Kotzk Blog

by Rabbi Dr Gavin Michal

I have always been drawn to the teachings of the Rebbe of Kotzk. His approach was predicated upon uncompromising truth and intellectual independence. This allowed him to be fearless and never to succumb to societal pressures. He knew that Judaism was so much deeper and more profound than the way it was perceived by the masses and bent by religious populism. These essays, although not necessarily Kotzker in essence, are certainly Kotzk inspired.

Showing posts with label Jewish Superstition. Show all posts

Sunday, 30 June 2019

232) THEOLOGICAL POLITICS SURROUNDING THE EMERGENCE OF THE SHULCHAN ARUCH:

A 1754 edition of Shulchan Aruch, published during R. Yosef Karo's lifetime.

INTRODUCTION:

In this article, we will explore some of the reasons that are given for the necessity to override and replace the 12^th century Maimonidean Halachic Code of Law - the Mishneh Torah – with R. Yosef Karo’s 16^th century Shulchan Aruch.

THE MAIMONIDEAN CODE WAS ORIGINALLY ‘ACCEPTED BY ALL OF ISREAL’:

The world authority on accurate Maimonidean texts [see previous article] R. Yosef Kapach (1917-2000) wrote:

“It is clear that the method of Maimonides [in his Mishneh Torah] is a standard for the whole world to use...” [1]

Not surprisingly, according to an avowed ‘student of the Rambam’ like R. Kapach, the Mishneh Torah should still remain the essential Code of Jewish Law and should never have been superseded by any other Code. So to further support his thesis, R. Kapach shows how historically there was an agreement in Toledo that no one should rule in any matter against Rambam. The same applied in Castile and in Tunis.

And R. Avraham Zacuto wrote:

“When the Mishneh Torah was published and distributed in all of the Diaspora, all Israel agreed to follow it and to act according to it in all laws of the Torah.”[2]

This last point is an interesting one because the argument usually goes that the reason why we accepted the Babylonian Talmud over the Jerusalem Talmud is that ‘all Israel agree to follow it’.

And the reason why we follow R. Yosef Karo’s Shulchan Aruch over the Mishneh Torah of Rambam is also that ‘all Israel agree to follow it’.

And yet we see, historically, that after Rambam wrote his Mishneh Torah, ‘all Israel agreed to follow it’ – and, notwithstanding, for some reason it was later superseded by the Shulchan Aruch.

MISHNEH TORAH - TUR – SHULCHAN ARUCH:

Between Rambam’s Mishneh Torah (1180) and R. Karo’s Shulchan Aruch (1563) there was yet another Code of Law known as Arba’ah Turim (around the1300s) which was authored by R. Yaakov ben Asher[3]. R. Karo wrote a commentary on the Arba’ah Turim, known as the Beit Yosef, which became the precursor to his later work, the Shulchan Aruch.

JUSTIFICATION FOR THE TUR:

This is how the Tur justified the need for his new Code, just a century after Rambam’s Mishneh Torah:

“As a result of our long exile, our strength is weakened...our thinking has become flawed, dissension (as to the clarity of the Halacha) has increased (bringing with it) opposing viewpoints - to the extent that one cannot find a single practical Halacha that does not involve some controversy.”[4]

According to the Tur, just one hundred years after Rambam had laid out his Halachic Code in the Mishneh Torah - which was written in clear and simple Hebrew - the Halachic world was apparently in such turmoil that it necessitated a new Code.

JUSTIFICATION FOR BEIT YOSEF (WHICH LED TO THE SHULCHAN ARUCH):

This is how R. Yosef Karo justifies the need for a new Code, 300 years after Rambam:

“As a result of our long exile where we have been dispersed from place to place, endured different hardships in close succession...(as the Prophet Isaiah warned us) our Sages have lost their wisdom. The strength of Torah and the number of its students have diminished. There are no longer just two opposing schools (like Hillel and Shammai) but an immeasurable number of (Halachic) schools.

