180) MYSTICAL FORAYS OF THE TOSAFISTS:

A typical page of Talmud with Rashi toward the centre (in this case on the right) and Tosafot towards the outside (in this case on the left).

INTRODUCTION:

We often form various perceptions around the personalities of rabbinic sages and, in a sense, put them into conceptual boxes – as if they are individuals who are easy to define.

Sometimes the personalities are indeed easy to categorise – but that is not always the case.

One fascinating group of prolific rabbinic writers who appear to have been easily categorised as sober and scholarly legal commentators, are the Ba’alei haTosafot, or Tosafists - but, as we shall see, they are more complex than commonly imagined:

THE TOSAFISTS:

The Tosafist period - spawned by Rashi (1040-1105) - lasted about two hundred years, encompassing the 12^th and 13^th centuries, and ending with R. Meir of Rothenburg (d. 1293). The term Tosafists generally refers to the rabbis of the early period of the Rishonim (1038-1500) who lived specifically in Ashkenaz (Northern France and Germany).

The Ba’ale haTosafot are regarded and respected as expert Talmudic commentators and great legal decisors. Anyone who has ever studied Gemara would know that ‘Tosafot’ is more challenging than any other section of the Talmud.

Incidentally, the term ‘Tosafot’ is a misnomer because there was not a person by the name of ‘Tosafot’ – as there was a ‘Rashi’ – rather it refers to the many Franco-German rabbis of that two hundred year period who fell under the umbrella of the ‘Ba’alei haTosafot’.

They are known primarily for their scholarly legal glosses and addenda to Rashi and to general Talmudic teachings – and form the basis of much of the responsa literature which went on to inform the various legal codes.

However as Rabbi Professor Ephraim Kanarfogel explains, we only know part of their story from their published and printed works – yet their unpublished manuscripts reveal so much more about who they actually were, and these unpublished manuscripts - some only recently discovered –reveal a very different side to their authors from the way they are commonly perceived.

Professor Kanarfogel is a specialist in the period of the Tosafists and particularly in their unpublished manuscripts.

This article is an adaptation of one of his lectures[1] in which he shares some hitherto unknown ideas found in some of these unpublished manuscripts.

Before we look at the Tosafist manuscripts, though, we will glimpse at two other writers of the same early Rishonim period, who were Sefaradim (and technically not Tosafists) whose multifaceted works are well-known:

SEFARADIM:

RAMBAM (1135-1204):

Maimonides, born in the south of Spain, is best-known for the legal writings of his Mishneh Torah. But he is also equally known for his philosophical writings such as the Guide for the Perplexed. It was only because both works were published and widely distributed that we know of the duality of his interests - which were so poles apart that some even suggest that the same person could not have written both books.

And those weren’t the only works he authored as we know he also wrote on science, medicine and astronomy.

RAMBAN (1194-1270):

In a similar sense, Ramban, born in the north of Spain, is best-known not only as a legal decisor, but also  as a great expounder of Jewish mysticism, as can be seen from his introduction to his published commentary to the Torah where he says that he writes about the ‘secrets of the Torah’.

In both abovementioned examples, Rambam and Ramban were expert interpreters of Talmud and masters of Halacha - yet each, additionally, pursued profoundly different intellectual interests: Rambam wrote on philosophy and Ramban on Kabbalah. We know this only because their secondary writings were published and thus popularised.

Imagine if all of those non-legal texts had not been published – we would never have been able to fully comprehend the complexity and composite of their personalities.

However, this was not always the case with the Tosafists - the Ashkenazi (or Franco-German) rabbis of that same period - who were not all so fortunate as to have all their non-legal writings published.

RABBEINU TAM:

Rashi’s grandson, Rabbeinu Tam stated that while his grandfather, Rashi, was able to comment on both Talmud and Tanach - the Tosafists had to content with just Talmud as they were nowhere near the level of the previous generation.

This was taken at face value until very recently when documents were discovered revealing that Rabbeinu Tam did indeed compose some Biblical commentary, namely to the Book of Iyov and also to the Book of Ester.

Thus, recent evidence shows that Rabbeinu Tam was indeed active in Biblical commentary and not just Talmud[2]

Something else that is not widely known about Rabbeinu Tam is his writing of Piyyutim or liturgical prayers, such as Yetiv Pitgam, which is recited on Shavuot.

YOM TOV BEN YITZCHAK OF JUANI:

Yom Tov ben Yitzchak of Juani, a student of Rabbeinu Tam, also wrote Piyyutim. Additionally, he composed about one hundred interpretations to verses in the Torah. His style, being simple and precise, is similar to that of Rashi. A small number of these commentaries have been published, but Professor Kanarfogel discovered many more in manuscript form - and unpublished - in various libraries in London, Germany and Russia.

