A halachic condemnation of Facilitated Communication

Shirat Devorah has taken a comment of a commenter, Ephraim, and turned it into a post. It is about the lack of halachic justification for Facilitated Communication. An excerpt:

Now, the תשורת שי that I mentioned above already prohibits the practice of divining the future by means of a table of letters- even if children are involved. Certainly, that posek was aware that prophecy is found amongst children- and yet he forbade the practice anyway. Why? I suppose it's because of the methodology.

Indeed, having seen videos of Jewish facilitated communication, it is indeed like an Ouija board, with the facilitator grabbing the autistic's hand and making it point to various letters on a page, often with the autistic person closing his/her eyes and looking the other way. In both cases, the scientific explanation of the phenomenon is the ideomotor effect.

I don't know that pointing to a halachic condemnation of the practice, and trying to argue against the practice in this way, will succeed. Indeed, it sets the stage for counter-argument based on Rabbi X or Rabbi Y approving it. (For example, HaRav Hagaon Rav Nosson M. Wachtfogel, zt"l "approved" it. Of course, these folk only consider him HaRav HaGaon Rav because he supports a belief they want to believe; his haskama explains that he didn't read the darn book but he trusts the person who said it was good stuff -- just as Rav Chaim Kanievsky trusted others about Elior Chen's innocence and so signed onto a letter of support. And, of course, he he stresses one should not use it to practical end, but should rather follow rabbis, who are the leaders of klal Yisrael. The foolish people then take this as support for autistics as neviim that one should follow in practical matters, instead of following their rabbis.)

Maybe more on this later. For now, here is a rough translation of the teshuva. There were a few places I could not make sense of the words. Comments welcome in this, and other, regards.

The teshuva in question, from Rabbi Shlomo Yehuda Tabak (d. 5668),  follows. It regards the use of an Ouija board, and a planchette - a small three-legged 'table' positioned over the board, to point to the letters. See the image to the right so that you understand what the teshuva is describing.

"129: Question: A Jewish man came from Eretz Yisrael and fashioned for himself a small table upon three legs, and under the table is a tray or page upon which are written all the letters of the aleph-beis on one side, and upon the second side are the secular letters. And five children stand around him and rest their hands upon him. And Jews and gentiles go to him to ask of him the future, whether in matters of shidduchim or travels, and upon many similar matters. And he asks the question and the table lifts one of its legs and displays the letters to combine to arrive at the answer. And he works great wonders with the questioners, which are concealed from the eyes of the intellect. And I heard that he first goes to the mikveh and says a certain chapter of Tehillim, and that he says that this is a chochmah (a craft / science) and there is no magic or incantations involved. And that he learned this craft from a great Torah scholar and God-fearing individual, and that also, there, in Eretz Yisrael, great and holy tzadikim make use of this. And it appears that [Iyov 15:15] הֵן בִּקְדֹשָׁו לֹא יַאֲמִין, "Behold, He [Hashem] putteth no trust in His holy ones [these tzadikim]" since regardless, it is forbidden to ask [in this manner] because of [Devarim 18:13] תָּמִים תִּהְיֶה עִם ה אֱלֹקֶיךָ,  "Thou shalt be whole-hearted with the LORD thy God", as is stated in [Shulchan Aruch] Yoreh Deah at the beginning of siman 179.

However, there is to say that a single witness is believed in matters of prohibition [eid echad neeman be'issurin] to everyone, when the prohibition is not established [lo itchazik issura], and he is not invalidated because he causes others to stumble in the prohibition of  תָּמִים תִּהְיֶה, for this is not as stringent as one who performs acts of divination, and as is stated in Terumat Hadeshen in pesakim uchtavim [rulings and writings] siman 96. And further, people do not generally understand this to be prohibited, whereas divination everyone knows that it is prohibited.

However, this is difficult to believe, for I think that this is in the realm of kosem kesamim [engaging in divination], for there are many different sorts of divination  For the Rambam writes about it in one way, and the Semag [Sefer Mitzvot Gedolot] in another way, and Rabbeinu Yerucham wrote that they make points [?] in writing or in sand, and similar matters to this. And the intent is to say that that which is not [?] of the natural order and intellect is divination. Thus, these questioners [to the man with the Ouija board] are adding upon  תָּמִים תִּהְיֶה, the prohibition of 'put not a stumbling block before the blind' [causing someone else to sin] for divination is punished with lashes if they ask from a Jew.

And further, regarding how five children stand around him and rest their hands upon him, and that he also says beforehand some chapter of Tehillim, it seems that he is performing some act utilizing demons and is afraid lest they harm him, and as is states in Bet Yosef and Rama in Yoreh Deah siman 179, that most who engage [with them] do not go away from them in peace [unharmed]. And it is made clear in Bet Yosef, and in Shulchan Aruch, and in the Shach there, seif katan 120, that if he performs some act, it is prohibited. And in the language of Rabbeinu Yerucham, brought down in Bet Yosef, which is that if he takes something and using it performs some act, this is called an act of divination."

Ruach Hakodesh in our days, part iii

See part one, which is a presentation of the teshuva of the Divrei Chaim that one who says that the Or HaChaim did not have ruach hakodesh, and that we don't have ruach hakodesh bizman hazeh, is an apikores; and part two, in which the Or HaChaim says that we do not have ruach hakodesh bizman hezeh.

I have a few more posts exploring this topic, but before proceeding further in my analysis / presentation, it is worthwhile to see the excellent write-up and analysis at Yediah. Here is a bit of historical background he provides, from an article from Dr. David Assaf.