This was brought about because of the number of different Halachic works. Although the authors of these many works sought to enlighten us, they instead added to the confusion...

Many of these authors would quote a Law as if it were universal and undisputed, whereas the reality is the exact opposite.”[5]

R. Karo essentially mirrors and expands on the same sentiments as expressed by the Tur above.

R. KARO’S CRITICISM OF RAMBAM’S MISHNEH TORAH:

But R. Karo also offers a criticism of Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, essentially disapproving of Rambam’s lack of providing any Talmudic sources for his rulings, and insists that the Halachic process is far more complicated that Rambam had made out:

“If one wanted to trace the Rambam’s sources for his Laws back to the Talmud, it would be extremely difficult. Although G-d has blessed us with a (remedy for Rambam’s lack of Talmudic source material) in the commentary of the Rav haMaggid[6] who did trace the Talmudic origins of Rambam’s laws – nevertheless there are many limitations because unless one is a great scholar those sources will be difficult to comprehend.

Furthermore, it is not enough just to know the Talmudic source, but one also must consult Rashi, Tosafot, the Mordechai, Rambam, including the responsa literature to see whether a particular ruling was universally accepted.”

WHY R. KARO CHOSE TUR OVER RAMBAM:

Then R. Karo goes on to explain why he decided to attach his Beit Yosef commentary (the precursor to his Shulchan Aruch) to the Tur and not to the Mishneh Torah of Rambam:

“Because of all this, I Yosef ben haRav Efraim...have taken the drastic action to remove all the pitfalls, and have decided to author a work that will incorporate all the Laws that are practised today – together with their sources as found in the Talmud and the views of the Halachic decisors, without exception.

To avoid repetition, I decided to append this work to a previous Halachic work...Originally I thought to append it to Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, but I because he only brings his own opinion, I rather decided to append it to the Arba’ah Turim because he included most of the other opinions.

I have determined that because of the three pillars of Halachic thought upon which all the House of Israel rests, namely Rif, Rambam and Rosh (the father of the Tur), it would be prudent to rule according to the majority (i.e. two out of three).”

THE HISTORICAL RECORD?

Clearly, R. Karo did not consider Rambam to have been the final word on Halacha. He respected Rambam, but considered him only as a part or a component in a far more elaborate scheme of Halachic endeavour.

This appears to be in sharp contradistinction to the apparent historical record as noted by R. Avraham Zacuto (mentioned above) and others, who paint a picture of the Mishneh Torah being widely accepted as the authoritative text across the Jewish world in the generations immediately following Rambam.

MAHARSHAL’S RADICAL STANCE AGAINST THE SHULCHAN ARUCH:

R. Shlomo Luria (1510-1573) - known as Maharshal - was a major Ashkenazi Halachic decisor who wrote rather scathingly against R. Karo and his new Shulchan Aruch:

“Rabbeinu Yosef Caro, took upon himself to render final Halachic decisions on his own accord...This flies in the face of our traditions which we have upheld until this day.

Those reading his work, are totally unaware that oftentimes his decisions run counter to the accepted rulings of Tosafot and the Halachic decisors, whose ruling we follow...

Unfortunately, this places us in a predicament because the fact is that what people read in a book is always taken seriously[7] (and considered to be authoritative and accurate). To the extent that even were one to ‘shriek like a crane’ and show with compelling proofs that something is inaccurate - no one will pay any attention...

It is bad enough that he used the majority principal of choosing two out of three with regard to Rif, Rosh and Rambam, disregarding everyone else – as if he alone received the Tradition directly from the Elders; but he never delved deeply enough into the mechanics of the Halacha...

Additionally, he did not work from accurate texts and source material and hence he often copied and perpetuated mistakes and errors.”[8]

Besides the very vocal objection of some rabbis like Maharshal, there were some other fundamental issues as well:

DO WE DERIVE HALACHA FROM THE ZOHAR?

