454) Reconstructing the story of a Maimonidean student:

 

Introduction

This article − based extensively on the research by Dr Reimund Leicht – examines the story of R. Yosef ben Yehuda ibn Shimon, a student of Maimonides (1138-1204).[1] He could not have been an insignificant student because Maimonides chose to dedicate his philosophical work, Moreh Nevuchim (Guide of the Perplexed), to him. Very little is known about Yosef ibn Shimon. However, based on available historical evidence, Leicht reconstructs his life story and shows how he may have played a pivotal role in supporting his teacher during the Maimonidean Controversies that broke out after the passing of Maimonides. We are also presented with a fascinating window into some details about Maimonides the individual, and some of his practical directives about rabbinic independence and not teaching Torah for money. 

360) Why was The Guide For The Perplexed intended to be a secret document?

 

 

Introduction

 

Rambam (Maimonides, 1135-1204) places tremendous importance on the meaning and usage of words. He dedicates major sections of his Moreh Nevuchim (Guide For The Perplexed[1]) to explain how words are used in the Torah. He believed that most of the rabbinic world during his time misunderstood and misrepresented many basic words, especially those used in relation to G-d. Yet, for some reason, he also wanted this writing to remain hidden. This article explores some readings selected from early sections of the Moreh Nevuchim.

349) WHY BLOW 100 SHOFAR SOUNDS ON ROSH HASHANAH?

A GUEST POST BY RABBI BARUCH CLINTON:

Here's another example of the innovation-heavy Tzfas mindset at work in modern Jewish life.

The way most communities perform the mitzva of shofar on Rosh Hashana is an excellent example of the spread of the Tzfas ideology and mindset. Here, based on Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim 590:1, is what the Torah requires:

כמה תקיעות חייב אדם לשמוע בר"ה, תשע; לפי שנאמר: תרועה ביובל ובר"ה ג' פעמים, וכל תרועה פשוטה לפניה ופשוטה לאחריה, ומפי השמועה למדו שכל תרועות של חדש השביעי אחד הן, בין בר"ה בין ביוה"כ של יובל, תשע תקיעות תוקעין בכל אחד משניהם: תר"ת, תר"ת, תר"ת

How many tekiyos must a man hear on Rosh Hashana? Nine, for it mentions the word “terua" three times (in the passages concerning) Yovel and Rosh Hashana, and each terua must have a simple sound (i.e., tekiya) both before and after it. And from tradition we learn that all teruos during the seventh month (i.e., Tishrei) are the same…tekiya-terua-tekiya; tekiya-terua-tekiya; tekiya-terua-tekiya.

The Retraction of Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

In honour of the memory of Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, this is a re-post of an article I wrote some years ago. Rabbi Sacks had read it and had the dignity to acknowledge even thank me for it.

 

INTRODUCTION:

While walking through a Modern Orthodox institution recently, I was chatting to a colleague who noticed I was holding a copy of the book; ‘To Heal a Fractured World’, by Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. Being a great admirer of Rabbi Sacks, I was rather taken aback when he asked why I was reading such ‘controversial literature’. Intrigued to find out what was so contentious about the man, I discovered that in 2003, Rabbi Sacks was pressured into retracting and deleting sections of his book; ‘The Dignity of Difference’. 

Apparently, his own Beit Din had said that parts of the book were “inconsistent with basic Jewish beliefs.” 

And Rabbi Elyashiv said it was “contrary to our faith in the Holy Torah”, and was unfit to be brought into the home.

What did Rabbi Sacks say that brought about such scathing attacks?

In the ‘censored’ version, he wrote:

G-d is universal, religions are particular...G-d has spoken to mankind in many languages: through Judaism to Jews, Christianity to Christians, Islam to Muslims... G-d is greater than religion...He is only partially comprehended by any faith...He exists in my faith, but also in yours.

However, this sentence had been deleted:

No one creed has a monopoly on spiritual truth.

Some felt that he had gone too far in accepting the ‘validity’ of other religions.

I can understand why some felt he had gone too far. There are some major and fundamental differences between Judaism and other faiths. Many of these differences are theologically and philosophically irreconcilable.

However, as an intellectual exercise, and in the interest of freedom of (Torah) expression, take a look at some very different perspectives on other religions, by some of our leading rabbinical thinkers.

THE RAMBAM’S VIEW ON OTHER RELIGIONS:

Rabbi Moshe Maimonides (1135-1204) writes that in general, both Christianity and Islam pave the way for universal acceptance of Mashiach. As a result of the emergence of both these religions:

[T]he world has become full of the ideas of Mashiach, Torah and commandments, which have spread to distant lands and nations.[1]

Notwithstanding this broad and sweeping statement, the Rambam bluntly considers Christianity to be a form of idolatry. He says this in a number of different places[2], and is quite outspoken in his reference their houses of worship as:

[P]agan houses of worship without any doubt.

His view on Islam is very different:

The Ishmaelites are not idol worshippers at all and they worship the singular G-d properly and without blemish.”[3] 

As a consequence of this view, Jews and Muslims have often shared the same houses of worship.