However, as Prof. Assaf points out, the Ohr Hachaim himself on Breishit 6:3 decries the fact that Ruach Hakodesh no longer exists nowadays and is the major source of all the trouble that Jews suffer. Apparently the OH felt the same way as the teacher!

Professor Assaf found in a collection of writings by R. Shlomo Kluger (1785 – 1869), the Gadol of Galicia at the time, a letter by a certain Avraham Cohen of Sivan. The letter was dated 1865 and asked R. Shlomo to intervene in protecting him from being fired. Apparently a shochet responded to an attack by what he terms “Chassidei Am Ha’aretz” - unlearned Chassidim - on contemporary Geonim who claimed that they lacked mystical apprehension. He told them that earlier Gedolim who did have Ruach Hakodesh would never use it in Halachik matters, as the Torah is not in heaven and the only way to know it is through hard work. They then asked him if he held the same opinion about the Ohr Hachaim. He answered that the Ohr Hachaim probably had Ruach Hakodesh but would not use it when learning or writing his commentary on the Chumash. They then declared him an Apikores and persecuted him. This teacher came to his defense and was persecuted too. He argued that he could not hold back seeing how these people do not respect scholarship and instead follow a different Derech which includes sitting and drinking in each other’s company. The son of Rabbi Yisroel Friedman of Ruzhyn, (1797-1850), R. Nachum Friedman of Stefanesti (Moldova) who lived in the area, saw to it that this teacher lose his position. He is therefore asking R. Shlomo Kluger to intercede on his behalf and rule whether they had the right to punish him for holding this opinion. There is no response from R. Shlomo Kluger that we know of.

Prof. Assaf feels that this is the same teacher that the Divrei Chaim so vigorously castigated in the above Teshuvah. 

See also, at the end of the post, the story about how Rabbi Menasheh Klein paskened in like manner about the Mishnah Brurah.

The Divrei Chaim about the Or HaChaim's Ruach Hakodesh

Shu"t Divrei Chaim, Yoreh Deah, Chelek II, Siman 105:

"A question about a certain melamed who insulted the honor of the Or HaChaim za"l and said that his did not make his sefer with ruach hakodesh:


Answer: I have received your letter and behold I don't know what doubt you have whether ruach hakodesh is manifest even nowadays on one who is fitting, even though prophecy has been nullified from the prophets. Is it not stated explicitly in the first perek of Bava Batra (12a), and this is the language of the Shas:

R. Abdimi from Haifa said: Since the day when the Temple was destroyed, prophecy has been taken from the prophets and given to the wise. Is then a wise man not also a prophet?¹²  — What he meant was this: Although it has been taken from the prophets, it has not been taken from the wise. Amemar said: A wise man is even superior to a prophet, as it says, And a prophet has a heart of wisdom.¹³  Who is compared with whom? Is not the smaller compared with the greater?¹⁴  Abaye said: The proof [that prophecy has not been taken from the wise] is that a great man makes a statement, and the same is then reported in the name of another great man.¹⁵  Said Raba: What is there strange in this? Perhaps both were born under one star.¹⁶  No, said Raba; the proof is this, that a great man makes a statement and then the same is reported in the name of R. Akiba b. Joseph.¹  Said R. Ashi: What is there strange in this? perhaps in this matter he was born under the same star. No, said R. Ashi; the proof is that a great man makes a statement and then it is found that the same rule was a halachah communicated to Moses at Mount Sinai. But perhaps the wise man was no better than a blind man groping his way through a window?²  — And does he not give reasons [for his opinions]?³

Thus, you have it that even after the Destruction of the Temple, the spirit of prophecy manifests upon those who are fit to it; this is ruach hakodesh of wisdom. For prophecy is one thing, and ruach hakodesh of wisdom is another thing, as is explained in the Moreh Nevuchim, volume II [chapter 38].

And according to his words, it is not difficult the question of the Ramban [in his answer] on Rashi za'l {dibbur hamatchil hachi kaamar}. And there is to say that the intent of the Ramban, za"l. as well was so. And so it appears from the Ritva who wrote so in the name of the Rambam, za"l, brought down here in Bava Batra in Ein Yaakov, and these are his words:

'And the Ramban, za"l, asked on the commentary of Rashi, etc., and my mind does not so incline. Rather, this is what it means to say. Even though prophecy was taken from the prophets, which is the sight and visions, the prophecy of the chachamim which is by path of wisdom was not taken. Rather, they know the truth via ruach hakodesh which is within them. And also the Ritva, za'l, wrote in his explanation of this statement, as follows: "And it was given to the Chachamim: its meaning is that they attain via their intellent many things which are not in the power of the natural intellect to attain, and a chacham is greater than a prophet -- to explain, than that prophet who has a power to see the future but does not possess the paths of prophecy which are by aspect of wisdom, that the Divine Presence rests upon him. And this as as the Rambam explained in his known sefer, that prophecy only rests upon a chacham. End quote.

End quote, see there. Behold, you have explicitly in Shas and Rishonim that ruach hakodesh of wisdom is not nullified from the chachamim. 

And so is it explicitly in Gittin [6b], regarding R' Evyatar, and this is the language of the Shas there:

 Nay more, R. Abiathar is the authority whose view was confirmed by his Master,⁸

{About Pilegesh BeGiveah.} And Rashi comments there, as follows:

to reveal to him a secret, to match hidden matters to their truth.

Thus you have that ruach hakodesh and the agreement of Hashem was not nullified from Sages who are fit to it. And so is implied in the maamar of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair [Avodah Zarah 20b], see there.