It is a well-established principle in Halacha that we do not follow the Zohar or any form of mysticism when it comes to defining and determining the practical Law.

Yet we also know that R. Karo was a fervent Kabbalist who was, apparently, taught by an angelic being known as a ‘Maggid’. This Magid informed him that Rambam had endorsed his new Shulchan Aruch. And we know that many Kabbalistic practices were indeed incorporated within his Shulchan Aruch:

In the words of the Magid Meisharim [258] itself, there is no doubt that R. Karo merged Kabbalah with Halacha:

“Because you have combined (the Law and Kabbalah) together, all the celestial beings have your interests at heart...”

R. KARO ACKNOWLEDGES THE ZOHAR AS A HALACHIC REFERENCE:

In his Introduction to Beit Yosef, R. Karo writes:

“Anyone who has this book before him will have the words of the Talmud, Rashi, Tosafot, Ran, Rif Rosh [and he enumerates about another 30 other sources]...all clearly arranged and well explained in front of him. Also, in some places, we quote from the Zohar.”

THE CHIDA POSITIONS R. KARO WITH THE MYSTICS OF SAFED:

The 18th-century Halachist and Kabbalist, R. Chaim Yosef David Azulai, known as the Chida (1724-1806) writes:

“The Maggid (angelic being) told him to call his work Beit David or Shulchan Aruch...

Know that I received a tradition from a great man both in wisdom and fear of Heaven, who received it from a great rabbi who in turn received it from the elders, that during the generation of R. Yosef Karo – a generation with holy people such as R. Moshe Cordovero and the Arizal – there was a special assistance from Heaven because the Jews need a Halachic work which would collate the Laws and their sources and establish the final Halachic conclusion.

There were three candidates for this task during that generation...and one of them was R. Yosef Karo, and because of his humility, he was chosen (to author the Shulchan Aruch).”[9]

The Chida appears to lend a mystical air to the story of the composition of the Shulchan Aruch, thus seemingly elevating it above its practical function as a Code of Law. He continues along this vein:

“Know that I received a tradition from pious elders who in turn received it from the great Master and Holy Man, R. Chaim Abulafia [21], that...about 200 rabbis in his generation acquiesced to R. Karo’s position [of writing a new Code of Law]. And Abulafia used to say obeying R. Karo was like obeying the 200 rabbis...

I also heard that when the Beit Yosef first came out, R. Yosef ben Levi [Maharival] opposed it and forbade his students to study from it, saying it would diminish Talmudic scholarship.

Instead, his students would study Tur in his presence. One it happened that the Maharival was unable to find a particular source and the declared: ‘I see that Heaven has indeed decreed that the Beit Yosef must spread throughout the world.’ And thereafter he permitted his students to study it.”[10]

Again we see the Chida framing of the events relating to the emergence of the Shulchan Aruch in a supernatural idiom.

What is also interesting, though, is that to best of my knowledge, this is the only account (albeit from a tertiary source) of some 200 rabbis accepting the new Shulchan Aruch as binding over the other Codes.

[To more fully understand the extent and significance of this Kabbalistic connection, the Reader is urged to see A Mystical Side to R. Yosef Karo.]

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION:

Having established that there was quite a strong Kabbalistic association around the surfacing and perpetuation of R. Karo’s Shulchan Aruch, and having shown that some, like the Maharshal were rigorously opposed to its sudden emergence – we can go back to our original question: If we already had the widely accepted Code of the Rambam (and, apparently it was accepted by more than just 200 rabbis) why the need for another Code three hundred years later?

The answer may lie in the fact that, besides being a rationalist, Rambam, lived in the pre-Zoharic era. The mysticism of the Zohar was unknown before its appearance during the mid-1200s and Rambam passed away in 1204.

[See Mysteries behind the Origins of the Zohar.]