Then, in a surprising and dramatic turnaround, the Rambam adds a caveat: When it comes to social and religious interaction with members of both faiths, he says:

It is permitted to teach the commandments to Christians and to attract them to our religion, while one should not do the same with Ishmaelites.

This is because Christians accepted the authority of the Torah and never denied its authenticity. Whereas Muslims, he says, although their books describe the giving of the Torah to the Jews, consider every point of difference between them and Jews to be either a falsification of, or mistakes in, textual transmission on the part of the Jews, and that they (the Muslims) indeed have the correct tradition.

The Rambam’s view is clear albeit rather paradoxical: Christianity is idolatry. Islam is monotheistic. Yet, theologically, Christians may be engaged with in preference to Muslims because they accept the basic authority of the Torah. Yet overall, both are indispensable in terms of core principles and preparation for Mashiach.

Concerning the oft-quoted Talmudic statement that “the pious of the nations have a share in the world to come” (San.105a) -  Rambam is of the view that this is only when they declare their commitment to upholding the seven Noachide laws[4] before a Jewish Beit Din.[5] This, not being a common practice, puts a very different pragmatic spin on the popular perception of this famous statement, and is indicative of the Rambam’s uncompromising stance on the matter.

RASHBA (1235-1310):

The Rashba[6], holding a similar view to the Rambam, says that Moslems are not idol worshippers, but:

all other gentiles are considered to be idol worshippers.

THE MEIRI (1249-1315):

Rabbi Menachem haMeiri[7], on the other hand, has probably the most radically liberal view on Christianity and Islam that is to be found in all of Torah literature.  He posits that the notion of idolatry has absolutely disappeared from society (barring what he refers to as some fringes or ‘extremities’ of civilization). Idolatry, in his view, has essentially become extinct, and replaced by more developed religions, with Christianity and Islam both falling under the broad rubric of monotheistic religions. He refers to them as ‘umot ha-gedurot be-darcei ha-datot’, or ‘nations restricted by ways of religion’, as opposed to the idolaters of old who thrived on total anarchy.[8]

Jewish law does contain several references to inequality between Jews and non-Jews. For example; If a Jew’s animal damages the property of a Gentile, the Jew is not liable. But if a Gentile’s animal damages the property of a Jew, the Gentile is liable. According to the Meiri, the ‘non-Jews’ in such examples of asymmetry in Jewish law, are specifically the ancient idolaters, who lost their rights to be protected by the very laws they sought to undermine.  He says of the ancient pagans; “All these people possess no religion and submit to the fear of no divinity”. Contemporary Gentiles, however, were to be treated no different from Jews, because their religions gave them a sense of law and order.

The Meiri continues:

Discriminatory rules such as this were instituted in times when those Gentiles were devout in their idolatry. But now their idolatry has come to an end in most places, and there is accordingly no need to be stringent with them as in the old regulations.[9]

In a similar vein, the Meiri offers a remarkable explanation in his commentary to a text in the Gemara:

“A Notzri (Christian) may not be traded with” -This refers (not to Christians but) to the (idolatrous) nation of Nevuchadnetzer , the Babylonian King.[10]

Commenting on the Gemara in Bava Kama, he says:

All the people who are of the nations that are restricted by the ways of their religion and worship the divinity in any way, even if their faith is far from ours, are excluded from the principle of inequality. Rather, they are like full-fledged Jews with respect to these matters, with no distinction whatsoever.[11]

Regarding the mitzvah of returning lost property, which only has to be performed to “your brother”[12], and not to Gentiles, the Meiri says:

The reference is to everyone who is ‘restricted by the ways of their religion’.[13] 

Accordingly, the Meiri regards contemporary non-Jews to fall under the technical category of ‘achicha’, your brother, and ‘re’ehu’, your peer.

Again, commenting on Bava Kama, he says:

All those who follow the seven laws of Noah are treated in our courts as we are treated in theirs, and we do not accord ourselves favourable treatment. It goes without saying that the same applies to nations restricted by ways of their religion.[14]

Significantly, here the Meiri seems to regard contemporary non-Jews as having a higher status than those who merely observe the seven Noachide laws.

As demonstrated, the Meiri differs spectacularly from the view of the Rambam. So much so that some simply couldn't accept his radically tolerant outlook and insisted that he wrote these commentaries specifically for the censors in order to appease the non-Jews. The Chatam Sofer[15], for example, wrote about a Meiri text:

It is a mitzvah to wipe it out, for it did not emerge from his holy mouth.”[16] 

The implication here is not just that the Meiri wrote to appease non-Jews but that his views on that issue were outright forgeries.