One such interpretation which was hitherto unknown is to a verse in Shemot where Moshe asks to see G-d’s glory. The Torah responds, rather abruptly by saying that; “No man can see Me and live.” R. Yom Tov explains this terse verse in a softer manner: G-d is so magnificently lofty that were one to perceive Him, one would no longer want to live down here on this earth. Moshe still had much work to accomplish in the earthly realm, that had he seen ‘G-d’s glory’ he would not have wanted to continue with his worldly mission.

Professor Kanarfogel has found that there were about six Tosafists who offered such interpretations to the verses of the Torah – which shows that a significant component of Torah interpretation would have been lost to us were it not for these hidden manuscripts.

MOSHE BEN YA’AKOV OF COUCY:

Moshe ben Ya’akov of Coucy (also known as Moshe Mikotzi) was the author of one of the earliest codifications of Halacha, known as Semag or Sefer Mitzvot Gadol (which was largely influenced by Rambam’s rulings).

He was an interesting personality, known as a darshan, because he delivered fiery speeches to wide audiences and particularly encouraged them to observe tefillin, mezuzah and tzitzit. He also strongly advocated that Jews be more ethical to their gentile neighbours both personally and in terms of business. 

He also participated in the Disputation on the Talmud which took place in Paris in 1240.

Although a Halachist, he too wrote a commentary to the Torah which can be found sporadically in some published works. 

One of his less known very pragmatic interpretations is when Leah gives birth to her third son from Ya’akov and she calls him Levi because: ‘Now my husband will accompany (yelaveh) me.’

R. Moshe Mikotzi simply and sensibly explains that Leah happily recorded that now her husband would help with the child rearing as she, the maidservant and her husband would - all three together - be able to take care of all three children. Her husband was thus forced to ‘accompany’ her and to get involved in domestic affairs.

MYSTICAL TOSAFISTS:

Besides writing liturgical prayers and commentating on the Tanach, what is most surprising is that many Ba’alei haTosafot got involved in a form of mysticism which Professor Kanarfogel refers to as ‘white magic’.

As a stated principal, legal decisors do not normally allow any form of mysticism to influence or have any bearing on legal rulings. The two disciplines are theoretically to be kept distinct from one another.

The Noda biYehuda[3] writes; “We do not rule Halacha from the Zohar[4].” This principle goes right back to Talmudic times where Shmuel states: “We do not learn (Halacha) from Mishna, nor from legends, nor from any additional teachings, but only from Talmud.”[5]

Yet that was not always the case with the Tosafists as we shall see:

INFLUENCE FROM THE CHASIDEI ASHKENAZ:

Already from around the late 1100’s the Chassidei Ashkenaz or German Pietists were reviving an older form of mysticism known as Heichalot literature[6] which flourished in the post-Talmudic period from about 500 to 1000 CE.[7]

This mystical literature, according to Professor Kanarfogel, preceded the appearance of works like the Zohar and Bahir and was not yet familiar with the system of the Ten Sefirot.

There were a number of Tosafists who got involved with this earlier theurgic system of Kabbalah and used divine and angelic names in an attempt to achieve higher spiritual states and to accomplish certain objectives.

[Theurgy is defined as: ‘the technique of compelling...a supernatural power to do or refrain from doing something.’[8]]

This is interesting because it was commonly believed that these practices were limited to Chassidei Ashkenaz and not generally performed by the Tosafists (although there are scattered references to such activities in some of the published works of the Tosafists).

YITZCHAK BEN YOSEF OF CORBEIL:

One example of a known and published reference to this form of Tosafist theurgy is found in the Semak or Sefer Mitzvot Kattan, by Yitzchak ben Yosef of Corbeil[9]. Although somewhat an abridged form of the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol and hence primarily a Halachic work, it includes a section on R. Yehudah HaChassid, the leader of Chassidei Ashkenaz, who describes exactly when divine names can be used for divine protection from highway-men and natural danger.

This mystical reference was commonly regarded as an anomaly of the Halachic Tosafist literature until the recent discovery of other Tosafist manuscripts where this type of practice appears to be more commonplace than previously believed.

YITZCHAK BEN YITZCHAK:

A manuscript filled with mystical formulae - found in the National Library in Paris and dating from the mid-1200’s - was written for the Tosafist R. Yitzchak ben Yitzchak who was connected to the study hall of Évreux in Normandy, northern France. This study hall was known to have had an affiliation with the mystics of Chassidei Ashkenaz.

Interestingly, later copyists who were unfamiliar with Yitzchak ben Yitzchak, decided to attribute the work to Rabbeinu Tam. This was a great irony because Rabbeinu Tam was one Tosafist not generally considered to be overtly involved in mysticism at all.