And more than that is explained in Midrash Rabba, parashat Naso [9, 20] regarding a certain woman, who stayed a long time in the teaching of Rabbi Meir, and her husband told her that she was not permitted to ended her house until she spits in Rabbi Meir's face three times. Rabbi Meir saw via ruach hakodesh, etc., see there. Thus you have that he saw via ruach hakodesh. And so too Rabbi, who said prophecy on the day of his death, in Kiddushin 72a, even after he was taken.


And in truth, it is so that from this is implied not like the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim [there, perek 37], for there is is implied that without prophecy of the imaginative faculties, the chacham is only called a great of the delvers, but not that he says things which go out of the realm of the intellect, rather they are only compared to things like prophecy. It will be as it will be; all the world admits that ruach hakodesh has not left from the Sages.

And that which they said [Sotah 48b] that from the days of the prophets, ruach hakodesh had been taken, this is the spirit of prophecy, but the ruach hakodesh of wisdom, and to match with his intellect with the halacha leMoshe miSinai, or like R' Evyatar, this was not nullified, and only apikorsim deny this.


And that which you wrote, teshuvot from the Gedolim of of generation, that ruach hakodesh has been nullified entirely, I do not believe that this left the mouths of our Rabbis. And who known what this misleading scoundrel wrote to them. But the truth upon its path is that even in our generation, there are to the chachmei haEmet, who do not incline after the chomer, they possess ruach hakodesh, and as is spelled out in the Moreh Nevuchim [there, perek 36] and in the Ramban, za'l, explicitly.

And therefore, the author of the Or Hachaim certain composed his sefer with ruach hakodesh. But not he alone. Rather, every author in our generation, if he is fit for it, composed his sefer with ruach hakodesh, that is to say that he matched with his wisdom to the truth of the Torah, just as they said in the Shas regarding R' Evyatar. And so wrote the Tumim to practical law [in Kitzur 420 {?}, siman 123 and 124] that one may not say 'I will establish against the Shulchan Aruch', for they wrote their words with ruach hakodesh, see there.


And therefore, the melamed who denies the ruach hakodesh of the Or Hachaim is an apikores, who does not believe in the Gedolei HaDor, who testified about his that he was fit for ruach hakodesh. And this melamed denies the fundamental of ruach hakodesh and mocks the aforementioned words of the Shas in Bava Basra. And you have done well to not abandon your children in his hand, and yasher koach in this.


However, the pay for teaching, I cannot sever when it is not before the litigant, without seeing his conduct. For perhaps he is simply erring in this. And in this, you are able to rely upon the posek in your community, and it should be peace."

The Chasam Sofer's position that the Zohar is a forgery

Summary: He deliberately veils his words, but if you know the specifics of Rav Yaakov Emden's Mitpachas Sfarim, then the Chasam Sofer's position becomes clear.

Post: We find the following astonishing statement in Shu"t Chasam Sofer, volume 6, siman 59.

In plain text:

ומ"ש שהרב אמר משם אמ"ו זצ"ל לא שמעתי מפיו ואולי התיר הרב לעצמו ע"ד שאמרו חז"ל רצית להחנק תתלה באילן גדול ואל תאשימהו עבור זה הנה נמצא בשכונתך ס' מטפחת ספרים למהריעב"ץ תמצא שם כי  דבר גדול דבר הנביא ז"ל בענין זה הלא ישתוממו רואיו וד"ל.

"And that which you wrote, that the rav said in the name Adoni, Mori v'Rabbi {=my teacher} zatzal, I did not hear this from his mouth. And perhaps this rav permitted for himself based on that which Chazal said {Pesachim 112a} 'If you wish to be strangled, be hanged on a large tree'. And don't condemn him for this. Behold, the sefer Mitpachat Sefarim is found in your neighborhood, from Moreinu HaRav Yaakov ben Tzvi {=the Yaavetz, Rav Yaakov Emden}, and you will find there that the prophet za"l said a great thing in this matter, which will cause astonishment in those who see it, and it is sufficient to the wise [ודי לחכימא / ודי לחכימא ברמיזא]."

To make this a bit more explicit, Rav Yaakov Emden's sefer, Mitpachat Sefarim, is about how the Zohar is a forgery, written by an author much later than Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. (If I recall the specifics, that the vast majority of Zohar are later, and that the Raya Mehamna and Tikkunim of the Zohar is an absolute forgery.) The Chasam Sofer is telling his correspondent that just as this rav falsely attributed the position he wanted to the rebbe of the Chasam Sofer, so too a kabbalist (Rav Moshe de Leon, or perhaps many kabbalists and copyist adding their thoughts?), who wanted his ideas to gain greater weight falsely attributed his ideas to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, or else to the various Tannaim and Amoraim who appear in the Zohar. And at the very least, he is endorsing the conclusions of Rav Yaakov Emden, as he states: דבר גדול דבר הנביא ז"ל בענין זה.

(To see Shadal's summary of some of Rav Yaakov Emden's Mitpachat sefarim, see here and then here, where he speaks of additions, forgery, and Rav Yaakov Emden telling over the famous story from sefer haYuchsin of Rav Moshe de Leon forging the Zohar and granting credence to the story.)

Note also that the Chatam Sofer takes care not to say this explicitly, but rather hints at it, for those who would look up the relevant sefer and read it. And he ends וד"ל, either ודי למבין, or ודי לחכימא. That is, he won't say more, but the hints he has given is sufficient. Presumably this is because he is trying to avoid backlash from those who would strike out at him for taking such a controversial position. And he succeeded, for the most part. It is one passing cryptic paragraph in the midst of a teshuva, among many other teshuvot. Who would really notice this?