The interesting thing though is that the Chatam Sofer never gave any reasons for his sweeping statement[17]. And he never saw the writings of the Meiri on Bava Kama first hand, because he only quoted them through secondary sources (such as the Shita Mekubetzet in the above example). Also, he couldn't have been familiar with the Meiri on Avodah Zara (where the “nations bound by religion” concept was formulated), because it was only published in 1944, more than 100 years after his passing. Yet, notwithstanding all this, from then on, the views of the Meiri regarding non-Jews lost much of their credibility.[18]

RAMO (1520-1572):

Rabbi Moshe Isserless explains that in Jewish Law, the Trinity is considered to be “Shituff” or “partnering” G-d with another being. For a Jew, “Shituff” would be absolutely forbidden. The question is whether or not it is forbidden for a non-Jew.  The poskim (halachik authorities) are divided on this issue. As we have seen, the Rambam holds that it is forbidden even to a non-Jew, to the extent that if he practices “Shituff”, he is considered an idolater. The Ramo, however, takes a different view. He maintains that partnering G-d with another being is permitted to non-Jews.[19]

MAHARAL OF PRAGUE (1520-1609):

The Maharal[20], taking a similar tack, writes:

Anyone who accepts upon himself to worship the First Cause, falls into the category of a ‘ger toshav’[21] (a resident stranger), who is not discriminated against by the laws (as in Bava Kama 4,3).

BE’ER HAGOLAH (1596-1671):

In a similar vein, R Moshe Rivkes, commentating on the Shulchan Aruch, says that the discriminatory laws were only directed towards the:

idolaters of earlier times, who believed in neither the Exodus from Egypt nor Creation ex nihilo. But concerning contemporary gentiles...since they believe in the Exodus, Creation ex nihilo, and other fundamentals (these laws do not apply), since their intent is to the Creator.

TIFERET LE'YISRAEL (1805-1855):

One of the first rabbinic authorities to actually acknowledge the Meiri as a source text, was R Zvi Hirsch Chayes[22]. Fascinatingly, he is the only commentator in the Vilna Shas to hold a PhD. He writes:

Christians, who believe in religion...Torah from Heaven and in the existence of G-d, are absolutely regarded by us as ‘gerim toshavim’, and the seven Noachide laws are built into both Christian and Moslem legal systems.”[23]

TORAH TEMIMAH (1860-1941):

About fifty years later, the Torah Temimah[24] writes that the discriminatory laws:

do not apply to those nations who observe the seven Noachide laws, and these are most of the contemporary nations, which are regarded as Jews in regard to these matters.”[25]

RAMACH (1874-1950):

R. Chalfon Moshe haCohen[26] ruled that:

The bans[27] only applied to the idolatrous nations of ancient times. But today, when idolatry has ceased to exist in almost all parts of the world, and all the Gentile nations believe in the Creator...we make no distinction with regard to Jew and Gentile in these matters.

CHIEF RABBI AVRAHAM YITZCHAK HAKOHEN KOOK (1865-1935):

The first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel declared that Moslems and Christians living in a Jewish society are to be treated as ‘gerim toshavim’, with full civil liberties, just like Jews.[28] He wrote

The fundamental view is the Meiri’s. Nations bound by descent customs between man and his fellow, should be considered ‘gerim toshavim’.[29]

TANNA DE'VEI ELIYAHU:

According to a 10th Century text from Tanna de'vei Eliyahu (ch 9):

I call heaven and earth to witness that whether man or woman, whether servant or maidservant, whether Gentile or Jew, the Holy Spirit rests upon a person according to his deed.

CONCLUSION:

It is well known that throughout our history, some sensitive texts had to be amended because it was feared that the original texts would fuel anti-Semitism. However, no absolute certainty exists as to exactly which texts were amended.  We have taken a look at many texts spanning a period of almost a thousand years. Some may have been written for ‘appeasement’.  But by the same token, some must have been the authors genuine interpretations.

If one does accept the authority of even just some of these texts, the questions beg:

·        Would our modern-day ‘censors’ who confronted Rabbi Sacks, similarly want all these texts to be retracted retroactively?   

·        Would these views also be branded as “inconsistent with basic Jewish beliefs” and unfit to be brought into the home?

Submitting to the fact that our traditional opinions on other religions do differ significantly and dramatically, surely we must also submit that they all still exist within the broad framework of Torah theology. One could find many reasons to take umbrage to what Rabbi Sacks wrote. But one could also, surely, make an argument that the Chief Rabbi was drawn to his way of thinking, by much textual precedent.

I can also understand, as Rabbi Norman Bernhard used to say, that; “There is salvation outside of the synagogue.” He told me he chose the term ‘salvation’ deliberately, because of its non-Jewish connotation. Non-Jews have no need for Judaism and can and should perfectly function within their own belief systems. If another religion is relevant to another creed, why can that religion not be valid for THEM? 

In this sense, could one not also understand the context and tenor of the Chief Rabbi’s pre-censored statements - remembering that he was communicating with an international readership including people of diverse creeds, many of whom respectfully consider him to be a leading thinker of our times? 

He was speaking as a representative of Judaism to the widest of audiences and was taking full advantage of his honed ability to wax philosophical.