ELIEZER BEN SHMUEL OF METZ:

However, Rabbeinu Tam’s student, Eliezer ben Shmuel of Metz (d. 1175) who authored Sefer Yereim, endorsed a mystical practice whereby one person could bind another, while still alive, to appear after death to his companion and answer questions of the afterlife.

R. YECHIEL OF PARIS:

R. Yechiel of Paris, who attempted to defended the Talmud during the Disputation of the Talmud in Paris in 1240 which sadly resulted in many Talmudic and other manuscripts being burned (see The Dangers of Translating Hebrew Texts) apparently received a visitation by an aggrieved soul who claimed he was thrown upwards by the angels but not caught on the way down – as punishment because he spoke during a section of the Friday evening prayers[10].

This ruling was later incorporated in the Tur with a similar explanation, except it is attributed to R. Yehudah haChassid. The Tur[11] was the son of the Rosh[12] who was a pupil of R. Meir of Rothenburg who was clearly known to be involved in mystical teachings.

R Yechiel also commented and elaborated in a very mystical manner on the Keil Adon hymn which is included in the Shabbat morning prayers, which itself is already taken from the Heichalot literature.

YESHAYA BEN MALI DE’TRANI:

Yeshaya ben Mali de’Trani (1180-1250) known as Rid, was an Italian Tosafist who permitted the recitation of various mystical formulae to locate lost objects and to find a thief – provided one only made use of divine names and not those of demons.

This was later incorporated in the Tur who quoted his father the Rosh, who permitted locating lost objects even by using the names of demons.

YITZCHAK BEN ELIYAHU:

R. Yitzchak ben Eliyahu permitted the use of names of demons not only for finding lost objects but even to ‘know the future’.

R. MEIR OF ROTHENBURG:

One of the last of the Tosafists was R. Meir of Rothenburg (1215-1293). In one published responsum, he writes that once a person has decided to die a martyr’s death, he will not feel any pain regardless of the means of execution. He bases this thesis, partially, on a section taken from the Heichalot literature. 

R. Meir of Rothenburg also offered formulae for protection, participated in Dream Questions and practices which bring about a state of Petichat haLev (Opening of the Heart) which is said to aid in the retention of one’s studies.

SUMMARY:

Professor Kanarfogel concludes by saying: “Manuscript research reveals dimensions of Tosafist thought and interest...that would have remained relatively unknown if we were to rely only on printed texts and books...Overall these findings suggest that the Tosafists were not simply excellent and committed Talmudic scholars who had little interest in other disciplines or areas of study – rather the Tosafists emerged from the manuscripts as rabbinic scholars who participated in quite a range of additional intellectual...fields which they took quite seriously. These include independent Biblical interpretation, the writing of liturgical poems...magical and mystical teachings and practices...”

ANALYSIS:

To what extent the Tosafists actually ruled Halachically after being influenced by mystical experiences and practices would be a fascinating study. It would be enlightening to quantify the percentage of rulings which were based on mystical methodologies.  (See Dreams as a basis for Halacha? for examples where rulings were actually instituted based on such non-legal activities).

While reverting to Kabbalah may have been more widespread than generally imagined, it certainly does not appear to have been an absolute norm.

Perhaps some purists would argue that the influence from theurgic Kabbalah was nevertheless too strong and impacted too much on the Halachic process.

On the other hand, it does seem that for the most part, the Tosafists exercised great restraint - in that although expressing interest in mystical practices, they still did not allow those activities to impact in an overwhelming manner on their legal decisions.

---

[1] Hidden Treasure: The Intellectual Life of Medieval Ashkenazi Jews.

[2] Rabbeinu Tam’s published version suggesting he had no involvement in Tanach commentary may have been made out of humility. Or perhaps it was made when he was younger and circumstances changed as he got older.

 [3] R. Yechezkiel Landau (1713-1793). See Noda biYehudah, vol. 1.

[4] Although he mentions the Zohar specifically (which only started appearing in Spain in the late 13^th century) the reference would most likely include all forms of mysticism.

[5] yHag 1:8

[6] Sifrut haHeichalot.

[7] Not to be confused with Merkava literature which is mysticism dating from a much earlier period.

[8] Merriam-Webster dictionary.

[9] He was a son-in-law of R. Yechiel of Paris.

[10] During the Bracha Me’ein Sheva.

[11] R. Ya’akov ben Asher (1270-1340)

[12] R. Asher ben Yechiel (1250-1327)

179) THE BAAL SHEM OF LONDON:

The Baal Shem of London's silver Sifrei Torah.

INTRODUCTION:

Rabbi (Doctor) Chaim Shmuel Yaakov Falk was known as the Baal Shem of London.

Of Sefaradic descent, he was either born in Bavaria or Podolia around 1708 and he died in 1782 and was buried in the Alderney Road Cemetery in Mile End, London.

