion in the second Sefer Torah
all over again.[16]
This is because the Ari ruled like this “in his wisdom and with his holy spirit”.
In R. Safrin’s Zer Zahav commentary section, he
claims that the well-known ruling of Rambam[17]
– that one may even read from a defective or pasul Sefer Torah – is not
just incorrect but a forgery!
The truth is more beloved to me,
and I must dare to contravene my teachers. The truth is with those [who rule]
that reading a pasul Torah scroll is totally meaningless, according to the
Zohar, and our master the ARI.
Without a doubt, one must go
back and read [the entire portion from the very beginning].[18]
INCORPORATING PRACTICES OF THE BAAL SHEM TOV:
Unusual for a Halachic work R. Safrin includes some
of the practices of the Baal Shem Tov. Mayce shows how influences from dreams
and visions were incorporated into the Halacha by citing the mystical
autobiography of R. Safrin:
The door opened and I was worthy
to see the face of our master, the BeSHT, may his merit protect us. As a result
of my great joy and fear I was not able to move from my spot. He walked over to
me and greeted me with a joyful face and I had great pleasure. His visage is
engraved in my mind and is always before me. Perhaps I had been worthy to
attain this because I had given charity that day, as is right and proper.[19]
GARTEL:
As a result of the influence of the Baal Shem Tov, the Chassidic
custom to wear a gartel or prayer belt, becomes a Halachic
requirement and it is prohibited to pray without one.[20]
TACHANUN:
Similarly, one must follow the Ari’s version of the Tachanun
prayer and nefilat apayim which was established by the “true
tzadikkim, the disciples of the BeSHT.”[21]
The descent into the kelipot or husks of the nether realms
becomes exemplified during the ‘descent’ in the nefilat apayim, and
it is necessary to ‘fall down’ in order to free the trapped sparks
contained within those lowly realms.
MAYIM ACHARONIM:
Although some authorities do regard Mayim Acharonim
as a chova, or obligation, and R. Shneur Zalman of Liady calls it a mitzvah - R. Safrin cites the Baal Shem Tov’s
emphasis on ensuring that the water is poured into another vessel and not onto
the ground.[22]
BRANDY:
Brandy is regarded as so important and delightful that it
takes Halachic precedence over some baked items known as mezonot.
R. Safrin supports this notion by writing that such was the practice of R. Avraham
Yehoshua of Apt as well as his uncle Tzvi Hirsch of Zhidachov.[23]
A BRACHA ON SMOKING A PIPIE:
R. Safrin writes that the Baal Shem Tov said a blessing when
he smoked his pipe:
Our divine master, holy of
holies, our teacher Israel ben Eliezer Ba‘al Shem Tov, recited a blessing on
smoking his pipe (lulke) and on drawing the tobacco into his nose [i.e., on
using snuff]. Because I do not know the formulation of this blessing, but rather
simply received the tradition that he did so, my custom is not to offer a
blessing.[24]
R. Safrin claims that the Baal Shem Tov received the
tradition and the wording of this blessing from his teachers who are said to
have been Eliyahu haNavi and Achiya haShiloni.
…But a renowned scholar can
establish a blessing for himself upon smoking the pipe, and other such things.
The one who blesses, shall be blessed![25]
SAFEK BERACHOT LEHAKEL:
There is a well-established[26]
principle in Halacha that in a doubtful situation (say, for example, one
does not remember if a blessing was recited for food), one does not recite a
second blessing as it may be superfluous. (By ‘blessing’ is meant the formula Baruch
atah etc.) However, Shulchan haTahor takes a very different approach
to the matter and says that one should recite a blessing in cases of
doubt.
R. Safrin writes that he cannot see why one should not be
permitted to simply praise G-d as one does anyway throughout the day – and why
does it change matters when the praise just happens to begin with the formula Baruch
atah etc.?[27]
The Shulchan haTahor wites:
Each person, should arrange the
blessings according to his nature and according to the hour.[28]
Regarding formulating new blessings entirely, although he
does not permit the outright composing of berachot by just anyone, he
does say:
Each person of Israel, if he is
an expert (bar hakhi), may come up with a new blessing to offer praise for each
and every one of his needs, for each and every limb. This [practice] requires
great discernment.[29]
He also writes:
“Each person should act as is
best for him, according to his mind and his temperament, to illuminate his soul
with sublime lights” (orot tzaḥtzeḥot).[30]
THE BAAL SHEM TOV AND ASHKENAZI PIYUTIM:
The Shulchan haTahor mentions the tradition that the
Baal Shem Tov did not recite the lengthy Ashkenazi piyyutim, or poems,
on the High Holidays. He claimed they were a later insertion and interrupt the
prayers. However, in this instance, it rules against this custom of the Baal
Shem Tov and instead cites R. Elimelech of Lizhensk (1717–1787) who did recite
these piyyutim because it was in accordance with the remembered practice
of the Ari.[31] This
way, some Chassidic recollections and oral traditions were incorporated
into the Shulchan haTahor.