In the final analysis, considering that Rabbi Sacks was speaking Hashkafa (theological philosophy), writing to ‘appease’ - to create tolerance in an age of intolerance - and not to formulate or pasken Halacha (religious legalities) or look for stringencies -  was his punishment not perhaps a little disproportionate to his ‘crime’?

 

---

[1] Yad haChazakah.

[2] Hilchot Avoda Zara 9,4.  Commentary to Mishna Avoda Zara 1,3. Avoda Zara 4.

[3] Letter to Ovadya the Convert.

[4] These seven laws are: The prohibitions of committing murder, idolatry, theft, incest, blasphemy, cruelty to animals, and the injunction to establish civil court of law.

[5] Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim  8:10-11.

[6] R. Shlomo ben Avraham Aderet, Torat haBayit, book 5, chapter 4.

[7] The Meiri is one of the most monumental commentators on the Talmud. Yet, interestingly, his work was largely unknown until recent times. This is why its influence has been rather minimalised because it was left out of the halachic process. Some authorities, although having great respect for him, will not rely on his teachings because of this.

[8] See “Ones possessed of Religion”, by Dr Moshe Halbertal.

[9] Beit haBechira, Avodah Zara p. 28. (Schlesinger ed.)

[10] Ibid p 4.                             

[11] Beit haBechira, Bava Kama p. 330.

[12] Deut. 22,3.

[13] Beit HaBechira, Bava Metzia, p. 100.

[14] Beit HaBechira, Bava Kama p. 122.

[15] R. Moshe Schreiber (1762-1839).

[16] Kovetz Teshuvot paragraph 90.

[17] See Kotzk Blog 48) ‘Contemporary Daas Torah’; where (unlike traditional halachic rulings), according to the Daas Torah concept, no explanations are necessary.

[18] Even the the Chatam Sofer Institute which published the Responsa Anthology (1973), while quoting our abovementioned statement, added in a note; “The words of our master ‘It did not emerge from his holy mouth’, are puzzling, for the Meiri explicitly stated this view numerous times in his works.”

[19] Darchei Moshe 2 on Orach Chayim 156. (However see Nodah BeYehuda, who says the Ramo holds that worshiping ‘beshituff’ is forbidden to a non-Jew.)

[20] R. Yehudah Loew.

[21] An interesting halachik conundrum, however, is created when a gentile is considered to be a ‘ger toshav’- because the prohibition against intermarriage with them would shift from a Torah prohibition, to that of a rabbinic prohibition. This, of course, would be halachically untenable, (unless the distinction is made that a gentile is a ‘ger toshav’ only with regard to the discriminatory laws, but not with regard to intermarriage, which would remain a Torah prohibition.)

[22] Rabbi Berel Wein calls him the R. Samson Rephael Hirsch of Eastern Europe, and says he was; “simultaneously a talmid chacham and secular scholar. He aimed to fight the haskala with its own weapons, but because of his time and place, he came under suspicion as a maskil himself. The tragic story of this misunderstood genius is the eternal story of the Jewish people, struggling to walk the tightrope between Torah and modernity.”

[23] Compendium of R' Chajes, p. 489  (published by Divrei Chachamim, 1958).

[24] R. Baruch HaLevi Epstein, a bookkeeper by profession, and author of the Torah Temimah commentary to the Torah and Five Megilot.

[25] Torah Temimah on Shemot 21,35.

[26] A leading rabbi of the island of Djerba in Tunisia. In 1943 the Nazis came to Tunisia, and demanded that Rabbi Moshe collect 50 kilos of gold in three and a half hours and hand it over to them; otherwise, they would bomb the Jewish communities of Djerba and Tunis. The next day the Allies conquered Tunisia and the Nazis were gone from Tunisia. The gold that the Jews managed to collect was not handed to the Germans. He was a great Zionist and hatched a plan to establish a League of Nations and a World Court, both of which would have their headquarters in Jerusalem.

[27] These refer to not having to return a Gentile’s lost articles and not having to return funds overpaid in monetary transactions.

[28] Iggeret 89, Mishpat Cohen 63.                

[29] Igrot ha-Raayah, 89, v. 1, p. 99 (Mossad ha-Rav Kook edition, Jerusalem, 1962). 

 

 

291) HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO PRAY?

The following very penetrating article is another guest post by Rabbi Boruch Clinton, a regular contributor to this site. [See here, here and here.] This discussion is quite technical but well worth a careful read as he raises some fundamental issues which are not often addressed - and when they are, are usually explained glibly away. I found this to be a fascinating, honest and scholarly piece of writing from a serious student of  Torah Judaism.

For me personally, it reinforces my conviction that Rambam, through his rationalist approach of depopulating the heavens of beings, counterintuitively presents a purer form of monotheism than the created constructs of the kabbalist schools. 

This article deals with the profound question of who, according to the mystics,  are we actually praying to - and who responds - when we think we are praying to G-d.

285) UNDERSTANDING THE NEFESH HACHAIM:

The Nefesh haChaim by R. Chaim of Volozhin (1749-1821)

Another Guest Post by Rabbi Boruch Clinton.