However, the appearance of the Zohar changed the face of Judaism forever, with its influence - to a greater or lesser degree - affecting almost all its subsequent thought and literature.

R. Israel Drazin proposes an interesting answer as to why the later rabbis may have preferred the Shulchan Aruch to the well established Mishneh Torah of Rambam[11]:

‘CODIFYING NON-RATIONAL BEHAVIOURS’?

“The omission of rabbinical discussions and the source of the laws were the ostensible, though probably not the entire, reason other rabbis felt they had to write their own codes. This is obvious because if these two omissions were what really bothered the rabbis who composed new codes, they should have been satisfied by only adding glosses indicating the sources and opposing views.

The true reason, in all likelihood, was the inability of the non-rationalists to deal with Maimonides’ rationalism and his refusal to include superstitious practices, magical conduct, use of omens, mysticism and other irrational behaviors that were so dear to the general public. These non-rational behaviors were rampant among many Jews – including numerous rabbis...

The post-Maimonidean law books codified these types of behaviors.”

R. Drazin then goes on to give some examples of ‘superstitious practices’ which are not to be found in Rambam’s Code, but yet are common in the Shulchan Aruch:

WEDDINGS DURING FULL MOON:

According to the Shulchan Aruch[12], weddings should only take place during the full moon. (Ramah comments that in Ashkenazi countries weddings took place at the beginning of the month.)[13]

This practice is not mentioned in Talmudic or Gaonic literature and is certainly not found in Mishneh Torah.

Rambam does discourage weddings to take place on Fridays and Sunday because of possible Shabbat desecration, but not for any supernatural reasons (Ishut 10:14):

RIGHT SHOE LEFT SHOE:

R. Drazin explains that Rambam begins his Mishneh Torah by speaking about the need to acquire knowledge, while the Shulchan Aruch instructs us to put the right shoe on before the left and tying the left shoelace before the right.[14]

Drazin mentions that Rambam does reference the preference of right over left with regard to entering the site of the Temple from the right, but for practical reasons other than ‘superstitious notions’.[15]

SLEEPING:

According to Shulchan Aruch one must not sleep in a bed facing east or west.[16]

“The commentary Magen Avraham refers to the Zohar and states that there is a mystical reason for this requirement. The author of the Shulchan Arukh and many other non-rationalists were convinced that the shekhinah, the divine presence, was not a human feeling of the presence of God, but an actual divine being. Therefore, the commentary Magen David explains that since the shekhinah dwells in the west, it is forbidden for a person to turn his face or rear toward the shekhinah...

In Mishneh Torah...Maimonides states that a person should not sleep or use the bathroom while facing west but explains that it is one of many ways in which Jews remember the ancient Temple with respect: since the holy of holies was in the west of the Temple...”

WASHING HANDS:

According to the Shulchan Aruch, we wash our hands upon awakening from sleep in order to expel the ruach ra’ah, or evil spirit, which descended upon us during the night.[17]

Rambam, on the other hand, did not believe in evil spirits and regarded the washing of the hands as a mere ablution.

[See Netilat Yadayim – A Means of Expelling Evil Spirits or a Simple Ablution?]

EVIL EYE:

1) The Shulchan Aruch prohibits two brothers, or a father and a son, from receiving an aliyah at the Torah one after the other, for fear of the evil eye.[18]

2) The Shulchan Aruch says we should not read the prayer ‘Me’ein Sheva’ (a short repetition of the Amidah) on Pesach night, because it was originally instituted to protect latecomers to the synagogue from demons. On Pesach night, we are automatically protected from demons because it is a ‘night of protection’.[19]

3) For the same reason, we do not dip Matzah into salt on Pesach evening, because the usual dipping of bread into salt is to protect from demons and this is not necessary on Pesach, as it is a ‘night of protection’. [20]

DEMONS PERVERTING JUSTICE:

In his Beit Yosef on the Tur, R. Karo mentions the idea of Mazal (constellations or demonic forces) affecting the outcome of a legal judgement. This is where the Mazal is said to favour one of the litigants over the other and the law is unable to run its normal course.