[His fascinatingly well-documented story took place at just about the same time as the famous founder of the Chassidic movement R. Israel Baal Shem Tov (1700-1760) .]

LONDON:

While in Westfalen, Germany, he was charged with sorcery and was sentenced to be burned at the stake, but he managed to escape and was sheltered in the castle of the German Count, von Rantzau, where he performed Kabbalistic practices for the nobility.

These practices are documented in detail in Mémoires du comte Rantzow.

Around 1736 he found his way to London and took up residence at 35 Prescott Street, and then later at Wellclose Square where he had a private synagogue. He also visited Paris from time to time.

HIS MYSTICAL ENTERPRISES:

Some astounding tales are told about this very English Baal Shem:

He was a man of great wealth and made secretive trips to Epping Forrest in a carriage drawn by four horses in order to bury some treasure there. He also had the gift of locating buried treasure. They tell of a wheel breaking off and then allegedly following the carriage all the way to the forest.

His candles would burn for weeks before becoming extinguished. He could manifest a room full of coal for his fire, and objects would move from place to place when in his presence.

Once the Great Synagogue was being consumed by fire and he saved it by writing Hebrew letters on its pillars.

Notwithstanding all his mystical activities, surprisingly, there is no record of there being any outcry by his local Jewish community and no evidence of him being deemed a fraud. He continued to maintain a close relationship with London’s Chief Rabbi Tevele Schiff, and was accepted by both Ashkenazic and Sefaradic communities of London.

There have been some cynical suggestions that he was left alone because of his immense charitable contributions.

SABBATEAN LINKS?

While he appears to have been well integrated within the London community, he did experience some opposition from European Jewish leaders. R. Yaakov Emden accused R. Falk of being one of the secret followers of False Messiah Shabbetai Tzvi, known as Sabbateans. [See Shabbatai Tzvi –Roots Run Deep.]

One of the reasons for this was that, amongst other indications, his closest friend happened to be the well-known Sabbatean, Moshe David[1] of Podhayce (who had connections with – and praised him [R. Falk to] - R. Yonatan Eibeschutz who also fell under R. Emden’ Sabbatean suspicions).

Gershom Scholem wrote: “The theory propounded by several scholars that these wandering ba'alei shem [such as Falk] were responsible for spreading Shabbateanism has not been proven, although some of them were indeed members of the sect."[2]

R. Falk apparently fled to Holland on the way to London, where it is suggested that he may have met R. Moshe Chayim Luzzatto - the great Kabbalist and suspected (by some) to be a Sabbatean, whose writings he would long cherish and whose books he would keep constantly by his side.[3]

The fact is that no overt reference to Shabbatai Zvi has been found in R. Falk’s diaries or writings.

R. YA’AKOV EMDEN’S LETTER:

Rabbi Emden wrote: 

“although I do not know him personally, I have heard that he pretends to be an expert in practical Kabbalah, and that he claims to have the ability to discover hidden treasures. He is married to an immoral woman with whom he moved to London. There he found supporters – especially among the lower classes – who tried to use him to enrich themselves. Some rich non-Jews also believed in him, thinking that he could discover treasure for them. Using trickery he succeeded in entrapping one wealthy non-Jewish captain, who spent his entire fortune on him and has now been reduced to poverty, and he is only able to survive as a result of Falk’s charity. Incredibly this captain continues to praise him among wealthy Christians, so that they give him a lot of money. In this way, the Baal Shem is enabled to live as a man of wealth, and he uses his money to bribe his close followers so that they continue to spread his fame.”

Later, R. Emden published the ‘evidence of his trickery’ found in one Sussman Shesnowzi’s[4] letter to his son describing some activities he witnessed at the home of the Baal Shem of London:

R. Ya'akov Emden publishes the 'incriminating' letter from Zusman. 

R. Emden could not hold himself back and sarcastically changed Baal Shem to Baal Sheid (Master of Demons) and Mekubal to read Mechubal (Wrecked)!

Here is a translation of the letter[5]:

“Behold, the light which is called "lamp" is a great candelabrum of pure silver with doubled and trebled lights, stacked above each other, with eight flowered branches coming out of the sides, forming the shape of holy letters. With this menorah he performed an amazing miracle. On Friday he poured oil in, the typical amount for Shabbos - but the lamp stayed lit for three weeks until he personally dissolved the holy thing with his hands (and the miracle ceased). This was a new thing from the Master of the Universe, even greater than the miracle of Chanukah, when the Menorah lasted for only 8 days.