“WHAT ARE THE SEFARADIM TO US?”
Many Chassidim have chosen to follow the Sefaradic
(Eastern) rites over those of (German) Ashkenaz. The Shulchan haTahor,
however, is vehemently against this adaptation of Sefaradic rites and
exhorts one not to “change anything from the Ashkenazi rite”.[32]
Whatever our master the ARI did
not specifically command us to do, we should not change from the [liturgical]
order of the Ashkenazim. I thunder against … certain fools who recite the
[blessings following the] order of the Sephardim … what are the Sephardim to
us? We are the descendants of the Ḥasidei Ashkenaz—all of our customs and the
liturgy were established by those who possessed the Holy Spirit, “descenders of
the chariot.”[33]
R. Safrin points out that although the Ari did indeed base
himself on both Sefaradic and Ashkenazic rites, he nevertheless
prayed in an Ashkenazi synagogue on the High Holidays - and the Baal
Shem Tov, he says, only made a few changes to the Ashkenazi rites. [See Musings
on an ‘Ashkenazi’ Arizal.]
TALKING BEFORE DAVENING:
How classical Halacha is now presented through the
lens of modern Chassidut can be seen in the way R. Safrin explains the Talmudic
prohibition against greeting others before the Shacharit prayer service.
He writes that the progression of each day is determined based upon one’s first
thoughts in the morning:
[T]he essence of Judaism—devequt
and divine vitality that is showered upon (nispha‘) a person each day—is drawn
from the first thought and first utterance of the morning.”[34]
KAVANAH:
The Shulchan haTahor exemplifies concentration and
intention so much that it rules:
“[It is better to say the] Amidah
while seated and thus settle the mind and cultivate intentionality than it is
to stand while worshipping and do so without kavvanah”.[35]
THE PRACTICES OF TZADIKIM ESTABLISH THE LAW:
The Chassidic Rebbe Yisrael Friedman of Ruzhin
(1796-1850) married a woman who was an isha katlanit (a married woman
who had become a widow twice. Based on a Talmudic ruling[36],
she should not marry again because of the fear that her third husband may also
die – although today one can make a legal argument to permit such a marriage).
However, when some scholars criticised R Yisrael of Ruzhin
for his actions, R. Safrin came to his defence by writing:
“the deeds of the tzaddik are
firmly established law (halakhah kevu‘ah), clear as the sun…. Everything that
the tzaddikim do is wholly Torah (torah sheleimah)!”[37]
Mayce writes that:
…Safrin…makes a deeper point
about the power of the tzaddik to establish the halakhah—made possible because
the Hasidic leader embodies the halakhah in the personhood of his charismatic
self and deeds.
WHITE CLOTHES ON SHABBAT:
Mayce shows that what previously - during the time of the
Ari - was a practice of the mystical elite had now become something the common
people were encouraged to emulate:
“If all Israel wore white clothes on the Sabbath, the
redemption would arrive … and in this bitter time, there is no arrogance
(yuhara) whatsoever. ”[38]
ANALYSIS:
These types of cases are highly unusual for a Halachic
code of law and they make R. Safrin’s Shulchan
haTahor a most noteworthy exception to the general genre of Halachic
works. Although the presentation is lively in that it does include mystical
explanations and emphasises the power of individuals to make choices and he
certainly does not just present a dry list of do’s and don’ts – many, even
within the Chassidic community, might argue that he went too far.
Perhaps Shulchan haTahor shows how Judaism can
sometimes be reformed not only by the left but also by the right. [See Reforms
of the ultra-Orthodox.]
The Kotzker Rebbe, who passed away fifteen earlier than R.
Safrin, said:
There will come a time when
those who dress in white garb will need all the help they can get, to prevent
them from turning to a distortion of Judaism.[39]
[1] Ariel
Evan Mayse, Setting the Table Anew: Law and Spirit in a Nineteenth-Century
Hasidic Code.
[2] For more about R. Safrin, see Hayyim Yehudah Berle, Rabbi Yitzhak Isaac miKomarno: Toldotav, Ḥiburav, Ma’amarav (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1965).
[3] The citations in this article are
all from the Shulchan haTahor published by Avraham Aba Zis,
Jerusalem 2005. Translations are by Mayse.