RAMBAM’S VIEW ON THESE NON-RATIONAL MATTERS:

Rambam, on the other hand, did not deal with such cases because he didn’t believe in demons or the evil eye. The purpose of his Mishneh Torah was simply to present a clear concise and understandable Code which was easy to reference (as it was one of the first Jewish works to have an index).

CONCLUSION:

R. Drazin leaves us with this thought – and it may answer our question as to why there was the need to minimise Mishneh Torah in favour of other Codes.

In true, classical, outspoken and unapologetic Maimonidean style, he suggests:

“Being rational in an irrational world has its disadvantages, especially when the world is committed to believing in and applying non-rational practices. Thus, although Maimonides’ code of law was by far the most rational code written – in style, language, and content – and the most easily understood, and although the rabbis for the most part recognized that it contained the truth, the rabbis felt it was advisable to incorporate many folkways into their codes, including practices based on superstition, because they believed in the efficacy of such practices or, when they did not, because they were so dear to the general population.

This has always been the only successful way of dealing with humanity. People can only be taught at their level; it is impossible to transform the opinions and practices of the general population suddenly by mandate or by persuasion.”

Considering all the above, might it be accurate to propose that the 16^th Century Shulchan Aruch was essentially the mystical response and counterpart to the rationalist 12^th Century Mishneh Torah – in the same way as the Shulchan Aruch haRav was later to become the Chassidic response to Shulchan Aruch itself – and the Ben Ish Chai and Mishna Berurah were likewise to become the (Iraqi) Sefardi and Ashkenazi responses respectively?

[1]Introduction of Rabbi Yosef Kapach to his edition of Moses Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, translated by Michael J. Bohnen.

[2] Sefer Yuchasin p. 122.

[3] R. Yaakov was the son of the Rosh.

[4] From the Introduction to the Tur, by R. Yaakov ben Asher (Rosh). These loose translations are my own.

[5] From the Introduction to the Beit Yosef, by R. Yosef Karo.

[6] Also known as the Maggid Mishna, namely R. Vidal of Tolosa (mid-1300s).

[7] Remember that Mishneh Torah and the Arba’ah Turim would have been composed and disseminated before the invention of the printing press in the mid-1400s. The Shulchan Aruch, though, would have been published just after the printed book made its appearance. Hence it would have certainly appeared more authoritative than a handwritten manuscript.

[8] Introduction to Yam Shel Shlomo (Chulin).

[9] Chidah, Shem haGedolim, Ma’arechet haSefarim Erech Beit Yosef.

[10] Chida, Ma’arechet Beit Yosef.

[11] Why do the Rabbis Prefer Shulchan Aruch over Maimonides’ Code of Law? By Israel Drazin.

[12] Yoreh Deah 179:2.

[13] R. Yosef Karo wrote his Shulchan Aruch for Sefardi Jewry, and R. Moshe Isserless (Ramah) wrote addendums to R. Karo’s work, for Ashkenazim.

[14] Orach Chaim, 2:4, 5.

[15] Hilchot Beit haBechirah 7:2.

[16] Orach Chaim 3:6.

[17] Orach Chaim 4:2.

[18] Orach Chaim 140.

[19] Orach Chaim 487.

[20] Orach Chaim 475.

[21] Not to be confused with R. Avraham Abulafia (1240-1291). There was a R. Chaim Abulafia the 'first' (1580-1668) and another by the same name during the eighteenth century.

Sunday, 2 June 2019

228) CHASIDEI ASHKENAZ – ‘THESE ARE NOT SUPERSTITIONS’!

Sefer Chasidim, a seminal work of the Chasidei Ashkenaz.