On this night of Tuesday, the 8th of Kislev, we saw an amazing thing. During the month of Cheshvan until now he had secluded himself in his home near the bridge (London Bridge). He was shut in for six weeks, literally without food or drink, sleep or lighting any fire - you wouldn't believe it! After the sixth week he commanded that a minyan of learned men should immerse in the mikvah, and at midnight we who had prepared ourselves, dressing in white kittels, met at his home. The holy man commanded the aforementioned kabbalist Rabbi Moshe David to write (something) in his ledger. 

Afterwards, he commanded this Moshe and another member of this holy Chevra, Rabbi Yaakov, grandson of R. Meir Eisenstadt (author of Panim Meiros), and they each lit a large candle. Then he commanded that the group enter barefooted into his room, and behold, we saw the holy man sitting on a throne, dressed like an angel...

The godly Kabbalist Rabbi Moshe David, known as Rabbi Moshe Ba'al Shem, wrote a letter to our master Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschutz, the famous Chief Rabbi of Hamburg, and told him all these great things and wonders regarding this holy man (=Falk). So R. Yonasan applied to him the words from the Tikkunim, that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said, זכאה דרא דהאי רזי עיתגלי ביה, "This generation is fortunate to have such mysteries revealed."

The letter continues: 

“I am grateful that I have been received into this Brotherhood, who by their piety can hasten the advent of the Messiah...my son, be very circumspect, and show this only to wise and discreet men. For here in London, this matter has not been disclosed to anyone who does not belong to our Brotherhood.”[6]

This letter was enough to convince R. Emden that something very suspicious was going on.

HAYIM ISAACS:

In 1830, Hayim Isaacs - who had converted to Christianity – wrote a book entitled ‘Ceremonies, Customs, Rites and Traditions of the Jews’.

In it, he included strange ‘miracles’ that ‘Dr Faulk’ had performed and claimed that this is what Jews are required to believe in. He wrote - after ridiculing the accounts of various ‘miracles’:[7]

From Hayim Isaacs' book, The Jews.

In other words, Hayim Isaacs was explaining what mainstream and normative Jews are required to believe in. These were some of the reasons why he claimed he had converted out of his faith.

WEALTH AND GENEROSITY:

R. Falk is said to have benefited financially from his ‘wonder-working’ enterprises – but he also befriended and advised bankers like Aaron Goldsmid and amassed a huge fortune and was, therefore, able to live a lavish life. Notwithstanding, he was extremely generous and donated much of his money to worthy causes. He bequeathed, for example, the amount of one hundred pounds, to be paid annually, to the Great Synagogue. He died three days after writing his will, (and according to some accounts, having no children[8]), all his money was left to charities.

The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopaedia records, “He left large sums of money to charity, and the overseers of the United Synagogue in London still distribute annually certain payments left by him for the poor.”

There are accounts of an almost constant stream of poor people flocking to his door and never leaving empty-handed.

He also became a serious book, tapestry and art collector.

DIARY:

R. Falk kept a cryptic diary, which was never meant to be published, with records of his dreams and names of angels which is housed in the library of the United Synagogue in London. The diaries are written in cryptic Hebrew, and tell of dreams, booklists, recipes, and Kabbalistic names of angels. They also contain accounts of failed alchemy experiments and explosions resulting therefrom.

His assistant Zvi Hirsch Kalish also kept such a diary, and it tells how his teacher arrived in London penniless and that husband and wife would often argue about finances. He also records that his teacher was very stingy with money, although he gave huge amounts to charity when he started to amass his financial fortune.

INFLUENCE ON THE CHRISTIAN WORLD:

According to some accounts, while in Bavaria he became well-versed in New Testament teachings, which he utilized in religious discussions with Christians, whose patronage he sought for his alchemical and magical exploits.

It is clear that many non-Jews were enamoured by R. Falk as he “achieved considerable prominence. He was called Doctor Falk by Christians”[9]. Some accounts refer to a ‘Dr Falcon’. 

It is believed that his ideas were later to influence William Yeats (1865-1939), one of the greatest poets of the 20^th century. Yeats was heavily involved in organizations dealing with theosophy and the occult. He wrote, “The mystical life is the centre of all that I do and all that I think and all that I write.”[10]

According to Professor Michal Oron’s translated diaries of R. Falk, he had “dialogue with Christian scholars, and...with Freemasons and Shabbateans.”[11]

Cecil Roth (whose wife Irene, as it transpires, was a descendant of the Baal Shem of London) writes that R. Falk:

 “established a kabbalistic laboratory on London Bridge where he carried out alchemical experiments which aroused some notice. Among those who were attracted to him, was the international adventurer Theodore De Stein, who claimed to be king of Corsica and hoped to obtain through Falk's alchemical experiments sufficient gold to enable him to "regain" his throne. He was also in touch with, among others, the Duke of Orleans, the Polish Prince Czartoryski, and the Marquise de la Croix.”[12]

THE FAMOUS PORTRAIT:

In my shul, we have a well-known portrait of what we always believed was the (real) Baal Shem Tov.