This is rather straightforward reading of this paragraph in this teshuva, I think.

The Chasam Sofer's student, Rabbi Eliezer Lipman Naizatts, writes in sefer Mei Menuchot, page 43a:

"אילו היה יכולת ביד אדם להעמיד מדרשי רשב"י על טהרתן, לברר מהם מה שנתחבר אליהם מחכמי הדורות שאחריו, לא יהיה כולו רק ספר קטן כמות מאוד, מחזיק דפים מעוטים" 

"And of the haggadot of Chazal in this {meaning demons}, behold it is already known their approach za"l in holiness, to hide their inner meaning within allegory, flowery phrases and riddles in their haggadot, za'l. And the hidden midrashim of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai in which come many discussions of demons and spirits, behold it is known that these midrashim are hidden, with their extremely deep inner meaning concealed and encrypted. 

And also, it is known to all who knows, that many [and perhaps the vast majority] of the statements in those midrashim came from the mouths of the generations after him, and clung in there. And this is as I explicitly heard from the holy mouth of Adoni, Mori veRabbi, the Geon Yisrael, Kedosh Yisrael Mechubad, Moreinu HaRav Rabbi Moshe Sofer, zecher tzadik vekadosh livracha, av bet din verosh mesivta of the holy community of Pressburg, that he said before many of his students: if there were the human ability to establish the midrashim of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai in their pristine state, to pick them out from that which was attached to them from subsequent generations, its entirety would only be an extremely small sefer, taking up few pages."

Still, for something as earth-shattering as this, it is helpful to have others citing this material, and saying similar things. And so, I will seek company in the assertion that the Chasam Sofer held that the Zohar (or most of it) was not from Rashbi.

Here is Rabbi Berel Wein in a speech about the authenticity of the Zohar, speaks about the Chasam Sofer as someone who disbelieved that most of the Zohar was from Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. It starts at 2:58, with Rav Yaakov Emden; Chida's defense at 5:40. At 6:07, he speaks about Chasam Sofer and quotes this teshuva, in favor of Rav Yaakov Emden (though he leaves out the introductory remarks). And then he skips to the other statement, from Mei Menuchot.


And here is Rabbi Natan Slifkin, in his article on Shiluach HaKen, (available for purchase via donation, and download here) who writes:

Footnote 55, to document this statement I underlined in red, refers us to this very teshuva of the Chasam Sofer: Responsa Chatam Sofer, 6:59, s.v. U'ma sheKatav sheHaRav. Indeed, that is how I first encountered this statement.

Both Rabbi Wein and Rabbi Slifkin do not discuss deliberate forgery. Rather, it is just that most of the Zohar is not from Rashbi. This could be from simple latter accidental accruing, perhaps.

While this a pretty shocking statement in and of itself, I would note that I would say further than this somewhat tamer statement, and think the text in the teshuva implies deliberate forgery and not just later authorship. After all, the context in the teshuva is someone falsely attributing to the Chasam Sofer's rebbe, and the Chasam Sofer's partial excuse of this on the basis of a statement of Chazal. And his citation of Rav Yaakov Emden comes by way of example of this deliberately false attribution. And Rav Yaakov Emden in fact makes such a statement about deliberate forgery and false attribution.

I would also note that believing the Zohar to be a forgery does not mean one must disbelieve all of kabbalah. Rav Yaakov Emden, who authored Mitpachat Sfarim, was a great kabbalist, even after his discovery. Indeed, it was what empowered his discovery. Similarly, even if the Chasam Sofer thinks that a good portion of the Zohar is not from Rashbi, and is indeed a forgery, that does not mean rejection of the truth and/or value of kabbalah in general. The specifics of how this can work out will be left for another post, b'Ezras Hashem.

Rav Moshe Feinstein on Avraham's deceased daughter

Summary: On previous occasions, I have discussed the midrash on Avraham Avinu's deceased daughter. Now, I present Rav Moshe Feinstein's take inside, and analyze it a little bit.

Post: Did Avraham Avinu have a daughter who died the same day as him? This was the question posed to Rav Moshe Feinstein by his student, Rav Efraim Greenblatt of Memphis. His answer can be found ni Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim chelek 4, siman 40, os 6. I present here the original text accompanied by a rough translation. See also the summary over here.

"In the matter of the daughter of Avraham: And that which you saw in the sefer of the Maharil Diskin zatzal on parashat Chayei Sarah regarding the daughter who existed to Avraham, according to Rabbi Yehuda and others, as is stated in Bava Batra daf 16, that she died on the day that Sarah Imeinu died -- Behold, I have not seen it in the midrashim I have at hand, yet absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But the matter appears to be something which is impossible, that Avraham Avinu should be punished with such a grievous punishment as this, when even regarding a minuscule punishment when it is not spelled out in the Biblical text, it is not possible to say this. And in particular, as they learn this {of the daughter Bakol's existence} from the verse that 'Hashem blessed Avraham with everything {bakol}, yet what sort of blessing is this?! And furthermore, how is it possible to say that she died on the same day that Sarah died? For the verse of 'Hashem blessed ...' is stated after Sarah died! And therefore it is clear that it must be some mistake, especially when we see that it is not found in the words of our teachers, the Rishonic commentators. And until now I have not seen the sefer of Maharil Diskin on the Torah, and I will endeavor bli neder to see it."

A very interesting analysis, though I won't know how correct it is until I see it inside in the sefer of Maharil Diskin al HaTorah, which I cannot find online. If anyone reading this has access to this sefer, I would greatly appreciate a scan of the relevant page.