INTRODUCTION:

The Chasidei Ashkenaz, or German Pietists, were a mystical and ascetic sect which flourished in the German Rhineland during the 12^th and 13^th centuries. Chasidei Ashkenaz revived an older form of mystical literature known as the Heichalot literature which was popular during post-Talmudic times.

Although described by some as an ‘insignificant’ movement, it can be argued that aspects of their influence are still strongly evident to this day.

ROOTS:

The movement can trace its roots back to the Gaonic period beginning with Abu Aharon, and blossomed under the leadership of the Tosafist R. Yehudah heChasid (1150-1217), his father R. Shmuel heChasid and his student, R. Eleazar of Worms (author of Sefer haRokeach).

Many are familiar with the hymn Anim Zemirot which was composed by R. Yehudah heChasid.

R. Eleazar predicted the arrival of Mashiach in 1240.

SEFER CHASIDIM:

AUTHORSHIP:

The movement’s seminal work was the Sefer Chasidim, ascribed to R. Yehudah heChasid[1], but parts are attributed to his father R. Shmuel heChasid and also his student R. Eleazar of Worms.

Two very distinct themes appear in various sections of the work with some sections emphasizing numerology, for example, while other sections make absolutely no reference to it at all. This is what led scholars to assume that there were multiple authors.[2]

Two versions of Sefer Chasidim exist, the Bologna and Parma Editions and there is some debate as to which is the older one.

UNLIKELY INFLUENCES:

There are two volumes to the work and the first section appears to have borrowed some moralistic and ethical teachings from Rambam, while the second and more mystical section deals more with gematria (numerology), demons, miracles, cures which were effective for specific families, folk beliefs (some apparently borrowed from the local Christian culture[3], and specifically possibly even from Christian monks[4]). All in all, Sefer Chasidim contains over two thousand stories.

Interestingly, Sefer Chasidim also extracted a degree of mysticism from Rav Saadia Gaon (d. 942) who, like Rambam, is usually more associated with rationalism[5]. The Chasidei Ashkenaz, who couldn’t understand Rav Saadia’s original Arabic, used an inaccurate Hebrew translation of his Emunot veDeot and thus his views were distorted. They did not have access to the more accurate Hebrew translation by Ibn Tabon. The alternative translation was only recently discovered by Ronald C. Kiener.

THE ETHICAL WILL:

The first section contained the tzavah, or ethical will, of R. Yehuda heChasid which imposed some 78 demands on his son and possibly on his students as well.

Some of these instructions turned out to be rather dangerous and R. Ari Shwat, who heads Michlelet Tal Orot, investigated certain tragic events which occurred upon the adherence to the instructions of R. Yehuda HeChasid.

Also, the Nodah beYehudah writes in a responsum that there are many things in this ethical will which conflict with Halacha and therefore should not be followed.[6]

VIEW ON CONVERTS:

There are sections in Sefer Chasidim that seem to define Jewish converts to Christianity as a type of intermediate category somewhere between Jews and Christians. Such an individual, for example, may contribute to the costs of producing a new Torah scroll for the synagogue, since the family could save face by saying “Although he is an apostate, deep in his heart he is still a Jew”. [7]

Sefer Chasidim also had some interesting things to say about converts to Judaism:

“When talking with a convert, a Jew should not mention the converts former religion, nor speak contemptuously of it.”

Surprisingly, and most controversially, this is what it says about mixed marriages:

“The offspring of a Jew who marries a wife not of the Jewish race, but who is of a good heart, modesty and charity, must be preferred to the children of a Jewess by birth who is, however, destitute of the same qualities.”[8]

THE BELIEF SYSTEM OF CHASIDEI ASHKENAZ:

‘WHITE MAGIC’:

Elements of the belief system of Chasidei Ashkenaz were borrowed from the local German folk-culture while some practices were considered to be of Jewish mystical origin. Rabbi Professor Kanarfogel describes some of their practices as being ‘white magic’.