The 'authoritative' portrait of R. Yisrael Baal Shem Tov with his personal signature - which turns out not to be so authoritative. 

 We weren’t alone – as evident from a recent auction catalogue: “For more than a century this eighteenth-century portrait of the Kabbalist Rabbi Dr Chaim Samuel Jacob Falk has been broadly misidentified and popularly thought of as being a depiction of the founder of the Hasidic movement, the Baal Shem Tov himself.”[13]

The Baal Shem of London is not the Baal Shem Tov of Medzebuzh.

So now it is clear that what we thought was the Baal Shem Tov of Medzebuzh was, in fact, an Englishman from London! And he is holding a compass which may be related to his alleged relationship with Freemasons.

The unsigned painting remained in the Goldsmid family. At the beginning of the 1900’s British Chief Rabbi Dr Herman Adler gave a lecture about the Baal Shem of London and offered a viewing of the little-known portrait. The picture was published in 1908[14] and was widely distributed. This resulted in people confusing The Baal Shem of London with the Baal Shem Tov of Medzebuzh.

HIS REAL NAME:

Burial place of Baal Shem at Alderney Road Cemetary, London 

Only around 2010 was it discovered that in all the articles written about the Baal Shem of London, no mention was ever made of his real name. According to the burial records of Alderney Road Cemetery his name is recorded as:

“5542 – 4 Iyar, died,  Morenu Reb Abraham Shmuel ben Morenu Raphael, buried 5 Iyar, Baal Shem.”

ANALYSIS:

So who exactly was the Baal Shem of London? 

There is no doubt that R. Avraham Shmuel Falk was an extremely colourful character. His activities were interesting, to say the least. 

But apparently, there does not appear to be any record of a blatant and intentional transgression of  Jewish law (although, clearly, his behaviour was far from 'normative' halachic practice).

His apparent acceptance by the English Rabbinate and his alleged 'rooting' in teachers like Ramchal (and I even came upon a suggestion that he may have been exposed to R. Yisrael Baal Shem Tov!) - need to be weighed against his unusual practices and R. Emden's suspicions that he was linked to members of the secret Sabbatean movement.

The question is: where within that broad spectrum would he have been positioned? 

Was he a charlatan, a Sabbatean, or genuine mystic?

Perhaps the closest we can get to answering that question is to leave it to the Reader to decide.

---

[1] Also known as R. Moshe David Baal Shem.

[2] Kabbalah, by Gershom Scholem p. 311.

[3] Marsha Keith Schuchard, DGWE, p.356-7

[4] Also known as Eliezer Zusman.

[5] The translation is from the well-informed On The Main Line.

[6]Translation from Emanuel Swedenborg, Secret Agent on Earth and in Heaven: Jacobites, Jews and ...edited by Marsha Keith Schuchard, p. 447.

[7] See On The Main Line November 9, 2010.

[8] There is evidence that he may have had a daughter, Sara Falk: “I have found several references to Samuel Falk having a daughter, Sarah, who was married to his assistant Zvi Hirsch Kalisch. I have traced my husband’s direct line (Collins) back to Hyman Collins (Kalisch) son of Zvi Hirsch Kalisch...” See Cemetery Scribes Blog, July 18 2010. This in conjunction with the fact that historian Cecil Roth’s wife (was Collins) also is related to the Baal Shem of London.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Richard Ellmann (1948). Yeats: The Man and the Masks. (New York) Macmillan. 94

[11] Rabbi, Mystic, or Impostor? The Eighteenth-Century Ba'al Shem of London: An Eighteenth-century Jewish Mystic, by Michal Oron.

[12] C. Roth, Essays and Portraits in Anglo-Jewish History (1962).

[13] The Kesterbaum Judaica Auction Catalog 2013.

[14] The earliest publication of the portrait was actually in 1886 in Great Jewish Families in Britain.

178) DREAMS AS A BASIS FOR HALACHA ?

13th-century 'Questions and Answers from Heaven' by R. Ya'akov of Marvège.

 Part 1:

INTRODUCTION:

The Halachic process is usually understood as a particularly sober and disciplined study of legal sources and texts, after which the experienced decisor applies his mind and arrives at an appropriate ruling.

Yet there are many examples of another process which is not so well known – that of reverting to dreams! Using dreams as a basis for formulating Halacha was particularly popular during the 1100’s and the 1200’s, where leading Tosafists and other rabbinical authorities made use of this expediency.

In this article, I draw extensively from research by Rabbi Professor Ephraim Kanarfogel[1].

PRACTITIONERS OF VARIOUS DREAM TECHNIQUES:

RABAN (1152):

(WINE)

In 1152, one of the foremost German Tosafists, R. Eliezer ben Natan (Raban) of Mainz, records a certain ruling (about a complicated case concerning non-kosher wine coming in contact with a stoneware utensil) in his Halachic Responsa entitled Even haEzer[2].