[4] She’elot
uTeshuvot Chatam Sofer, Oracḥ Cḥaim, no. 51, 1:88.
[5] Shulchan haTahor 2:2, Zer Zahav 5.
[6] Shulchan
haTahor 203:5.
[7] Shulchan haTahor 260:7.
[8] Shulchan
haTahor 88:1.
[9] Shulchan
haTahor 34:1.
[11]
Shulchan haTahor 34:5.
[12] Shulchan
haTahor 25:3, 37:2.)
[13]
Ketem Ofir (Jerusalem: N.p., 2012).
[14] Israel
Berger, ‘Eser Qedushot (Jerusalem: N.p., 1949/50), 68.
[15] Shulchan
haTahor 31:1.
[16] Shulchan
haTahor 142:4.
[17] Teshuvot
haRambam, ed. Yosef Blau, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Reuven Mas, 2014), no. 294,
2:550–553.
[18] Shulḥan
Tahor 142:4, Zer Zahav 2.
[19] Faierstein,
Jewish Mystical Autobiographies, 279.
[20] Shulchan
haTahor 91:1.
[21] Shulchan
haTahor 131:3, 9.
[22] Shulchan
haTahor 181:2, Zer Zahav 1.
[23] Shulchan
haTahor 212:10.
[24] Shulchan
haTahor 210:3, Zer Zahav 2.
[25] Shulchan
haTahor 6:4, Zer Zahav 5.
[26] See
the Rif on b. Berakhot 6a; Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Berachot 8:12; Shulchan
Arukh, Orach Chaim 210:2 and 209:3
[27] The actual reason for this principle,
however, is fascinating. Many believe it is so as not to take G-d’s name
in vain. However, the real reason (as I saw in Peninei Halacha) is out of
deference to the Sages who carefully instituted such blessings. Its is
their rulings that we do not want to slight and has nothing to do with taking G-d’s
name in vain.
[28] Shulchan
haTahor 46:3.
[29] Shulchan
haTahor 6:4, Zer Zahav 4.
[30] Shulchan
haTahor 46:1, Zer Zahav 2.
[31] Shulchan
haTahor 68:2.
[32]
Shulchan haTahor 66:6.
[33] Shulchan
haTahor 46:2, Zer Zahav 1.
[34] Shulchan
haTahor 1:3, Zer Zahav 7.
[35] Shulchan
haTahor 94:3.
[36] b.
Yevamot 64b.
[37] Notzer
Chesed (Jerusalem: N.p., 1982), ch. 3, no. 4.
[38] Shulchan
haTahor 262:8.
[39] Amud
HaEmet p. 187, par 3. Translation mine.
The publication of Shulchan Hatahor (published by Hasidei Komarno) that I own writes on the book that it is "Minhagei Komarno". While there is a certain intertwining of Minhagim and Halacha in most Halachic texts, maybe with the exception of the Rambams Mishne TorahI think it is a question of what is emphasized in the text. I think Shulchan Hatahor emphasizes the minhag rather than the halacha, even if some choose to use it as a halachic codex, it does not appear from the text that the emphasis is halacha. Of course it raises the broader question of how does one discern between Halacha and minhag in these types of texts, which is an interesting question.
ReplyDeleteThank you EA for your considered comments. My feeling is that "Minhagei Komarno" may have been an insertion by the printers in 1963. One would have to check this against the earlier manuscripts to see if this is correct.
ReplyDeleteThere is a lovely quote from one of the prominent rabbonim of the 18th century, Rabbi Landau
ReplyDelete"Now, regarding the words of the Zohar, I do not wish to speak at length. How I am angered by those who study the book of the Zohar
and the Kabbalistic literature in public. They remove the yoke of the revealed Torah from their necks, and chirp and make noises over the book of the Zohar, thus losing out on both, causing the Torah to be
forgotten from Israel... it would be proper to ... prohibit the study of the Zohar and the Kabbalistic texts . . . in any case, we do not rule halakhah from the Zohar."
Some of this (e.g. tefilin at Minha) is most correct, other parts that are very incorrect are unfortunately extremely widespread (no tefilin on Hol haMoed), other parts one might argue with on specific grounds, but are quite reasonable and are the kind of things amoraim do frequently (according special status to brandy, saying a bracha on smoking a pipe). The emphasis on kavanah and meaningful worship of G-d is good. The author, on your description appears to have been a cool guy. Shame about the kabbalah, but if that's deal-breaker for you, and you're serious, you have to admit the whole last 600 years of Judaism has been pretty much one big mistake.
ReplyDelete