This article is meant to somehow become a part of my Finding Tradition in a Modern Torah World project:

https://marbitz.com/home/rabbi-s-r-hirsch/finding-tradition-in-the-modern-torah-world/

Introduction:

Among my many sins, I spent years teaching Torah for a living. During those years I was often forced to confront - both for myself and for my students - why some answers and explanations are more likely true than others. To large measure, I eventually settled on a variation of Occam's razor which, roughly described, states that a problem's true resolution is probably the one which requires the least interpretation. For all intents and purposes, the Talmud does this on nearly every page; rejecting a proof whenever another equally (or more) likely possibility is presented.

I would often apply the tool during debates. To briefly illustrate (based on another of my articles): Is the Chasam Sofer's way of understanding Rabbi Yishmael's interpretation of Deut. 11:14 a possible meaning of the Gemara in Berachos 35b (which the Chasam Sofer insists would only apply within geographic Israel)? Of course. But, given the fact that Rava explicitly applies the Rabbi Yishmael’s position to his students – most of whom surely lived outside Israel – suggests that possible is not synonymous with likely. And derush is not the same as pshat.

280) VISITING GRAVES:

Ma'aneh Lashon - "Supplications to be said at cemeteries, and many prayers to be said for eradication of evil decrees..." Horodna 1804.

INTRODUCTION:

Visiting graves of great rabbis, besides enjoying more and more popularity, has also become something of a spiritual art form today to the extent that in some circles it is a means of attaining social status.

In this article, which I have based on the research of Professor Elliot Horowitz (1953-2017) we will look at the development and evolution of the notion of visiting graves both for intercession and sometimes even for prayer.[1]  Professor Horowitz studied at Yeshivat Kerem beYavneh and later at Yale and Princeton Universities. He taught Jewish History at Bar Ilan University and served as co-editor of the Jewish Quarterly Review.

A CONTROVERSIAL HISTORY:

Horowitz is quick to point out that the Jewish custom of visiting graves has had a chequered history:

“[A]n examination of the custom's earlier history reveals a range of complex attitudes and even considerable controversy.”

People were tempted to visit graves to ask the dead to intercede on their behalf. A grave, as Horowitz aptly puts it,  was a natural place of call because of the:

 “relative proximity of the dead and the absolute distance of the Deity.”

TALMUDIC ORIGINS:

The Talmud[2] suggests two very different reasons for visiting a cemetery specifically during times of drought. One, a rather rational explanation to show that "(because of the drought) we are as the dead before You," and the other, a mystical reason,  "that the dead should intercede for mercy on our behalf."

 In another tractate[3] the Talmud mentions that Caleb, one of the twelve spies of the biblical story who go to spy out the Land of Israel, separated from his colleagues and went to pray at the graves of the forefathers in Chevron, so as to be spared the evil council of the other spies.[4]

The Talmud records:

“[Caleb] went to prostrate himself on the graves of the forefathers. He said to them: ‘My fathers, request mercy for me that I be spared the [evil] council of the [other] spies.’

POST TALMUDIC TIMES:

The story of Caleb was used in post-Talmudic literature by two opposing schools of thought. One used it show that intercessory[5] prayers to the dead had good precedent - while the opponents insisted that Caleb did not actually pray to the dead but merely visited the graves.

10^th-CENTURY:

SAHL BEN MATZLIACH HACOHEN AND R. YAAKOV BEN SHMUEL:

During the 10^th-century we start to see opposition to what was apparently becoming a common practice of intercessory prayers to the dead. Ironically, it was a Jerusalem Karaite Jew, Sahl ben Matzlich haCohen (910-990) who provides an early opposition view to the dominating mainstream view condoning praying to, visiting, or communicating with the dead.

He wrote a letter in response to R. Yaakov ben Shmuel who criticised the ascetic Karaites, and in turn offered some criticism of the Rabbanite practices, particularly their teaching Torah in return for payment (grain). Another major criticism was the practice of venerating graves, particularly that of the Tannaic (Mishnaic) sage R. Yossi haGellili in Dalata just north of Safed.

Sahl ben Matzlich haCohen wrote:

“How can I remain silent when some Jews follow the customs of idolators. They 'sit among the graves and lodge in the vaults' (Isaiah 65: 4) and 'inquire of the dead' (ve-dorshim el ha-metim [cf Deut. 18: 11]), saying, 'Oh Rabbi Yose the Galilean, grant me a cure!' or 'Vouchsafe me a child.' They light lamps at the graves of the righteous and 'burn incense on tiles' (Isaiah 65: 3) ... They perform pilgrimage rites over the graves of the deceased righteous (ha-zaddikim ha-metim) and make vows to them and appeal and pray to them to grant their requests."[6]

Sahl also criticized the custom of the Jews of Babylonia who had venerated the graves of Ezekiel and of Barukh ben Neriyah[7] for centuries.