During a Shabbat lunch, he had ruled that the wine was permitted. However, after sleeping in the afternoon, he reversed his earlier ruling, claiming that his late father-in-law had appeared to him in a dream and indirectly corrected him - by means of subtle hints - which Rabam later interpreted himself when awake. So now, what he had previously permitted[3] became prohibited, and he fasted for two days to repent his mistaken ruling!

Two points need to be made regarding this particular case:

1) Raban did not initiate a process known as a ‘dream question’ (She’elat Chalom) where the questioner intentionally goes to sleep with the aim of receiving guidance during the dream. Also, it appears that in this instance, his sleep was simply a daytime nap.

2) The ‘answer’ was not conclusive but instead, indirect, where the son-in-law was still made to use his own initiative when his normal senses returned. It could be said that Raban simply dreamed about the events of the previous day and “was guided by the familiar, yet respected presence of his father-in-law and major teacher, whose rulings and guidance had certainly helped him in the past. Raban was initially unsure of the message...but upon awakening...realized that his own halachic ruling may have been in error...(and he) took full responsibility for the changed ruling that resulted.”

However, as we progress over the next century or so, notice how the influence of dreams upon Halacha becomes more and more direct and overt:

R. EPHRAIM OF REGENSBURG (d. 1175):

(BALBUTA)

Another German Tosafist, R. Ephraim of Regensburg (who had studied with Rashi’s grandson, Rabbeinu Tam) permitted the eating of a fish called balbuta which shed its scales when taken out of the water (thus resembling a non-kosher fish).[4]

Thereafter, he too had a dream in which, according to one version[5], a kindly and elderly man with a long beard and white hair was offering him an overflowing platter of non-kosher sea creatures to eat. R. Ephraim angrily refused. And the old man responded by saying that they were ‘just as kosher as the food he had permitted that day’.

Upon awakening, R. Ephraim said that the old man in the dream was none other than Elijah the prophet – and he no longer ate balbuta ever again.

RID (d.1240):

(SHECHITA)

The Italian Tosafist, R. Yeshaya ben Mali di Trani, also known as RID, issued a responsum in which he declared that if an animal was slaughtered in a permissible manner and afterwards an adhesion was found on the lungs (indicating it would not have lived much longer anyway) – it is not kosher.

R. Yeshaya claimed that in a dream Elijah the Prophet had also confirmed his ruling that the animal is not kosher.

It is interesting to note that in the three abovementioned cases, which all involved food, each of the three rulings lean towards the stricter side with the food in question being prohibited.

R. MEIR OF ROTHENBURG (1215-1293):

(STRAW AND CHAFE)

R. Meir, also known as the Maharam of Rothenburg, issued a ruling that a worker cannot be paid in straw and chafe (teven vekash) as it is difficult to gather. This is based on the Talmud[6] which says the same thing. The question was whether the Talmud was referring exclusively to straw and chafe or whether it included similar produce like wheat and fruit, which are also difficult to gather.

The Maharam ruled that we follow the narrow interpretation that the Talmud refers exclusively to the two commodities of straw and chafe – and even though wheat and fruit are equally difficult to gather, a worker would just have to accept payment with cumbersome wheat and fruit.

According to the Maharam’s student[7], he ruled narrowly like this because he received such an interpretation through a dream.

Interestingly, R. Kanarfogel shows how the Maharam of Rothenburg had strong connections with the German Pietists known as Chassidei Ashkenaz (who studied an ancient form of Kabbalah known as Heichalot, which practiced dream questions) and therefore, it is probable that he actively initiated a She’elat Chalom or dream question as they were wont to do.

R. YECHIEL OF PARIS (d. 1286):

(BERACHA MEIN SHEVA)

During the short form of repetition of Shemone Esrei on Friday night[8], there is a practice to refrain from talking. R. Yechiel of Paris was pedantic about not permitting talking during that short section because apparently, a certain departed soul appeared to him in a dream complaining that “the angels were throwing him up and then allowing him to fall without catching him”. 

R. MENACHEM OF WORMS (d. 1203):

(BLESSING AT A  BRIS)

R. Menachem of Worms endorsed the ‘al haMila’ blessing prior to a Bris (no matter whether the father or a designated Mohel performs the circumcision - as opposed to another version ‘laMul’ – when the father himself performed the circumcision on his son).

Although there was divided opinion as to which blessing a father recites if he is the Mohel, R. Menachem ruled that ‘al haMila’ is always recited. This was determined on the basis of a dream he had.