As I discussed elsewhere, the derasha appears to be based on the small kaf in this pasuk in parashat Chayei Sarah:

ב  וַתָּמָת שָׂרָה, בְּקִרְיַת אַרְבַּע הִוא חֶבְרוֹן--בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן; וַיָּבֹא, אַבְרָהָם, לִסְפֹּד לְשָׂרָה, וְלִבְכֹּתָהּ.

2 And Sarah died in Kiriatharba--the same is Hebron--in the land of Canaan; and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her.

Without that letter, it means "and to her daughter". There is thus some Scriptural basis. Also, when the Chasam Sofer suggests this, it is not that the daughter died on the same day but that she died much earlier, but the grief over this daughter kicked in at the same time as the grief for his wife Sarah, for reasons he explains. Thus, the death need not be rooted in the pasuk about the blessing Avraham with everything. And as the saying goes, 'Better to have loved and lost, then never to have loved at all.' It is better to have had the daughter, even if she had eventually died within Avraham's lifetime.

We might also raise the related question of placement, which might indeed be part of Rav Moshe Feinstein's question. How could we darshen her death, when we are told of her existence after Sarah's death, in vaHashem beirach et Avraham bakol? The answer to this might well be that, just as the JPS translates it, this is the pluperfect. Not 'Hashem blessed' but 'Hashem had blessed.' Looking back over the entirety of Avraham's life, he had all the blessings. These blessings included a daughter.

There are many other sources to consider. See this post at Avakesh, which lists the sources and puts them into a nice framework, including what textual / peshat difficulty this daughter's death solves.

---------------------------

This is tangential, because it does not feel like there is enough substance to merit its own post. Here is Pardes Yosef discussing this. As far as I can tell, besides citing other interpretations of the small kaf, all he does is cite the Chasam Sofer as well as the Derush Shmuel who say this -- according to Chasam Sofer, that he felt the loss only now, and according to Derush Shmuel, that she actually died on the same day as Sarah:

Be'ezrat Hashem, more later, as I access other sources.

Was the Shevus Yaakov a Flat-Earther? It would seem so.

The Gilyonei Shas I translated the other day detailed how both the Gra and the Shevus Yaakov believed the Earth was flat, despite all the scientific proofs that it was round. (See also here and perhaps here.) I thought it might be nice to see the Shevus Yaakov inside, and so here it is. I think it is worthwhile to bring these sources down to demonstrate that the non-rationalist approach can bring one to false conclusions about the world, and also that even great rabbis can sometimes be wrong about science. Perhaps more analysis of this teshuva in some later post.

Question 20: One who was a tutin {?} -- that this is that he did not have a sense of smell, how should he act in terms of havdalah, for the blessing on the spices?

Answer: Behold, this law apparently does not analysis, for it is straightforward and laid out in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim at the end of siman 297 seif 5, that he wrote there, and this is his language:

"He who cannot smell does not bless on the spices unless he has intent to satisfy the requirements {for blessing} for the minor members of his household, or one who does not know how to bless." End quote.

And so did the author of the gloss {=Rema} leave it plainly {by not stating anything in argument}, and the Levush. However, I saw that the opinion of the Acharonim -- who are the two Magens {=Magen Avraham and Magen David}, and my brother-in-law the gaon in his sefer Or Zarua {?} -- that he is not able to fulfill the requirements of adults, but only a minor, and see there.

And to me it seems that the primary {position} is like the position of the Shulchan Aruch, but not for his reason. For behold the basis of this law is not mentioned in Shas or in the first {rishonim} great halachic decisors, the Rif and the Rambam, and the like. Only the Rosh and the Mordechai in the name of Rabbenu Ephraim write that one who cannot smell is not able to bless. However, the Beis Yosef there brings in the name of the Orchos Chaim that

some say that even though he does not benefit from the scent, for he has no sense of smell, he blesses. For even though he does not sense it, in the scent there is a benefit to him, for it strengthens his head and his body. End quote.

And so it is logical, for behold we say in perek Keitzad Mevarchin, daf 43b:

Rav Chama bar Tuvia {J: Guria?} cited Rav: How do we know that we bless on the scent? For it is stated {Tehillim 150:6}

ו כֹּל הַנְּשָׁמָה, תְּהַלֵּל יָהּ: הַלְלוּ-יָהּ.

6 Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. {S}Hallelujah. {P}

What is the thing that the spirit benefits from and the body does not benefit from? Say that this is scent. End quote.

Behold that there is no practical significance in that the body benefits from it. If so, even though his body does not sense the scent, still the spirit benefits from it, except that the body is missing one of the five senses.

And so I have heard from a doctor, that one who does not have a sense of smell, it comes from some denseness {?} of the brain, and it is written {Bereishit 7:22}

כב כֹּל אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁמַת-רוּחַ חַיִּים בְּאַפָּיו, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בֶּחָרָבָה--מֵתוּ.

22 all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, whatsoever was in the dry land, died.

{So the neshama of the ruach is found at the nostrils, not at the brain.}

If so, since the neshama of the ruach in the nostrils benefits from it, he is able to bless on it. And based on this, the question that one scholar asked me is removed, namely how does the Shas speak of something that the spirit benefits from but the body does not benefit from it? Behold there are many people who derive benefit from a good scent just as from eating, and for that reason, some are stringent not to smell {spices} on Yom Kippur that which is made for its scent. Rather, certainly, this is the intent of the Shas: Even one who does not have a sense of smell should bless, since the neshama

benefits from it, and that this is what the Scripture states, כֹּל הַנְּשָׁמָה, תְּהַלֵּל יָהּ, that is to say that kol, all, is being analyzed, such that even one who does not have a sense of smell at all.