SATAN:

Amongst other phenomena, Chassidei Ashkenaz displayed a strong belief in the existence and the role of Satan. Evil featured as an entity and not just a whitewashed notion of ‘absence of good’ as is commonly defined today.

VAMPIRES AND DRAGONS:

They practised a form of sorcery, witchcraft and believed in vampires, dragons and werewolves.[9]

SELF-FLAGELLATION:

Self-mortification and even self-flagellation were not uncommon. According to Harry Gersh:

“Some of the Chasidei Ashkenaz added a Christian concept: mortification of the flesh. They supported their argument for asceticism with various esoteric and theosophical ideas, but they were essentially merely imitating their Christian neighbours.”[10]

IMPLANTED SINS:

In R. Yehudah heChasid’s ‘Book of Angels’ he wrote that an individual will be punished by G-d, not only for his own sins but even for the sins caused by ideas implanted in his mind by the angels. This was because the angels do no more than simply fulfil the basic morality of the individual.

DESERVING OF THE CRUSADER TORMENT:

Chasidei Ashkenaz emerged just after the persecution of the Crusades, and it was felt that perhaps they had deserved the Crusader’s torment as a punishment for their sins.

TESHUVAT HAMISHKAL:

Believing that they deserved punishment, they turned to an extreme form of repentance which included the concept of Teshuvat haMishkal which was a ‘repayment in measure’ or ‘wages of sin’ which usually involved some intense form of self-denial, akin to giving G-d His pound of flesh.

MOTHER-IN-LAW’S NAME:

Some other interesting and strange customs were to emerge from the movement. These include some practices which are still adhered to today.

They would not allow a man to marry a wife whose father had the same name as him. And a woman could not marry a husband whose mother had the same name as her.[11]

HAIRCUTS ON ROSH CHODESH:

They would not allow haircuts or the cutting of nails on Rosh Chodesh.

THIS BOOK BELONGS TO...

One was not permitted to write directly in a book that it belonged to him, but the ownership of the book had to be hinted at instead. Many keep this custom today and write that while all the world belongs to G-d, this book is merely shayach, or associated with the owner.

SURVIVING THE YEAR:

According to Sefer Chasidim, if one wants to see if he will live out the year, one should light a candle during Ten Day of Penitence, if it does not go out, one will survive the year.[12]

ATONEMENT AFTER DEATH:

Some practised various extreme acts of atonement to be performed even after death, such as the dragging of the coffin through the streets or even the dropping of the body.

BURYING TWO ENEMIES NEXT TO EACH OTHER:

They discouraged the burying of two enemies in graves which were close together.

NOISE ON PURIM:

R. Yehudah heChasid explained that the reason why we bang and make a noise when we read the name Haman on Purim is because they similarly bang and make a noise in gehinom (hell) when they hear his name mentioned.[13]

SITTING IN A WAGGON ON A FERRY:

They discouraged a traveller from sitting inside a wagon when it was transported on a ferry over water. And, for some unknown reason, they would not allow slaughtering of geese during the month of Shevat (and some said Tevet).

WALKING AROUND THE BED WITH A SWORD:

In another work of R. Yehuda heChasid, entitled Amarot Tehorot Chitzoniyot uPeniniyot, he recommends walking around one’s bed with a sword as protection against demons.

THESE ARE ‘NOT SUPERSTITIONS’:

The Chasidei Ashkenaz were clearly aware that some of their teachings would be regarded, by their more rational readers, as being superstitious. In one extract from Sefer Chasidim it states:

“Though one should not believe in superstitions, it is better to be heedful of them...

Do not be sceptical and say ‘These are not lessons in piety; this smacks of superstition’...

This book is called Book of the Pious and it is exactly what the name implies.”

THE ‘CULT OF THE PRAYER BOOK’?

According to Arnold Rosenberg:

“The Chasidei Ashkenaz developed what one commentator called a ‘cult of the prayer book, which fondled its every phrase, counted every word, played kabbalistic games with the letters, and left a library of some seventy-three volumes of commentaries [on the prayer book].’