RA’AVAD:

(MYRTLE BRANCH)

R. Avraham ben David (1125-1198) - regarded as a father of Kabbalah[9] and a severe critic of Rambam - ruled (against Rambam in his commentary to Mishneh Torah) that the myrtle branch of the Four Species, which has its uppermost leaves cut off, was disqualified. This was because of “the holy spirit that had appeared already several years ago in our study hall.”

R. ELIYAHU MENACHEM OF LONDON (1220-1284):

(GRACE AFTER MEALS)

R. Eliyahu Menachem of London authorised a particular text in the Grace After Meals – based on a question he was asked during a dream.

 R. Eliyahu also compiled a ‘magical adjuration’ or She’elat Chalom which contained names of G-d and of angels – often recited over grasses and herbs - and prepared the practitioner for a spiritual encounter in which questions would be answered.

R. YA’AKOV HALEVI OF MARVÉGE(1200’s):

(SHE’ELOT U’TESHUVOT MIN HASHAMAYIM)

During the early 1200’s, R. Ya’akov haLevi of Marvège[10] wrote a work entitled ‘Questions and Answers (Responsa) from Heaven’. It deals unapologetically with resolving over seventy questions of Jewish law through dream intervention. R. Ya’akov explains that he addressed his questions directly to G-d and the angels responded by means of Torah verses which alluded to the answers.

R. Kanarfogel explains that “he was not seeking heavenly guidance to initiate halachic discussions...but rather to break existing rabbinical logjams.”

Some took this work quite seriously and Shibbolei haLekket by R. Tzidkiya haRofe Anau (d. 1260) quoted from it as a reliable source on about six occasions.

MYSTICAL AND NON-MYSTICAL TOSAFISTS:

R. Kanarfogel writes: “Tosafists and other Askenazic rabbinical scholars who were conversant and comfortable with mystical teachings and concepts were apparently prepared to allow dreams and visions to play a role in the halachic process, while those Tosafists who were less involved with mysticism would not necessarily concur.”

It should be noted at the outset that the use of dreams in determining Halacha was not unanimously accepted by the rabbinical world. Not only were the Rationalists such as Rambam (1135-1204) strongly against such practices – but even ‘halachic’ Kabbalists such as Ramban (1194-1270) and ‘the non-philosophically inclined’ Rashi (1040-1105), were opposed to these techniques.

RASHI (1040-1105):

(TEFILLIN ON FISH SKIN)

In Rashi’s Talmudic commentary, he wrote that he was conscious of limiting the influence of Elijah the Prophet on Halachic matters: The Talmud[11] debates the permissibility of using a kosher fish skin for the writing of Tefillin scrolls. The problem was that the fish odour may never fully dissipate and therefore it would be disrespectful to the Tefillin. The ruling was inconclusive and left to Elijah the Prophet to determine. Rashi is quick to point out, though, that Halachic matters concerning something “permitted or prohibited is not dependant on him (Elijah), since Torah is not in Heaven.”

RAMBAM (1135-1204):

Rambam writes that a prophet who suggests a permanent change in a practical Halacha - based on some form of prophecy – is to be put to death because Torah is not in Heaven.

RAMBAN (1194-1270):

Ramban, who was a mystic himself, also did not consider practical Halacha to be influenced by any supernatural phenomena.

PARALLELS WITH THE NON-JEWISH CULTURE OF THE TIME:

R. Kanarfogel points out that it is noteworthy that similar dream interventions were taking place within the Christian culture of that age. Here is one example:

The Benedictine theologian, Guibert of Nogent-sous-Coucy (d. 1125) records in his autobiography how his tutor experienced a dream in which a “white-haired elderly man, of distinguished appearance and bearing, leads the young Guilbert to the room of his sleeping tutor, promising that the tutor will...instruct him well.”

Later that same kindly, white-haired and elderly man appeared again to the tutor - this time to admonish the tutor over the fact that Guilbert was becoming too influenced by the works of the pagan poets and had departed somewhat from the straight and narrow.

---

[1] Dreams As a Determinant of Jewish Law and Practice in Northern Europe During the High Middle Ages, by Ephraim Kanarfogel.

[2]Sefer Raban sec. 26. [Not to be confused with the later Even haEzer of R. Yaakov ben Asher, also known as the Tur (1270-1340), who was the son of the Rosh.]

[3] In this case wine.

[4] Rashi and his two grandsons Rabbeinu Tam and Rashbam had also permitted the consumption of balbuta.

[5] The version of his student, R. Baruch of Mainz.

[6] Bava Metzia 118a.

[7] R. Meir haKohen, author of Haggahot Maimuniyot.

[8] Known as ‘Bracha achat me’in sheva’.

[9] He was the father of the Kabbalist R. Yitzchak the Blind.

[10] Or possibly Ya’akon ben Levi of Viviers.

[11] Shabbat 108a.