And even though I investigated by certain scholars of medicine and they said that in their medical textbooks it is made clear that one who does not have a sense of smell does not have any benefit at all, even so, since their medical textbooks are based primarily upon the wisdom of the nations of the world, Aristotle and his company, one should not rely on their words for practical law, just as היפ"מ {?} wrote in Berachot perek 9, daf 71b, and the teshuva of ח"י {Chavos Yair?} siman 219, see there, that they wrote along this reasoning, that even Kiddush Hachodesh one should not learn, except for the count of א' י"ב, {the year} {5}793, and the like, since the Rambam himself in perek 17 of Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh testifies there that all is from the works of the Greek scholars, but that the works of the scholars of Israel did not reach us, end quote. Even though the Rambam, and the rest of the great investigators {chakrei leiv} learned Kiddush Hachodesh from the Rambam, and wrote works on this, even so, many gedolim who are in our times refrained and did not learn it at all, and shev veAl taaseh {sit and do not do} is better. For it is written {in the pasuk darshened in Berachot} {Devarim 4:6}

ו וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם, וַעֲשִׂיתֶם--כִּי הִוא חָכְמַתְכֶם וּבִינַתְכֶם, לְעֵינֵי הָעַמִּים: אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁמְעוּן, אֵת כָּל-הַחֻקִּים הָאֵלֶּה, וְאָמְרוּ רַק עַם-חָכָם וְנָבוֹן, הַגּוֹי הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה.

6 Observe therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, that, when they hear all these statutes, shall say: 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.'

implying that they do not know the matter to its depth. And so how can we learn from their texts? And indeed, the primary aspect of their words are built upon the idea that the world is like a ball, against the implications of the sugya of our Shas, the beginning of the second perek of Chagiga, which states that "both this and that are a single measurement," and as is explained in the words of the Re'em {=Mizrachi} parashat VaEtchanan, and in Yefeh Toar {? a commentary on Midrash Rabba?}, the eighth perek, page 52, and in the Derashot HaRanach, at the beginning of parshat Bereshis, and in sefer Bris Shalom, there. And see in our novel insights to Chagiga, see there.

Therefore, it seems to me that for this reason, the Bet Yosef decided in Shulchan Aruch that in any event there is to rely on the words of these halachic decisors and to bless, if his intent is to fulfill {the obligation of blessing} for another.

And so it seems to me, the katan, Yaakov.

Rav Shmuel Palagi on Piyutim

In the past few posts, I have reproduced Rav Shmuel Palagi's polemic on the piyutim in Nirtza. This is actually found in a broader polemic against piyutim in general, and against specific tachnunim. He begins with a complaint about a certain Yehi Ratzon. I skipped over that initially because I wanted to focus on the more topical Pesach material. However, the broader context is useful, and perhaps necessary, for understanding Rav Palagi's point. Not that I necessarily agree with his point. But we shall develop it first, and only then respond to it. The text follows. Drawn from this larger work, available at HebrewBooks.org. (Also, see part i, part ii, part iii, and part iv.)

The author says: All my days I have been aggravated by the nusach of the prayer of Yehi Ratzon which is printed in the siddurim of my brothers and people of my nation, the Sefardim. For some of the Chassidim are accustomed to say every day, after the 72 pesukim, beginning with {Tehillim 3:4}:

ד וְאַתָּה ה, מָגֵן בַּעֲדִי; כְּבוֹדִי, וּמֵרִים רֹאשִׁי.

4 But thou, O LORD, art a shield about me; my glory, and the lifter up of my head.

and after these 72 pesukim, they say a yehi ratzon filled with appellations referring to God, may His Name be Blessed.

And this prayer, Chazal disparaged it because of the multitude of appellations, as is brought down in masechet Berachot {33b} and Masechet Megillah:

A certain [reader] went down in the presence of R. Hanina and said, O God, the great, mighty, terrible, majestic, powerful, awful, strong, fearless, sure and honoured. He waited till he had finished, and when he had finished he said to him, Have you concluded all the praise of your Master? Why do we want all this? Even with these three that we do say, had not Moses our Master mentioned them in the Law and had not the Men of the Great Synagogue come and inserted them in the Tefillah, we should not have been able to mention them, and you say all these and still go on! It is as if an earthly king had a million denarii of gold, and someone praised him as possessing silver ones. Would it not be an insult to him?

Until here is the story involving this pious one {chassid}.
And the Rambam wrote in his honored sefer, chelek 1, perek 59, and this is his language: And see first that they silenced and disparaged the requirement of multiple appellations. And contemplate how to see how these appellations they left only to our intellect, not to say them ever and not to speak a matter of them. Howbeit, when it is necessary in the speech of mankind in that they must have some sort of form -- as they have said that the Torah speaks in the language of people --


such that they describe for themselves the Creator to the extent that they can, our purpose is to stand upon these statements and only read them when we read in the Torah.

However, since the Men of the Great Assembly, and prophets, came as well and arranged their mention in prayer, our purpose is to only say them {in prayer}.

And the main point of the explanation of this statement {of Rabbi Chanina} is that there are two factors are present when we pray using them {the appellations}. The first one is that they came in the Torah and the second one is that the prophets arranged the prayer with them. And without the first factor, we would not mention them. And without the second factor, we would not move them from their place {in the Torah} and would not pray with them. Yet you {say Rabbi Chanina} increase appellations!