The Chasidei Ashkenaz found that the congregation’s response in the middle of the Kaddish contained the same number of words and letters as the first verse of the Torah. They developed the superstitious belief that the one who responded Kaddish with these words would become God’s partner in the creation of the world, and, hence, empowered to change the fate of the departed. For some, then, the Mourner’s Kaddish was an attempt to change the fate of the deceased through participation in an act of creation.”[14]

NOT ‘MITNAGDIM’ BUT ‘RESHAIM’:

The adherents of Chasidei Ashkenaz were filled with righteous indignation in that they labelled anyone who did follow their extreme ascetic lifestyle as Reshaim or wicked ones, and they were not to be called up to the Torah.

EXTENT OF INFLUENCE?

The movement of Chasidei Ashkenaz was regarded as so controversial that modern scholars debate the efficacy and extent of its influence.

So, for example, according to Joseph Dan, Sefer Chasidim was not a national work but rather a single individual’s blueprint for a movement which never really existed. He motivates his position by the fact that no contemporary Ashkenazic literature references the Chasidei Ashkenaz as a movement with communities.

Isaiah Tishby, on the other hand, refers to Sefer Chasidim as “an enormous anthology, reflecting the work of generations of Ashkenazi leaders.”[15]

And for a view somewhere in the middle, according to The Practical Tanya:

“While the Chasidei Ashkenaz were a relatively fringe group, their approach to teshuvah proved to be extremely inﬂuential after being adopted extensively by the mainstream Halachic responsa in the 12^th-15^th centuries. As a result teshuvah came to mean, in the eyes of many people, a mental process that had to be accompanied by a Rabbinically advised penitential schedule, (which usually included fasting).”[16]

In this last view, the movement was on the ‘fringes’ but still influential insofar as the practical effect it had on subsequent Halachic Responsa which informed future religious development.

A view indicating that Chasisei Ashkenaz was not an insignificant movement can be found in a comment of the Kotzker Rebbe, who was the only rebbe who didn’t really believe in mysticism [see The Rebbe who Didn’t Like Mysticism]. Noticing that people took the practices from Sefer Chasidim so seriously, he remarked with his usual sharp wit, that he wished the book would have also included the Ten Commandments!

ANALYSIS:

What is perhaps more interesting than some of the unusual practices and beliefs outlined above, is how later scholars both religious and secular, have viewed the degree of acceptance of these beliefs by the general Jewish community.

We know, surprisingly, that the Chasidei Ashkenaz movement was inextricably bound to many within the Tosafist movement of the same period. And we know that many of their practices were later reflected in some Halachic writings, and we see that many of their beliefs are still adhered to today.

Yet there are some who have gone so far as to claim that there were only two members of the Chasidei Ashkenaz movement: R. Yehudah heChasid and R. Eleazar of Worms. And if there were more, it never reflected the popular culture of the people and the movement never really got off the ground.

But the movement of Shabbatai Tzvi has also been described as a ‘footnote’ to Jewish history, as was the movement of the Karaites - yet in both cases, it is possible the nearly half of the Jewish population at those times, followed them.

So, was Chasidei Ashkenaz a mere insignificant footnote to history - or was it a powerful and influential movement representing the work of generations of Ashkenazi leaders, leaving an indelible impression on, and perhaps even shaping much of future Judaism?

[1] This is the view of the Chida. However the Vilna Gaon claimed it was written by his student R. Eleazar of Worms (Yeshurun vol. 4, p. 250.)

[2] Professor Haym Soloveitchik shows that besides having different authors, the text sometimes completely contradicts itself. (JQR XCII no. 3-4 pp. 455-493).

[3] Based on a lecture by Dr Henry Abramson: R. Yehudah he-Hasid.

[4] Cross-dressing among Medieval Ashkenazi Jews, by Lena Roos.