12^th-CENTURY:

You will recall the Talmudic practice we quoted earlier of visiting graves during a drought, and the two very different reasons for so doing: 1) "(because of the drought) we are as the dead before You," and 2) "that the dead should intercede for mercy on our behalf."  Over the next centuries, it is fascinating to see how different rabbis and movements chose one of these two Talmudic reasons over the other, to suite their worldview on the matter of grave visitation.

1) R. YOSEF KIMCHI:

During the 12^th-century, R. Yosef Kimchi wrote in opposition to the second (i.e., mystical) Talmudic interpretation that the dead can intercede on our behalves:

“Moreover, you believe other things unvindicated by reason even though Scripture rejects them, such as the belief that the dead perform miracles ...

 See that Scripture held liable those who consult the dead on behalf of the living ...

Scripture says further, 'The dead do not praise God, nor do any who go down in silence' (Ps. 115: 17).”[8]

2) RAMBAM:

True to form and right on cue, in his Mishneh Torah[9] the rationalist Maimonides also chose to ignore the second and more mystical explanation. Instead, he only made mention of the first reason that without rain we are “as the dead”.

In fact, Rambam discouraged the visiting of graves in general.[10]

Rambam’s typically stark rationalist views were often difficult for other rabbis to accept without some form of ‘reinterpretation’. Here are two examples of how Rambam was ‘reworked’ by later commentators:

a) R. YITZCHAK BEN SHESHET PERFET:

R. Yitzchak ben Sheshet Perfet (1326-1408), also known as Rivash, suggested that Rambam’s statement not to visit graved be read in conjunction with a previous statement concerning graves of the righteous which should not be marked with a form of monument. Hence, the Rivas explains, that Rambam simply meant that we should not be distracted by the elaborate graves of the righteous but simply remember the dead for their deeds.[11]

Horowitz points out that ironically, the Rivash’s own tomb in Algiers became a major pilgrimage site to which, as one traveller noted “the sick and the unfortunate of every faith came to pray."[12]

b) R. DAVID IBN ZIMRA:

Another reinterpretation of Rambam was by R. David ibn Zimra (1479-1573), also known as Radbaz. He suggested Rambam was not referring to visiting graves but to the heathen practice of opening graves in order to commune directly with the dead. Thus visiting the graves was in his interpretation of Rambam, was permissible and he reminds us that “Jews everywhere have been accustomed to visit their dead and to prostrate themselves upon their graves.”[13]

3) R. ELIEZER OF METZ:

R. Eliezer of Metz expressed the controversial view that the prohibition of ‘inquiring of the dead’ applied only when initiated after death, but it was permissible to put a living person under oath to return after his death and answer any questions he might be asked.[14]

13^th-CENTURY:

1) CHASIDEI ASHKENAZ:

 In 13^th-century Germany, the mystical work Sefer Chasidim written by the Chasidei Ashkenaz or German pietists, followed the second (and mystical) Talmudic interpretation that intercessory prayers to the dead were permissible and effective.

The Sefer Chasidim comments on the words of Barzillai, just before he died, to King David:

"’Pray let your servant return that I may die in my own town, near the graves of my father and mother.’[15] - because the dead derive benefit when their loved ones visit their graves and pray on behalf of their souls, improving their lot in the next world. And also, when they are asked, they pray on behalf of the living, as when Caleb ben Yefuneh prostrated himself upon the graves of the Patriarchs."[16]

In keeping with this sentiment, when the leader of Chasidei Ashkenaz, R. Yehudah heChasid passed away, his gravesite became a point of pilgrimage for Jews for centuries thereafter.

2) R. CHAIM PALTIEL:

In the late 13^th-century, Rabbi Chaim Paltiel of Magdeburg (a student of R. Meir of Rothenberg) followed the first (and rationalist) Talmudic interpretation that intercessory prayers are not sanctioned by Judaism. Apparently, pilgrimages to graves were common practice in his time and he tied to dissuade at least ‘women and uneducated men’ from participating in them because he feared they would pray to the dead, something tantamount to idolatry.

R. Chaim Paltiel’s teshuva or responsum - regarding someone who had taken an oath to visit cemeteries - on this matter is an early example of a rift in approach to the popular practice of visiting graves, and he fervently opposed such practices and found ways to absolve people from such vows. He suggested people donate to charity the same amount of money as they would have spent on travel to the pilgrimage site.

R. Chaim Paltiel’s position is significant because, as Horowitz put it:

“It was to be used as a critique of intercessionary prayer by later authorities as well, suggesting the emergence during the Middle Ages, beyond Karaite circles alone, of a counter-tradition to the dominant Talmudic view that prayer to the dead was not biblically prohibited.”

Amazingly, R. Paltiel was apparently reticent to rather suggest that the person who had taken the vow simply request his or her needs to G-d directly because he knew how ingrained the belief of intercessory prayers to the dead were amongst the ordinary religious masses.

3) THE ZOHAR:

On the other hand, it should come as no surprise that the foundation work of Jewish mysticism, the Zohar, chose to elaborate upon the second (and mystical) Talmudic reason that the dead can “intercede for mercy on our behalf.”