Behold, it is already explained to you from these words that not everything that one finds from the ascribed appellations are fitting for us to pray with and to say. For he {=Rabbi Chanina} did not {merely} say, "had Moshe Rabbenu of blessed memory said them, we would not be able to say them. Rather, he imposed another {additional} condition, and said, "and the Men of the Great Assembly came and instituted them in prayer" -- then it is permitted for us to pray using them.

And not like the poets {paytanim} do in truth, that they
are energetic {?} in praises, and they extend and increase words -- they compose prayers and collects flowery phrases, to approach with them to the Creator, according to their conception. The describe the Creator with appellations which, if a person were to be described with it, the lack would be in his lap. For they do not understand these great and important matters which are strange to the intelligence of the common folk. And they take the Blessed Created as a stepping ground {?} for their tongues, and ascribe to Him appellations and recount about Him every thing that they think it fitting, and they are energetic to praise with this, until they arouse Him to act in accordance with their thoughts {as they described Him}.

And all the more so, if they find a verse from the words of the prophet, in this the matter is {so they think} permitted to them, to come to verses which one should publicize any way and to return them to their simple meaning, and they cut from them and the make from them clauses {seifim} and build upon them statements. And this heter {thing they permitted themselves} is abundant by the composers of songs {/poem: shir} and flowery prose, and by one who thinks he is making a song and ends up composing matters, some of which are complete heresy and some of which have the nonsense and loss {? due to ?} of imagination, such that it is fitting for a person to laugh at him according to his nature, and cry with the understanding of how such things as this are said regarding the lap of Hashem Yitbarach.

And would I not have mercy on the loss of those who say it, I would have related to you a bit from them from until there arose from it the place of sin {/error} in them. But they are sayings in which their lack is extremely apparent to one who understands. And one needs to contemplate and say if this is lashon hara and grievous motzi shem ra, or even more so, loosening of the tongue regarding the lap of Hashem Yitbarach and describing Him with descriptions He is above.

And this is not saying that this is rebellion, but rather reviling and blaspheming accidentally, from the general populace {hamon} which hears, and from the simple person who says them. However, he who understands the deficiency in these statements and {yet} says them, he is by me among those about whom is said {II Melachim 17:9}

ט וַיְחַפְּאוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, דְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא-כֵן, עַל-ה, אֱלֹהֵיהֶם; וַיִּבְנוּ לָהֶם בָּמוֹת בְּכָל-עָרֵיהֶם, מִמִּגְדַּל נוֹצְרִים עַד-עִיר מִבְצָר.

9 and the children of Israel did impute things that were not right unto the LORD their God, and they built them high places in all their cities, from the tower of the watchmen to the fortified city;

and it is stated {Yeshaya 32:6}:

ו כִּי נָבָל נְבָלָה יְדַבֵּר, וְלִבּוֹ יַעֲשֶׂה-אָוֶן--לַעֲשׂוֹת חֹנֶף, וּלְדַבֵּר אֶל-ה תּוֹעָה, לְהָרִיק נֶפֶשׁ רָעֵב, וּמַשְׁקֶה צָמֵא יַחְסִיר.

6 For the vile person will speak villainy, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise ungodliness, and to utter wickedness against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and to cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.

And if it is from one who attributes to the Honor of his Creator, you need not listen in any fashion, all the more so that you say them, and all the more so that you do like them.

And you already know the measure of the guilt of one who casts aspersions against On High. And you need not, in any fashion, bring yourself to the appellations of Hashem in an obligation to glorify him in your thoughts. And you should not go out of that which the Men of the Great Assembly ordered in the prayers and blessings. And with this is of necessity sufficient, and even more so, as Rabbi Chanina said. However, the rest of what comes in the books of the Prophets {and is not found in prayers and blessings} he should read when he encounters it {in Nach}. But he should believe about it that which we have already explained, that they are descriptions of his actions, or to inform about the rejection of absense. And this matter, as well, is not promulgated to the general populace, but this type of analysis is fit for singular individuals, that the glorification of the Creator by them is not that they say that which is not fitting, but rather that they understand in that which is fitting.

And we shall now return to complete the comment on the words of Rabbi Chanina and his wisdom. He did not say "a parable to a king who had one thousand thousand {=one million} gold dinarim and they praised him for having 100 dinarim {but rather silver instead of gold}." That this would inform about this parable that his Completeness is more complete that than completeness that they attribute to him, but that they are of the same type. And the matter is not so, as we have explained by example. Rather, the wisdom of this parable is that they said "gold dinarim and they praised him with those of silver," to

inform that these {praises} which are by us are indeed complete, {but} there is not by Him, Yitbarach, of their type at all, but rather all of them are {implying} a lack in His lap, as was explained. And it states in this parable, "Would it not be an insult to him?" Behold, it has already told you that all that you consider of those appellations to be complete, it is a lack in His lap, Yitaleh, when it is of the type which we have by us. And Shlomo has already written in poetry for us in this matter, that that which we have is sufficient, and said {Kohelet 5:1}:

א אַל-תְּבַהֵל עַל-פִּיךָ וְלִבְּךָ אַל-יְמַהֵר, לְהוֹצִיא דָבָר--לִפְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים: כִּי הָאֱלֹהִים בַּשָּׁמַיִם וְאַתָּה עַל-הָאָרֶץ, עַל-כֵּן יִהְיוּ דְבָרֶיךָ מְעַטִּים.

1 Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thy heart be hasty to utter a word before God; for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth; therefore let thy words be few.

End quote.

Thus it is made clear that the prayer of Yehi Ratzon which is printed and ordered with the multitude of the aforementioned appellationed is disgraceful in the eyes of the sages of the gemara to say them, by force of the parable, "Would it not be an insult to him?"