According to the account in the Zohar,[17] two Tannaic sages R. Chizkiah and R. Yeisa were travelling in the Galilee when they heard a voice of one of the dead in a cemetery near where they had stopped. R. Yeisa was prompted to ask why it was that we had the custom of visiting a cemetery when experiencing a drought – because the Torah tells us not to “inquire of the dead”? R. Chizkiah responded that the verse referred only to idolaters who are considered dead, but the dead of Israel are considered to be living even after death.

R. Chizkiah continued:

"When the other peoples visit their dead, they do so with sorcery in order to arouse evil spirits with their help. But when Israel visit their dead they come in repentance before God, they come with a broken heart and fasting into His presence, and all so that the holy souls might plead for mercy for them before God.”

This is how Horowitz interprets the conclusion of this Zohar:

“It would appear, therefore, that the Spanish author[18] of the Zohar [who lived in a Christian environment][19] felt the need to find an explanation, possibly in response to Jewish rationalist criticism, for why Christian prayer to saints at their shrines was idolatrous but Jewish prayer at the graves of the righteous was not.”

14^th-CENTURY:

R. YEHUDAH BEN ASHER OF TOLEDO:

During the 14^th-century, R. Yehudah ben Asher of Toledo mentioned intercessory prayers at gravesites quite glibly as it was clearly considered a common Jewish practice.

Horowitz writes:

“It is worth noting that in the prayer which R. Judah b. Asher composed for his own recitation when visiting such graves he was careful to avoid speaking directly to the deceased even though he was clearly interested in the latter's intercession on his behalf.”

He solved this dilemma by using the following carefully worded formula:

''And may God in His mercy raise up for us the righteous one buried in this grave. May my prayer be heard here, and may he [= the deceased] too pray on our behalf, blessing us continually and at all hours."

15^th-CENTURY:

1) R. MOSHE MINZ:

R. Moshe Minz, just like R. Chaim Paltiel earlier, also ruled in a responsum that those who participated in the popular practice of taking vows to visit graves could easily be absolved because:

“[T]here are great authorities who have condemned such practices as 'inquiring of the dead,' for most women and the unlearned make them intercessors between themselves and their Master."[20]

2) MAHARIL:

Similarly, in a responsum of R. Yaakov Moelin, known as the Maharil, he cautioned those who had planned to visit a grave in Regensburg (probably the grave of R. Yehudah heChasid) not to direct their prayers to the dead.[21]

Yet, surprisingly, he also seems to have been interested in magical techniques to administer oaths to the dead in order to prevent them from coming back to harm the living. This magical procedure involved direct communication with the dead.[22]

17^th-CENTURY:

BACH:

In the 17^th-century special prayer books, such as Ma’aneh Lashon, were produced to be used at gravesite visitations and pilgrimages. The Prague publication was so popular it was later printed in Yiddish.

An outstanding feature of this book was the prayers which were directly addressed to the departed.

These prayers were referenced by R. Yoel Sirkes (1561-1640) also known as the Bach,[23] who explained we can ignore opposition views to cemetery prayers by the likes of R. Chaim Paltiel (although he agreed with him) because they had become so acceptable over time. The Bach wrote that “no teacher should attempt to prevent or abolish this custom.”[24]

Interestingly Chabad published an edition of Ma'aneh Lashon in English with "prayers to be said at the graveside of the righteous" which it says is "universal in acceptance and appeal."

18^th-CENTURY:

VILNA GAON:

While cemetery visitations were becoming even more popular with the rise of the Chassidic movement, opponents to the movement like the Vilna Gaon (1720-1797) voiced their objections to such practices.

After the Vilna Gaon visited his mother’s grave on the first anniversary of her passing, he mentioned to his brother that he was not happy visiting a cemetery and never again returned.[25]

Later Lithuanian rabbis like R. Haim Volozhin (d. 1821) and R. Haim Soloveitchik (d. 1918) adopted similar positions.

19^th-CENTURY:

CHASSIDIC SECTS:

It is well known how popular pilgrimages to graves of Chassidic leaders, across the spectrum, have become in recent times. Some of these gatherings have sometimes even taken on a cult-like and often almost carnival atmosphere with huge numbers of participants from all walks of life attending. It is considered a great merit to be included in such gatherings and many are encouraged and even sponsored to join in.

NORTH AFRICAN GRAVE VENERATION:

North African Jews, particularly those of Morocco, developed what Horowits calls “a virtual cult of venerated saints whose graves were treated as sacred spaces of the highest order.” 

The Moroccan Jews were highly influenced by local Arab and Berber marabout not just in grave veneration but in other matters as well.

Horowitz writes:

“As in other areas of religious life, Jews in Muslim lands were more easily influenced by the practices of their neighbours than were the Jews of Christian Europe, who tended more

strongly (until modern times) to avoid overt imitation of rituals associated with the dominant religion.”

Very often Jews and Muslims shared their veneration of each other’s saints. Sometimes, when the Muslims adopted a Jewish saint, entire villages would convert to Islam, just so as maintain contact with their departed righteous leaders.

According to a study, the Moroccan Jews had no less than 652 saints (both male and female). 126 of them were shared and equally venerated by both Jews and Muslims. Sometimes Jews even venerated Muslim saints.[26] 

Interestingly, even amongst Moroccan Jewry’s own ranks, R. Yosef Mashash (1892-1974) criticised the excessive pilgrimages to and veneration of these tombs.

ANALYSIS:

What emerges from this overview is that sometimes even rabbis - who were not all that enthusiastic about certain ideas that were widely accepted by the masses - did not want to go against the grain of the populace.

This is not without precedent as there is the notion of ‘going out into the streets and observing what the people are doing’ and the belief in a mass form of ruach ha’kodesh or prophecy of the Jewish People as a whole.

On the other hand, there have always been other rabbis who cautioned that sometimes we dance to close to the fire and flirt dangerously with concepts and practices that are not entirely compatible with pure monotheism.

We see this with the reactions of Rambam, for example, to a range of principles held dear by what he calls the ‘ignorant masses’. However, it is not only the masses but also the leadership that espouses such notions.

These include the firmly established concept of sacrifices which Rambam (and reflected in Rav Kook) says was only meant to be a temporary dispensation for the Jews who left Egypt and couldn’t imagine religion without sacrifice – but it was not meant to be considered an ideal to perpetuate into the future. [See How Rashi and Rambam Part Ways on the Deepest of Issues].

We see this with the belief in angels [See Angels in Rabbinic Literature], the belief in praying to angels [See Praying to Angels], the belief in demons [See A Babylonian Context to the Babylonian Talmud] and evil spirits [See Netilat Yadayim – A means of Expelling Evil Spirits or a Simple Ablution?] which occupy a centre stage position in much of the literature. 

We even see it in relatively recent times with many groups courting ideas of Sabbateanism [See Rabbinic Forays into the Matrix of Sabbatean Kabbalah].

The irony is that we are so particular in Halachic observance yet we often let down our guard (no pun intended) when it comes to some basic and primary concepts of monotheism.

[See Rambam’s Attempt to Shorten the Prayer Services.]

---

[1] Elliott Horowitz, Speaking to the Dead: Cemetery Prayer in Medieval and Early Modern Jewry.

[2] Ta’anit 16a.

[3] Sotah 34b.

[4] The Gemara continues to state that Joshua did not need to go with Caleb as Moshe had already prayed for mercy for him.  Caleb, however, had vacillated on this matter.

[5] Sometimes the term intercessionary is used instead of intercessory but the meaning is the same: the deceased is asked or expected to intercede on behalf of the petitioner.

[6] S. Pinsker, Lickute Kadmoniot: Appendix, 32.

[7] The 6^th-century BCE scribe and friend of the prophet Jeremiah.

[8] Joseph Kimhi, The Book of the Covenant, ed. and trans. Frank Talmage (Toronto: 1972) 66.

[9] Ta’aniot 4:17.

[10] Mishneh Torah, Laws of Mourning 4: 4 (ve-lo yifneh adam levaker kevarot).

[11] R. Isaac b. Sheshet, Responsa, 2 vols., ed. D. Metzger (Jerusalem: 1993)

no. 421.

[12] See N. Slouschz, Travels in North Africa (Philadelphia: 1927) 320, and

Hershman, Rabbi Isaac ben Sheshet Perfet, 61.

[13] See his commentary on Mishneh Torah, Laws of Mourning 4:4.

[14] SeferYereim (Vilna: 1891-1902) 374, no. 335.

[15] II Samuel 19:37.

[16] Sefer Chasidim no. 450.

[17] Zohar III, 71a and b.

[18] Horowitz’s allusion to the Spanish author or the Zohar would refer to R. Moshe de León at around 1280 who is said to have pseudepigraphically authored the Zohar.  Gershom Scholem famously referred to the Zohar as a ‘Kabbalistic novel’. This view is in sharp contradistinction to that of many traditionalists who believe the Zohar was written a thousand years earlier by the Mishnaic Tanna, R. Shimon bar Yochai. See Mysteries behind the origins of the Zohar.

[19] Parenthesis mine.

[20] Resonsa, ed. Domb (Jerusalem: 1991) no. 79.

[21] Responsa," no. 118, Sefer Maharil, ed. Spitzer, 270.

[22] Horowitz cites Yisrael Yuval on this matter, see Yuval, Scholars, 89 (letter to Maharil from R. Isaac Erweiler).

[23] An abbreviation for his magnum opus Bayit Chadash.

[24]Bayit Chadash on Yoreh De’ah, no. 217.

[25] Aliyyot Eliyahu (Vilna: 1874) 66. See also Ma'aseh Rav (Jerusalem: 1987).

[26] Ben-Ami, Saint Veneration, 167,233-589.