And even though the Rav, Beis Yosef, wrote in his Shulchan Aruch, in siman 113, that one should not add onto the appellations of Hashem more than HaKeil, HaGadol, HaGibbor, veHaNora, and he, za"l, wrote that this is specifically in Tefillah {=Shemoneh Esrei}, because one should not change from the coinage that the Sages coined, but in supplications, requests, and praises that a person says by himself, we have not problem with it -- such that it appears according to his words that the multitude of appellations which one says in prayer or in praise which a person says of his own accord, it is fine, and there is not sin in this -- and if so, how have I said that the aforementioned prayer with the multitude of appellations are disgraceful and that they forbade it in the gemara? There is a single answer. That is why I said from the incident of Rabbi Chanina and his rebuke, it is apparent that even in the praise that a person says of his own accord, it is forbidden to increase upon the three known appellations. For if not so, why should Rabbi Chanina trouble to take of parables? He should have rebuked him about changing from the coinage of the Sages! We deduce from here that Rabbi Chanina was upset about the multitude of appellations, and not on the changing of the coinage that the Sages coined. If so, why should it matter whether it was the prayer of the public or whether it was just with himself, if it is an insult to Him?

And this is the language of the Tur: HaEil, Hagadol, Hagibbor, vehaNora, one should not increase upon it as we say in perek Ain Omedin. Therefore, one should not say that but which the first ones said. And Rabbi Yitzchak za"l explained that this was said specifically in Tefillah, for one should not change the coinage that the the Sages coined in blessings, but when by himself, we have no issue with it. But from the words of the Rambam it is apparent that it is forbidden in any context, and so it is logical according to the reasoning, for there is not to distinguish between Tefillah and supplications. End the language of the Tur.

Thus, behold, when he said "and so it is logical," he revealed that he agreed with the position of the Rambam. Behold, according to the position of the Rambam and the Tur, it is forbidden to increase in the appellations of Hashem, even when by himself. And just as the parable was brought in the gemara, "Would it not be an insult to him?"

And even the Bet Yosef who brought the position of Rabbi Yitzchak in the Shulchan Aruch, he closes his words there with this language: And still, it is proper for one who wishes to increase in the praises of the Omnipresent to say it in verses.

And the practical ramification is that the aforementioned prayer, even according to the conclusion of the Bet Yosef, it is not naeh {beautiful -- a reference to Ki Lo Naeh} to say it since it is not on the order of the verses. And it is extremely astounding for me how the Rav, the Bet Yosef, does not mention the maaseh rav in Masechet Sota daf 48, in our Mishna {47a}: JOHANAN THE HIGH PRIEST BROUGHT TO AN END THE CONFESSION MADE AT THE PRESENTATION OF THE TITHE. HE ALSO ABOLISHED THE WAKERS AND THE KNOCKERS.

And in the gemara: What does 'WAKERS' mean? — Rechavah said: The Levites used daily to stand upon the dais and exclaim {Tehillim 44:24}:

כד עוּרָה, לָמָּה תִישַׁן אֲדֹנָי; הָקִיצָה, אַל-תִּזְנַח לָנֶצַח.

24 Awake, why sleepest Thou, O Lord? Arouse Thyself, cast not off for ever.

He said to them, Does, then, the All-Present sleep? ...

And behold, in the days of Yochanan the Kohen Gadol there were great Sages, and they agreed with him to hold back this verse from the Levites. From here we learn two things.

(1) That a custom in error is not called a minhag, and it is a mitzvah to nullify it. For the Levites and the Sages were able to stand and plead to Yochanan that "this is the custom of our fathers in our hands," and they did not stand against him. We derive from here that a minhag in error is not a minhag and it is a mitvah to nullify it.

And we learn further (2) that it is not appropriate to supplicate before the Creator with designations {?} which are the appellations. And even if they occur in one pasuk, then when you encounter these appellations in the verses, you read them, in the Torah and in the Neviim, when you reach them. And this is as the Rambam wrote, but it is forbidden to increase in them in prayers and supplications, even when he is by himself, from the incident of Yochanan the Kohen Gadol, and from the incident of Rabbi Chanina, for we establish this as a maaseh rav.

Halachic Sources on visiting Kivrei Tzadikim and praying there, pt i

What follows is a partial listing of sources, based on the lists in the footnotes here. Bli neder, in subsequent posts, still more sources, including those leaning in the other direction. Follow the links to see the texts in context.

This is from sefer Maharil, hilchot Taanit, pg 72 in the PDF.






Meanwhile, see what Rama, Orach Chaim 581 has to say, and how both Be'er Hetiv and Mishnah Brurah endorse this position of the Maharil:









I could not find online the teshuvot of Rav Chaim Paltiel about this. But here is the Bach citing it, on Tur Yoreh Deah siman 217.











We also have the Shach in Yoreh Deah 179 seif 15 discussing whether this is doresh el hameisim, and the Beer Hetiv on this.



Next, we present Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim chelek 5, siman 43, seif 6. You may need to click on some of these to make them larger and readable, or else you can just follow the link to the PDF above.








Next up, the teshuva of Maharam Shick, Orach Chaim, siman 293, accessible here.





Next, the teshuva of the Minchas Eluzar, chelek 1, siman 68. Bli neder, I will try to present more in a later post. And after all the sources are out there, perhaps discuss some of them.














There are other sources -- I am thinking of Aruch HaShulchan and Rav Ovadiah Yosef, but this post is long enough already. Perhaps in a later post, after I scan the relevant Aruch Hashulchan.